Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Justifying Homicide

By Jamelle Bouie: The simple fact is that the police can kill for almost any reason with little fear of criminal charges. The truth is that the law gives wide berth to the police’s use of deadly force. Just two months before Brown was killed, the Supreme Court gave its ruling in Plumhoff v. Rickard, where the plaintiffs were suing after police officers ended a high speed chase by shooting 15 rounds into the car, killing the driver and a passenger. The court held that this wasn’t “excessive force” in violation of the Constitution, affirming years of deference to police departments. “It stands to reason,” wrote the justices in a 9–0 opinion, “that if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.” Beyond this, there are the general standards for use of deadly force by police, which give wide latitude to officers who use their weapons. The Supreme Court allows police to use their weapons in two circumstances: To defend their lives and to stop an escaped felon. If Wilson believed that Brown was a felon—or committed a felonious offense—then he was justified under existing law. And if Wilson believed he was in danger of losing his life—a belief that only has to be “objectively reasonable,” not likely or even possible—then, again, he was justified under existing law. When you add this climate of legal deference to the particular circumstances of the grand jury trial—including McCullough’s reputation for supporting police officers, and his decision to avoid a recommendation for charges—the non-indictment was almost inevitable. Barring something extraordinary, Wilson was going to walk free. The judicial system as we’ve constructed it just isn’t equipped—or even willing—to hold officers accountable for shootings and other offenses. Or put differently, the simple fact is that the police can kill for almost any reason with little fear of criminal charges. Which is to say this: It would have been powerful to see charges filed against Darren Wilson. At the same time, actual justice for Michael Brown—a world in which young men like Michael Brown can’t be gunned down without consequences—won’t come from the criminal justice system. Our courts and juries aren’t impartial arbiters—they exist inside society, not outside of it—and they can only provide as much justice as society is willing to give. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a society that gives dignity and respect to people like Michael Brown and John Crawford and Rekia Boyd. Instead, we’ve organized our country to deny it wherever possible, through negative stereotypes of criminality, through segregation and neglect, and through the spectacle we see in Ferguson and the greater St. Louis area, where police are empowered to terrorize without consequence, and residents are condemned and attacked when they try to resist.

A Complicated Leader-Marion Barry

Marion Barry dies at 78; 4-term D.C. mayor was the most powerful local politician of his generation By Bart Barnes November 23 Marion Barry Jr., the Mississippi sharecropper’s son and civil rights activist who served three terms as mayor of the District of Columbia, survived a drug arrest and jail sentence, and then came back to win a fourth term as the city’s chief executive, died early Sunday at United Medical Center in Washington. He was 78. His death was announced by his family in a statement released through a spokeswoman for Mr. Barry. The D.C. medical examiner said Sunday evening that Mr. Barry died of hypertensive cardiovascular disease, with kidney disease and diabetes contributing. (Timeline: The life of Marion Barry) The most influential and savvy local politician of his generation, Mr. Barry dominated the city’s political landscape in the final quarter of the 20th century, also serving for 15 years on the D.C. Council, whose Ward 8 seat he held until his death. Before his first stint on the council, he was president of the city’s old Board of Education. There was a time when his critics, in sarcasm but not entirely in jest, called him “Mayor for Life.” Into the first dozen years of the new millennium, he remained a highly visible player on the city’s political stage, but by then on the periphery, no longer at the center. His personal and public lives were fraught with high drama and irony. He struggled with alcohol and drug addiction, relapse and recovery. He was married four times, divorced three times and separated from his fourth wife. His extramarital liaisons and legal trouble over unpaid taxes made news. FBI footage shows former D.C. mayor Marion Barry smoking crack cocaine in a hotel room on Jan. 18, 1990, followed by his arrest on drug possession charges. (C-SPAN) He came to Washington as a champion of the downtrodden and the dispossessed and rose to the pinnacle of power and prestige. As mayor of the District, Mr. Barry became a national symbol of self-governance for urban blacks. His programs helped provide summer jobs for youths, home-buying assistance for working-class residents and food for senior citizens. And he placed African Americans in thousands of middle- and upper-level management positions in the city government that in previous generations had been reserved for whites. ‘More inclusive’ “He was really the architect of creating a local government infrastructure in the early days of home rule,” Frederick D. Cooke Jr., a longtime friend who served as Mr. Barry’s attorney, said in a 2014 interview. “He helped it to diversify to be more inclusive. It had been a stilted, segregated entity, and he made it possible for people to believe they could have a seat at the table.” Gladys Mack, assistant city administrator for budget in the first and subsequent Barry administrations, was among the mayor’s early managerial appointees. Decades later, she would remember Mr. Barry as “a forward thinker.” One example, Mack said, was his decision to build the new District government building at 14th and U streets in Northwest Washington — a spawning ground for the 1968 riots that followed the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. His advisers counseled against it, Mack recalled, but the mayor said “we need to do this . . . and it became a catalyst for development of the entire area.” Mack was named chief of the D.C. budget in 1979, a time when few women in the nation were in top municipal leadership jobs. Mr. Barry, she said, “appointed close to a dozen women to positions that were not traditional for women.” The occasionally sensational accounts of Marion Barry’s thirst for sex, drugs and power in his new memoir may get most of the public attention. But there are other insights to be gleaned from “Mayor for Life: The Incredible Story of Marion Barry, Jr.” (Mike DeBonis and Tom LeGro/The Washington Post) When Mr. Barry took office, so chaotic had the District’s finances been that the city didn’t even know how much money it had in the bank. He instituted budgetary and fiscal accounting procedures to figure that out. But by the end of his last term as mayor, Congress and the courts had stripped him of much of his authority, complaining of graft, corruption and gross mismanagement in his administration. “Some governments are corrupt but are known for their competency in running the city,” Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.) told Mr. Barry at a 1989 hearing on the D.C. budget. “Others are incompetent but considered clean. [Washington’s] government is scandalously corrupt and hopelessly incompetent.” The sting In 1990, Mr. Barry was arrested on drug charges in a sting by the FBI and D.C. police after having been lured to a Washington hotel room by a woman with whom he’d previously had an amorous relationship. “Bitch set me up!” he muttered aloud as he was being placed under arrest. The comment was captured on FBI videotapes of the sting and broadcast on television, and it would endure as a signature phrase in Mr. Barry’s vocal legacy. His conviction months later would become front-page news around the world. He completed a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and served six months in a federal prison, then used the experience to his political advantage as a platform in his improbable comeback bid for elected office. “Who can better help our city recover than someone who himself has gone through recovery?” he asked rhetorically. Charismatic, irrepressible and engaging, Mr. Barry always seemed to get up again. In 1977, while on the council, he was shot during the siege of the District Building (now the John A. Wilson Building) by Hanafi Muslims, who also had taken over the Islamic Center and B’nai B’rith offices. Mr. Barry’s wound was superficial, but it nevertheless enhanced his mystique. After a brief hospitalization, he returned to the political arena and in less than two years was mayor of the District. For 16 of the next 20 years, he would hold that office. Over time, he would come to reflect a personal style that was almost regal. In a chauffeur-driven Lincoln Town Car, he traveled across the city, accompanied by a select security detail of police officers and an entourage of aides and other hangers-on. Attractive women were omnipresent. He delighted in such extravaganzas as his annual “State of the District” address at the Washington Convention Center, where city workers, senior citizens and schoolchildren were rounded up for a Marion Barry spectacle. When the Washington Redskins went to the Super Bowl, Mr. Barry went, too, as the First Fan of the hometown team. After Washington beat Miami in the 1983 Super Bowl, he flew back to Washington on the team’s chartered aircraft, which was met at Washington Dulles International Airport by President Ronald Reagan. First off the plane to be greeted by the president: Marion Barry. He was a regular at marquee prizefights in Las Vegas and elsewhere, he vacationed in the Caribbean, and he met with heads of state in Africa. His constituents, he said, liked and expected this lifestyle. “We’re an example of pride to D.C., to the nation and especially to the international community,” Herbert O. Reid Sr., Mr. Barry’s longtime counsel, mentor and friend, said in 1979. Reid died in 1991. In large measure, Reid told The Washington Post in 1987, Mr. Barry’s political ambition and success stemmed from the wounds of a dirt-poor childhood and his need to overcome the feelings of rejection he experienced early in life. “He really wants to be loved and liked by everybody,” Reid had said. “He is proud of his achievements. . . . But I think the background and struggle have left some scars. I think there is some concern about being accepted.” Champion of the poor As he ascended the stairway of power and prestige, the mayor promised never to forget the folks who put him in office. He could “walk with kings” and not “lose the common touch,” Mr. Barry often said, quoting from the poem “If” by Rudyard Kip­ling. He cherished his reputation as a champion of the young, the aged and the poor, having plowed hundreds of millions of tax dollars into job training and employment programs, senior centers and social-welfare endeavors. Rank-and-file workers were hired by the thousands to serve under Mr. Barry’s newly appointed supervisory corps of African American middle- and top-level managers. “He was so in tune with the common person that he could make you feel as if you’d had a long-term relationship, even if you’d only just met him for five minutes,” said Cooke. And his constituency, Cooke said, was not just the dispossessed. He promoted local African American businesses, “using government as an economic level to increase participation.” Mr. Barry’s enemies saw it differently. “Patronage, in the guise of local ‘empowerment,’ has always been the hallmark of Barry’s governing philosophy,” wrote former FBI agent and Washington lawyer Carl T. Rowan Jr. in a 1998 New Republic article. To the mayor, Rowan said, the D.C. bureaucracy was “a source of jobs for people whose main qualification was their eligibility to vote for Barry.” Before leaving office in 1999, Mr. Barry would lose his power over the city’s finances to a financial control board that Congress created in 1995. Courts would take over entire city departments. The city agencies that served public-housing residents, foster children, inmates and the mentally ill would all be placed in receivership. A judge would later call conditions at the city’s receiving home for juvenile delinquents “unacceptable for a civilized country.” Residents of a city-operated nursing home had limbs amputated because of infected bedsores. Infant mortality and murder rates remained among the highest in the nation, and the fire department would plead that its ability to fight fires was seriously impaired. In the public schools, dropout rates remained high, test scores low. Mr. Barry left the mayor’s office insisting that the city was better off than it was when he was first elected. “I’ve had . . . more homers, more doubles, more triples than I’ve had strikeouts. More ups than downs.” In the turbulence of the 1960s, Mr. Barry had made his mark in the national capital: a young civil rights activist, streetwise and confrontational, with an “in your face” style that won the hearts and minds of thousands in the most depressed and impoverished of Washington’s black neighborhoods. Over the years, their support would remain unshakable, even in the face of such crises as the conviction of high Barry administration staffers on charges involving political corruption, the soaring D.C. murder rate, deteriorating municipal services and Mr. Barry’s own incarceration. Voters in the city’s white and more-affluent neighborhoods were less forgiving. By 1994, when Mr. Barry made his last run for mayor, he was soundly repudiated in these areas, but this was more than offset by his strength in such poverty-stricken neighborhoods as Shaw, in the inner city, and far Southeast, east of the Anacostia River. For those who harbored resentment that he could still be elected mayor of Washington after a drug conviction and jail sentence, Mr. Barry had this advice: “Get over it!” In January 1979, Mr. Barry took the oath of office for the first time as mayor of the District of Columbia, having defeated the city’s first elected mayor, incumbent Walter E. Washington, and D.C. Council Chairman Sterling Tucker in the Democratic primary the previous September. Mr. Barry ran strongly among white voters west of Rock Creek Park and on Capitol Hill, less so in poor, black areas — just the reverse of what would happen in the years ahead. In a ceremony rife with symbolism, he was sworn in by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the high court, and Mr. Barry led an inauguration parade down a 14th Street still scarred by the 1968 riots. His election coincided with a wave of African American political activism that swept black politicians into the mayor’s office in such cities as Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, New Orleans and Atlanta, as well as Birmingham, Ala., Gary, Ind., and more than 200 smaller cities, in the years between 1965 and 1985. Family of sharecroppers Marion Barry Jr. was born March 6, 1936, into a family of sharecroppers in the rural hamlet of Itta Bena, Miss. His mother, Mattie Carr, was just shy of her 17th birthday when she married Marion Barry Sr., a strapping sharecropper about 25 years her senior. The marriage disintegrated in conflicts over money and her ambition to flee a life of chopping cotton. After leaving her husband, she settled in Memphis, where she worked in a slaughterhouse and as a housemaid. Growing up, the future mayor worked hard at a variety of jobs. He had two newspaper routes and sold a third newspaper on street corners. He waited tables, bagged groceries and inspected soda bottles. He also went to choir practice. In school, he was a good student. He was also an Eagle Scout. The work ethic would remain throughout his career. In the early 1970s, when Mr. Barry was on the school board, it was said of him, “While you are sleeping at night, Marion Barry is up planning his next move.” Later, there was another axiom: “The mayor will spend more time cultivating his enemies than his friends.” In 1958, Mr. Barry graduated with a degree in chemistry from LeMoyne College in Memphis, where he had been president of the student chapter of the NAACP. It was during those years that college fraternity brothers gave him the middle name Shepilov, after Dimitri Shepilov, a purged member of the Soviet Communist Party. Occasionally he was called “Shep,” but he never officially made Shepilov part of his name. In 1960, he received a master’s degree in chemistry from Fisk University in Nashville. He helped organize an NAACP chapter at Fisk and was a leader of Nashville’s first lunch-counter sit-ins. He also participated in a 1960 meeting of black college student leaders that led to the founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a civil rights organization known for demonstrations, sit-ins and boycotts. Mr. Barry was its first national chairman. At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where he was working on a doctorate, he met Blantie Evans, who would become his first wife. They married in 1962 and later divorced. D.C. debut In 1965, Mr. Barry arrived in Washington to direct activities for the SNCC. This came at a critical juncture in D.C. race relations. Nationally, the civil rights movement was heating up. There had been riots in the black enclaves of several urban centers, and more were to come. In Washington, the post-World War II flight of whites to the suburbs had given the city a population that was majority African American. But the local government was dominated by whites and subject to the oversight of white-dominated congressional committees. There was no home rule. The stage was set for Mr. Barry’s D.C. political debut. Clad in a dashiki shirt and speaking in inflammatory rhetoric, he established himself as a visible presence with a forceful voice that could not easily be ignored. In January 1966, he led a one-day bus “mancott” to protest a fare increase requested by D.C. Transit. He organized a “Free D.C. Movement” to press for home rule. He called D.C. police “an occupation army.” In 1969, he tore up a parking ticket, struck the officer who had placed it on his windshield and was charged with assault. The case ended with a hung jury. Rep. John L. McMillan (D-S.C.), the chairman of the House Committee on the District of Columbia and one of the most influential men in Washington, was among the targets of his rhetoric. “The citizens of the District of Columbia,” Mr. Barry declared, “are tired of living on the McMillan plantation.” In the winter of 1967, Mr. Barry resigned as director of SNCC’s Washington office, declaring, “Now we must concentrate on control — economic and political power.” With financial support from the U.S. Department of Labor, he organized and directed a group known as Pride Inc., which put more than 1,000 inner-city youths to work clearing alleys of trash and debris, killing rats — and later running gas stations and a landscaping business and managing an apartment building. In 1971, Mr. Barry won his first election for citywide office, defeating the chairman of the school board, Anita F. Allen, for an at-large seat on the board. From 1972 until 1974, Mr. Barry was the school board’s president. In 1974, he was elected to an at-large seat on the D.C. Council, receiving more votes than any of the four other at-large council members. At that point, he resigned as director of Pride Inc. to become a full-time politician. He turned over the management of Pride to his second wife, Mary Treadwell, a Pride colleague whom he met at Fisk. They would later divorce. Tread­well, who died in 2012, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud in connection with the theft of federal money from an apartment building managed by Pride, and she received a three-year jail sentence. Mr. Barry was not implicated in that case. A change in the man On the D.C. Council in 1975, he was instrumental in defeating a 1 percent gross-receipts tax on all city businesses, winning the gratitude of the business community. He helped get a pay raise for the police department. He was among early supporters of equal rights for gay men and lesbians. Voters in these constituencies supported Mr. Barry at the polls. When he ran for a second term in 1976, he was overwhelmingly reelected with 78 percent of the vote. Two years later, he ran for mayor. But this was a different Marion Barry from the militant, confrontational street activist of the 1960s. Gone were the dashiki and the threatening scowl. The Mr. Barry of 1978 wore business suits and smiled pleasantly, bending his powerful frame forward ever so slightly to hear the complaints and observations of the little old ladies whose votes he was seeking. “I’m a situationist,” he said at the time. “I do what is necessary for the situation. If I walked around in a dashiki now, people would say I’m crazy.” This was a tactic he’d learned years earlier as a civil rights worker with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee: It had been an SNCC principle that in the country, you dressed like country folks, and in the city, you dressed like city folks. That way, you could fit in. In his first mayoral candidacy, Mr. Barry won the backing of Washington’s police, firefighters and teachers unions, and his cultivation of various interest groups across the city paid dividends at the polls. He also won an endorsement from the editorial board of The Washington Post. In this first campaign, he ran as an outsider, inveighing against a city bureaucracy that he repeatedly described as “bumbling and bungling.” He outlined a “hit list” of department heads — many of them black — whom he said he would fire, and he lambasted real estate speculation, which he said was displacing elderly blacks from their homes. “What Mr. Barry seems to value, and to be offering . . . is precisely what we think the people of this city need and ought to be looking for . . . energy, nerve, initiative, toughness of mind, and active concern for people in distress,” The Post said in an editorial. With about 35 percent of the vote and a margin of less than 2,000, Mr. Barry won the Democratic primary that September. Not because of his appeal in the low-income black community, but because he carried the white wards of the city while his two chief opponents — former mayor Washington and former council chairman Tucker — split the black vote. It was only after taking office that Mr. Barry consolidated a black base of support, not just among the poor and downtrodden but also within the middle-class black and business community. In November’s general election, he had no trouble defeating Arthur A. Fletcher, a Republican who had been an assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration and a deputy assistant for urban affairs in the Ford administration. As the new mayor of the nation’s capital, Mr. Barry made it one of his first acts to buy new clothes. Now he had a new image to fit. Friends took him on shopping trips for the power suits and red ties he usually wore. During his first term, he once stopped at a neighborhood Popeyes for a box of fried chicken, and he carried the box back with him into his office at the District government building. “Mr. Mayor,” an aide protested, “you can’t be walking around with a chicken box in your hand.” The mayor assigned a security officer the task of toting the mayoral chicken. City problems fester Early in Mr. Barry’s first term, stringent controls were imposed on city spending and a bloated payroll was trimmed by 10 percent, largely through attrition. The city’s financial records were sufficiently organized to permit the first successful audit in history. There was a downtown office-construction boom, and the mayor took pride in helping developers cut through red tape to get building permits. And hand in hand with the cutting of red tape was an emphasis on the inclusion of minority contractors in projects sanctioned or supported by the city government. But beneath this veneer, serious problems continued to fester. Crime and unemployment increased. There was only minimal improvement in the efficiency of city agencies. The infant mortality rate remained high, and abandoned homes remained boarded up in blighted neighborhoods throughout the city. Mini-scandals seemed to occur with disturbing frequency, and there was increasing talk of the mayor’s personal indiscretions. Facing another election in 1982, Mr. Barry abandoned the fiscal restraint of his first years in office for $180 million in new spending for jobs, housing and programs for the elderly. In the Democratic primary, he faced a seemingly tough opponent, Patricia Roberts Harris, who had served in the Cabinet of President Jimmy Carter as secretary of housing and urban development and secretary of health, education and welfare. But Marion Barry the progressive reformer of 1978 had become Marion Barry the power broker by 1982. He had tightened his political hold on the city, raised more than $1 million and put together a solid campaign organization. He was engaging on the stump, and he had a winning way with voters. He beat Harris with 59 percent of the vote. At a party in 1985, Mr. Barry met Hazel Diane “Rasheeda” Moore, an unemployed model, in what would become one of the more fateful encounters of his career. Moore would later testify that she had a two-year affair with the mayor, who by then was married to the former Effi Slaughter Cowell, his third wife. Moore subsequently received $180,000 in city funds over the next three years to run an “image consciousness” program for city youths — at the same time she was meeting Mr. Barry for exotic trysts that she said often included drugs. Whatever difficulties attended Mr. Barry’s second term, their effect at the polls was negligible when he ran for a third term in the fall of 1986. In the Democratic primary, he crushed former school board member Mattie Taylor, winning 71 percent of the vote. Carol Schwartz, a Republican on the D.C. Council, ran against him in the November general election. Mr. Barry captured 61 percent of the vote to her 31 percent. The sting Mr. Barry had said in August 1989 that he’d made an “irrevocable decision” to run for a fourth term as mayor. On Jan. 18, 1990, the mayor received a telephone call from Moore. She was staying at the Vista International Hotel near Thomas Circle in Northwest Washington (now a Westin), and she invited Mr. Barry to her room. He accepted. Captured on FBI videotape, the scene at the Vista would later be played on television newscasts around the world: the mayor reaching out to fondle Moore’s breast and leg, asking about drugs and taking two long drags on a crack pipe, the storming of the room by FBI agents, the mayor placed against the wall with his arms outstretched, handcuffed, being read his rights. “Bitch set me up. . . . I shouldn’t have come up here,” the mayor repeated. Three days later, instead of a planned declaration of his candidacy for a fourth term, Mr. Barry, tearful and contrite, announced that he had “weaknesses” for which he would seek help. “I’m going to find a way to begin to heal my body, mind and soul. . . . I realize I’m going to have to walk this journey by myself. . . . I have come face to face with my deepest human frailties. I’ve had to look my human weaknesses straight in the eye . . .” A few days later, Mr. Barry left town for a seven-week rehabilitation program in Florida and later in South Carolina. Early in June, he went on trial in federal court on perjury and drug-possession charges. While the jury was still being selected, he announced that he would not seek reelection. (In January 1991, Sharon Pratt Dixon would succeed him as mayor. ) After a two-month trial and eight days of jury deliberations, Mr. Barry was convicted on Aug. 10 of one count of cocaine possession — at the Mayflower Hotel in early November 1989. This was based on the testimony of an Alabama businesswoman who testified that she had used cocaine with Mr. Barry there. But the jury was unable to agree on the charge stemming from the FBI sting at the Vista, where Mr. Barry had been videotaped smoking crack and arrested on Jan. 18, 1990. He was acquitted on a second count of cocaine possession. On the remaining charges, including three felony counts of perjury before a federal grand jury, the jury was also unable to reach a verdict. This was a major victory for the mayor. Acquittal on the felony count appeared to remove a potential barrier to holding public office again. Within 30 minutes of the verdicts’ announcement, his supporters were driving past the federal courthouse on Constitution Avenue NW, honking their horns and shouting in celebration. On Oct. 26, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who had presided over his trial, declared that Mr. Barry had “given aid, comfort and encouragement to the drug culture.” The judge sentenced him to six months in prison and a year on probation, and he fined him $5,000. Coming in third At the time, Mr. Barry was running as an independent for an at-large seat on the council, having announced his candidacy five days after his trial ended. But less than two weeks after his sentencing, he suffered the first defeat of his 20-year political career, finishing third with just 20 percent of the vote. It would be another year before he began his prison sentence. In October 1991, his appeals exhausted, Mr. Barry reported to a minimum-security federal prison in Petersburg, Va., to begin serving his six-month sentence. Even while incarcerated, he made news. Late in December, an inmate reported having seen a female visitor perform oral sex on the former mayor in the prison’s family reception room. Mr. Barry denied it, but prison authorities ruled that he had engaged in sexual misconduct and moved him to a medium-security prison in Loretto, Pa. When he was released in April 1992, he returned to Washington like a hero, riding home in a limousine followed by six buses packed with praying, celebrating supporters. Back home, he hit the ground running, seeking the Ward 8 council seat — in far Southeast Washington, the poorest, most isolated ward in the city and the only one he had carried in his failed 1990 bid for an at-large council seat. By a margin of 3 to 1, he crushed the incumbent, former political ally Wilhelmina Rolark, in the Democratic primary and then won handily in the November general election. Rebounding In May 1994, he announced his candidacy for a fourth term as mayor. “I’m in recovery,” he said, “and so is my city.” For the critical Democratic primary, he faced veteran council member John Ray and the incumbent mayor, who by then had married and was known as Sharon Pratt Kelly. Neither was a match for the charismatic Mr. Barry, who was campaigning night and day, preaching a message that the “God-force” within had taken control of his life and helped him clean up his act. His 12-year marriage to Effi Barry having ended in divorce, Mr. Barry had married Cora Masters, a professor of political science at the University of the District of Columbia, early in 1994. She was the communications director for his campaign. On the day of the primary, Mr. Barry won easily, taking 47 percent of the vote to Ray’s 37 percent and Kelly’s 13 percent. Two months later, he beat Republican council member Carol Schwartz in a rematch of the 1986 general election, with 56 percent of the vote to 42 percent for Schwartz. In January 1995, 16 years after he first took the oath of office as mayor of the District, Mr. Barry was sworn in for his fourth term. This was a smaller, poorer city than the one he led in 1979. The District was beset with an AIDS epidemic and crack cocaine, problems that were unknown when he began his first term. Courts had already taken over the city’s prisons and foster-care programs, and a takeover of public housing was underway. City finances were in disarray, and judges had threatened contempt citations to force payment of its bills. Beaming as he took the oath of office, Mr. Barry proclaimed the “dawn of a new day” for the District of Columbia, and he said he was beginning a “second chance” as the city’s mayor. Maya Angelou read a poem affirming that “strong men . . . get stronger.” Control of D.C. shifts Three months after his return to power, Mr. Barry unveiled his “miracle budget,” which essentially relied on Congress to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to bail the city out. On Capitol Hill, it sank like cement. A month later, Congress created the D.C. financial control board and gave it total control over the city’s spending. For the rest of Mr. Barry’s term, he would feud with the control board and its chief financial officer, Anthony A. Williams, who in 1999 would succeed him as mayor. In July 1997, Congress enacted a reform package for the city that stripped Mr. Barry of almost all his remaining power, handing over day-to-day control of nine major operating departments to the control board. The mayor called it “a rape of democracy” and a “bloodless coup,” proclaiming that it wasn’t just about Marion Barry. Republicans, having seized control of Congress in 1994, had been looking for an excuse to curtail home rule in the nation’s capital, he said. But it was common knowledge on Capitol Hill that Mr. Barry was, in fact, the primary player in the contretemps and that a restoration of home rule for the District was unlikely as long as he was mayor. Mr. Barry admitted as much in May 1998, when he announced that he would not seek a fifth term. As his successor in the mayor’s office, Anthony Williams would regain almost all the powers that had been taken from Mr. Barry. Reviewing his years as mayor, Mr. Barry said he was especially proud of the construction of 23 million square feet of office and retail space in the new downtown, a smattering of new housing and a sports arena then known as MCI Center. His years as mayor also had seen a dispersal of D.C. government offices across the city — to locations along the 1968 riot corridors of 14th Street NW, H Street NE and Martin Luther King Avenue SE. On 14th Street and on H Street, this later helped spark revitalization of once-blighted neighborhoods. Forever in the spotlight On Jan. 2, 1999, Mr. Barry left the mayor’s office for the final time. On the dais at his successor’s inauguration at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, he embraced Williams and formally relinquished leadership of the city to him. Then he left the ceremony as a private citizen. Never again would he hold the power and influence he once commanded, when he was at the top of his game. But he remained a celebrity. He would still be greeted with standing ovations at certain clubs and nightspots in the city. Well-wishers, seeing him on the streets, would rush to shake his hand. He remained prominent and frequently in the media. He was elected twice more to the council, each time as the representative from Ward 8. His fourth wife, Cora Masters Barry, left him, and his third wife, Effi Barry, died in 2007. Marion Christopher Barry, his son with Effi Barry and his only immediate survivor, pleaded guilty to drug possession in 2011 and received a suspended jail sentence. Effi Barry’s mother, Polly Harris, was quoted in The Post as saying that the former mayor was responsible for Christopher Barry’s drug use. “All of my grandson’s problems are laid right at the feet of his so-called father, Marion Barry,” she said. “He was never a father. He was never at home.” Mr. Barry called his mother-in-law’s comment “totally unfounded.” At times, he spoke openly about his struggles with drug and alcohol addiction. In a court-ordered screening in 2005, the former mayor tested positive for cocaine and marijuana use. These were not his only personal issues: He was placed on probation for failing to file D.C. and federal income taxes. He had myriad health problems — high blood pressure, diabetes, prostate cancer — and underwent a kidney transplant in 2009. And there was a $35,000 judgment against him stemming from a lawsuit that was filed by a custodian working at Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport, who said that Mr. Barry shoved her and exposed himself to her in an airport restroom in 2000. In 2010, Mr. Barry was censured by the council, stripped of his chairmanship of the council’s Committee on Housing and Workforce Development and removed from the Finance and Revenue Committee. That vote stemmed from a $15,000 “personal service” contract that Mr. Barry, in his capacity as a council member, had awarded to Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, a sometime girlfriend to whom he had lent money. She repaid him with money from that contract. In an interview with Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy shortly after Mr. Barry’s colleagues voted to censure him, he declared that he was “feeling great. . . . I’ve been through worse. . . . The reason I survive is because I have an abiding faith in God. “Having faith doesn’t mean you don’t have to use good sense. God doesn’t expect you to act like a fool. But God did give us a secular side and a human side. There is a constant fight between the Devil, which is the flesh, and the spirit, which is God. It’s a total, all-out war.”

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Back!/Male Feminism

So, I've been away for a second due to both professional and personal responsibilites. However, I'm back now and ready to reassume dropping some gems on a cross section of issues such as race(ethnicity), culture, politics, masculine feminism and the like. Let's start with the issue of Feminism. More so, the issue of being a male Feminist, which I consider myself to be. I think that it's a great time for this discussion as there is more conversation around gender violence taking place and a great speech that was given by actress Emma Watson a few days back(link here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/22/emma-watson-recruits-men-to-make-the-world-safer-for-women-with-heforshe-campaign/) .


 Here is a great essay below from a male's perspective.



 A New Masculinity: Why I Need Feminism as a Man May 7, 2014 by Jamie Utt


 As I was thinking through what I might say in this article, I found myself sitting in the back of a classroom, observing a teacher in a school where I was offering some bullying-prevention training. While the teacher was engaging the students in a discussion on the foundations of Judaism for a World Religions class, I noticed that a young man was wearing this t-shirt: Capture For the next ten minutes or so, I considered what I could say to engage this young brother in a discussion about the impacts of his choice in t-shirts. After all, he undoubtedly wears it to court attention, so a confrontation or preachy approach surely isn’t the best route. And I wasn’t sure of the best question that I could ask him to get him thinking about the problematic nature of his shirt. Then the bell rang, and he quickly grabbed his things and ran out the door, disappearing into a mass of students before I could get his attention. As I sit here hoping that one of the other men in his life calls him into a discussion, I am still not sure what I would have said to him, but I do know that the route that would likely be most successful in encouraging critical thought would be one that calls him to reconsider what it means to be a man. After all, I know that I’m more likely to critically engage when someone calls me in rather than simply calls me out. Sure, calling him out would have felt good, but calling him in may have led to change. That said, the “calling in” conversation isn’t likely to be a discussion I could have with him in passing, for a reconsideration of masculinity and gender isn’t exactly the stuff of hallway banter in a busy high school. Meeting Men Where They Are Yet reconsidering mainstream masculinity and its role in a wider system of gender oppression is one more of us as men need to take up in all of its nuance and complexity. And yet without fail, every time I have written something addressing the need for a new masculinity – one not rooted fundamentally in oppression, violence, and power over others – someone offers a comment or an e-mail about how my efforts are misguided. They argue that the problem is not just in masculinity, but in gender as a whole, and if we really want to end gendered oppression, we have to “blow the whole thing up.” While these comments are often quite thoughtful and give me much upon which to reflect, I still cannot really get behind the simple “Let’s just destroy gender” argument for one main reason: I don’t find it helpful for meeting most people where they are. If my goal is to engage men, and mostly cisgender men, in participating in the movement to end patriarchal oppression, telling men that we should just end gender doesn’t get me very far. Further, the “destroy gender” argument, while rooted in sound theory, doesn’t (at least as I’ve seen it offered) effectively address the ways in which people of all genders are invested, both positively and negatively, in current constructions of gender. Thus, while my ideas may be evolving, it’s possible that I simply see the need for construction of a new masculinity as part of the journey toward the reimagining of our current notion of gender altogether, but that doesn’t mean that we as men shouldn’t invest earnestly in transforming what it means to be a man. A Personal Investment in Realizing Change Let’s call a spade a spade: As it currently exists, masculinity is fundamentally an expression of patriarchal oppression. But it doesn’t have to be that way. However, until men understand our stake in transforming masculinity, of working against the system that offers us tremendous privilege, absolutely nothing will change. As much as the women I know would like to see more expressions of a nonviolent, positive masculinity grounded in feminist praxis (to borrow Paulo Freire’s educational term describing the intersection of reflection, theory, and practice), there’s no amount of wishing and hoping or work that women-identified people can do to change how masculinity functions as a tool of oppression without also engaging men in the work to transform masculinity. As men, we must call our brothers into an understanding of what we gain from reimagining and reconstructing masculinity in our lives and our relationships. And while surely part of that work must be related to and grounded in the wider feminist struggle of female- and non-binary-identified people to realize justice (as has been called for by fantastic men like Jackson Katz, Tony Porter, and many others), if our praxis rests solely in the other, in those other people impacted by patriarchal dominance and violence, how much investment can we truly have in actually changing a system that benefits us? Our work to change masculinity has to be grounded in more than paternalism or accountable relationships across difference (though the latter is vital). Our work to transform masculinity must be grounded in ourselves and our stories. After all, whether we can name it or whether we acknowledge it, the current masculine paradigm is toxic. It hurts us (though clearly not in the same ways or in proportion to how it hurts women and gender-Queer-identifying people). Masculinity as we know it inhibits our ability to build loving relationships with people of different genders and with those who also call themselves men. Masculinity as we know it prevents us from seeking the healing that we need, whether that’s healing from the impacts of violent pornography or from our emotional disconnection or from our own experiences of trauma and violence. Why Feminism Must be Central to the Transformation of Masculinity One of the reasons that the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) has gained momentum is that it does speak to the hurt and insecurity that men feel. Sadly, though, it seems that the pro-male movement and MRM speak most often to those hurts, insecurities, and costs at the expense of anyone who doesn’t identify as male and without any real analysis or consideration of systems of power and oppression. And in doing so, they simply reinscribe traditional, toxic masculinity. It’s important, then, that a new masculinity be more than a simple recreation of the same systems of dominant power we see in the current masculine paradigm. As J.A. McCarroll puts it in this brilliant critique of “dude feminism,” a new masculinity must do more than create “a sort of masculinity triage, trying to eliminate violence against women, while still flattering men with the label of protector.” What we need to remember is that the MRM is not the only movement that calls for the needs of hurting men to be addressed. Most (dare I say all?) feminists and pro-feminist people recognize the need for a transformation of all gender roles as part of the work to change the system of patriarchal oppression. The vast majority of feminism is not so much anti-male as it is anti-traditional masculinity, as well it should be because of how traditional masculinity hurts everyone! After all, one of the most common stats that MRAs like to roll out is how men are far more likely to be victims of violence in society than women (though often they ignore that Trans* and non-binary people are those most likely to be violently attacked), but their analysis ignores how that violence stems from a violent masculinity: We are experiencing violence primarily at the hands of other men! Who fought to make federal definitions of sexual violence more inclusive? Feminists. And despite some common perceptions, the vast majority of feminist anti-violence support services (like sexual violence and domestic violence centers and hotlines) are inclusive of male survivors and are working to improve their practice all the time. Absolutely, the hurt and insecurity that male-identified people feel is sometimes written off with the “Well, boo hoo, do you see the oppression that women and Trans* or gender-nonconforming people are dealing with?” After all, there is a disproportionality of suffering in our patriarchal system. But that suffering, that trauma to our souls and our bodies, is not always solely gendered, and those truly fighting for justice recognize that we must redefine our gender norms to realize social change. Emerging from Hurt into a New Masculinity Whenever people ask why I am involved in the movement against sexual violence, I offer an equivocal response relating to the people in my own life who have been hurt and that describes the ways I’ve seen the impacts of sexual violence first hand. I usually also offer some acknowledgement of my understanding of my role as a man in ending sexual violence that is primarily committed by those who share my identity. And those are great reasons for some male-identified people to be a part of the movement. But for me, it also extends much deeper, and it extends into the destructive role that masculinity has played in my own life. From hypermasculine posturing almost ending a relationship with one of my best friends to masculine entitlement hurting my romantic relationships with women to masculine socialization restricting my fullest expression of self, the ways in which I’ve been taught to be a man have been far from the most positive influences in my life. But it wasn’t until recently that I truly understood just how deeply toxic masculinity has impacted me. Of late, I’ve been sorting through some memories, perhaps the most painful memories I hold. I’m not always clear on what happened, as these images are clouded in disassociation. And while I have for some time doubted whether or not it really happened, I have come to understand one of the core reasons that I, and sadly one in six other men, need a transformation of masculinity. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. And like most survivors of sexual violence, this trauma was committed by a man that I trusted, one of the men in my life most committed to traditional constructions of masculinity. I have not shared this publicly before, and I need to be clear about why I do so now: The memories of this trauma that have led to midnight panic attacks are rooted fundamentally in destructive, poisonous masculinity. In A Language Older than Words and in A Culture of Make Believe, Derrick Jensen (an author whose writing I love but who I’ve recently struggled to support considering his cissexist and Transphobic actions) helped me to understand that so long as our identities are intricately tied to asserting power over others, as masculinity in the context of Western patriarchy surely is, we cannot ever truly realize healthy constructions of self or healthy relationships. In short, we need a new way to understand ourselves as men. And when I reflect deeply on my own hurt, I know that there are men like me who need a new expression of our gender. And I know without a shred of doubt that the “Men’s Rights Movement” and all of its investment in toxic masculinity, misogyny, and misplaced rage is not the place for me to find healing. And so I turn to my feminist community, a place where I know I will not only be held accountable, but where I will also find unending compassion and love, not only from female-identified people, but from people all across the gender spectrum, including from men who share my desire to see a new masculinity. There is much good that comes with how I’ve been socialized to be a man – brotherhood, strength, courage, and tenacity – which is why I don’t simply believe the answer, at least initially, is to abandon gender altogether. Instead, I want to see a masculinity where love, power with, and compassion replace dominance, power over, and violence, a masculinity where some of those good messages I learned from the men in my life endure while leaving behind the destructive things that hurt me and so many other male-identified people. *** So when I think back to what I would have said to that young man with the t-shirt, I’m not sure. But I do know that what I wanted to say is more than simply “Do you understand how much that shirt hurts women?” I wanted to find a way to help him understand how that expression of power over is indicative of a sickness, one that hurts us all, one that will ensure we continue to hurt if we don’t all explore our investment in fundamentally transforming masculinity as we know it. Because doing so might help him understand his own investment in transforming what it means to be a man. And it might help me come closer to knowing a different masculinity for myself.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Pharrell Williams' and "The New Black"

Howard University Professor Isn’t Super Impressed with Pharrell Williams’ ‘New Black’ Comments


Pharrell Williams (Fred Dufour/Getty Images)
Pharrell Williams (Fred Dufour/Getty Images)
By Brian Ives
Pharrell Williams raised a few eyebrows over his statements about race in a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, particularly his use of a term “the new black” — and a prominent professor at Howard University isn’t really buying it.
The superstar said in the Winfrey interview that “The new black doesn’t blame other races for our issues. The new black dreams and realizes that it’s not a pigmentation; it’s a mentality. And it’s either going to work for you, or it’s going to work against you. And you’ve got to pick the side you’re gonna be on.”
He discussed this same topic in his GQcover story: “This is the new black. Oprah Winfrey: That’s the new black. She’s a black billionaire. President Obama: He is a black American president. Regardless of what you think about him, this is his second term. That’s the new black. LeBron James: the first black man ever shot on a Vogue cover, a black man. Me: a guy that’s written a song at 40! Nominated for an Oscar, four GRAMMY awards — at 40! That’s the new black!”
Response to his term “the new black”  has been strong, inspiring the twitter hashtag#whatkindofblackareyou, and The Root offering  “25 Alternatives to Pharrell (or Any Other Celeb) for Insights Into ‘the New Black,’” listing links to people and organizations “Who care about these things, study these things, talk and report and write and educate on these things all the time — not just when Oprah asks.”
Dr. Greg Carr, Howard University associate professor & chair of the department of Afro-American Studies, reacted to Pharrell’s “new black” theory in a new interview (via HBCBuzz) — and doesn’t seem impressed.
“My first impression is, this is a young man who is an excellent marketer,” Carr said. “I don’t think that Pharrell believes that there’s a ‘new black.’ Perhaps there’s a new opportunity. If he thinks there’s a ‘new black,’ I think  a quick perusal of history, particularly style makers and culture keepers in black communities in this country, will reveal very quickly that that’s been an ongoing conversation since enslavement.
“It’d be interesting to visit Pharrell — and others — in, say, 30 years from now… and see if perhaps he might be more conservative.”
Dr. Carr was asked if it is possible for African-Americans to be aware of the past and not have it  have a major influence on life today — and he says it’s not structurally possible.
“For every heroic individual who succeeds, there are countless others who continue to struggle and be oppressed in their system,” he said. And he points out that while there are successful African-Americans, that has been the case for a long time: “Even during enslavement, you had a tiny fraction of black folks who had negotiated some space for themselves, to exist in the system. Same thing during Jim Crow. Same thing today.”
He poses a question to those who have tasted success on Pharrell’s level: “Are you really attempting to live a life that improves conditions for other people, beginning with the people that you come from? Or, are you just trying to enjoy your life, provide for yourself and your family, and have some fun before you close your eyes?
“The spectacle of blackness has always been something that society has grasped and wanted,” he continued. “We can go back to the 1840s. One of the leading performers in this country was a guy named Thomas ‘Daddy’ Rice, who used to blacken his face, he called himself ‘Jim Crow.’ He was one of the biggest performers in this country for doing dances that he said black people did.
“Fast forward 170 years, and you go on the Billboard charts. Is there anyone bigger than Robin Thicke? No! Do we see Miley Cyrus twerking? Yes! What does that mean?  Blackness has always been a commodity. And there have always been individuals who represented that kind of titilating proximity to blackness that people have wanted. So us being on GQ covers and being billionaires, that’s almost predictable. As Greg Tate wrote, ‘The thing about blackness, people want everything from blackness… but the burden.” Pharrell is saying, ‘Look at Obama.’ Yeah, look at Obama! And look at education. Look at Obama, and look at the prison-industrial complex. Look at Barack Obama and ask yourself a question: what has improved for the masses of black people in the six years of the Obama presidency. But people like his style! They love his wife’s style! The kids of beautiful, the mother-in-law’s in the White House. That’s improved the life of one family.”
Pharrell has not responded to Dr. Carr’s comments.

Monday, June 2, 2014

A Good Man That Will Be Missed


Richard Jaeggi dies, Gandhi Brigade founder

10-10RichardJaeggi_byJulieWiatt copy 2
Richard Jaeggi. Photo by Julie Wiatt.
BY BILL BROWN
[UPDATED 5/28/14] Richard Jaeggi, community activist, Gandhi Brigade Youth Media founder and executive director, and former Voice columnist, passed away Saturday morning, May 25, due to complications after surgery. Jaeggi fell ill over the May 10-11 weekend and underwent surgery for a brain tumor the following Tuesday, according to Jaeggi family statements. He was 60.
Founded in 2005 the non-profit Gandhi Brigade uses “video and other digital media as a tool to engage young people in the life of their community and to use the power of communication to transform the  world,” according to the website.
7-08RJaeggi2_byDianaKohn copy
Richard Jaeggi. Photo by Diana Kohn.
In his Gandhi Brigade bio Jaeggi wrote, “Before devoting myself full time to the building of the Gandhi Brigade I ran several community technology centers in Washington DC. I have made a living as a cabinet maker, a carpenter, a network administrator, a construction employment trainer, and as a cook on an oil supply boat. I spent two years in Nepal as a Peace Corps volunteer where I met my wife.
“I like to make things, swim, ride my bicycle on the local trails, and throw goofy parties that often involve fire. I am married to Yoshiko Zenfuku and have three children, Lisa, Daniel, and Isaac. I have lived in Silver Spring for 16 years and care deeply about my community.” Born in New Brunswick, NJ, he moved to the Washington DC region in 1986.
Prior to the Gandhi Brigade he worked in Washington DC in the field of community technology; first at For Love of Children where he set up the New Technology Center and then at the Howard University Center for Urban Progress where he set up technology centers at Cardozo High School and the Park Morton housing complex. After earning a Masters degree in Religious Studies he served in Nepal as a Peace Corps volunteer where he helped build village water systems. He met his wife Yoshiko there.
Mom+Dad[2]
Yoshiko and Richard Jaeggi. Photo by Isaac Jaeggi.
He took a four year sabbatical as a self-employed cabinetmaker and a stint as a network administrator. He was also the director of Tallahassee Habitat for Humanity and later a co-founder of Skill Builders, a construction training program at Manna.
He was active in civic and church groups: the Christ Congregational Church Board of Social Witness – as co-chair (’08-’10), the Silver Spring Town Center Steering Committee (’01-’05), the Presidents Council of Silver Spring Civics Associations, as coordinator (’01-’03)
He was also a member of the Town Center Working Group (’00), vice president of the Indian Spring Civic Association vice president (’99-’03), member of the Community, Arts, and Facilities subcommittee of the Silver Spring Steering Committee (’97), member of the Economic Subcommittee of the Silver Spring Development Steering Committee (’96), and co-founder of the Silver Spring Neighborhood Arts Project (’95).
7-08RichardJaeggi_byJlieWiatt
Jaeggi with the “Book of Turf” he made for people to say their goodbyes to the artificial turf. The turf was a temporary covering until the Silver Spring community center and plaza could be built, but the public grew to love it. Photo by Julie Wiatt.
Jaeggi wrote a Voice column about his home town Silver Spring “The Big Acorn.” He ended the column around the time he got involved in youth issues and the Gandhi Brigade.
In his August 2005 column entitled “Three Heroes” he wrote about his rolemodels. “And so it is that I, a man entering the last third of his life, continue to steer my life, for better or worse, according to the patterns set by this odd pantheon of heroes: a terrorist, a madman, and a religious fanatic.”
He admired Robin Hood, he said, for his “audacity wit, and a flagrant disregard for authority.” His “madman” hero was “Señor Don Quixote, who determined that the only life worth living was one of uncompromising service to the highest ideals.”
But Mahatma Gandhi had a “place of honor in my pantheon of heroes.” He wrote,”Gandhi a pacifist, was anything but passive. He was a warrior pure and simple—and a fighter for truth and justice.”
Newest Gandhi Logo
A memorial service to celebrate his life and honor his memory will be held Saturday, June 7th, 10:00 AM at Christ Congregational Church in Silver Spring, 9525 Colesville Rd, Silver Spring, MD. In a statement posted on the Ghandi Brigade’s Facebook page the family said they will attend the Gandhi Brigade’s Youth Media Festival this Saturday, May 31, and ask “those who feel moved to come participate, donate or just enjoy the event that my father worked so hard to organize for his community and it’s youth should please feel free to do so.”
Word of his passing spread across Facebook over the 3-day weekend. At-large county councilmember Marc Elrich posted the news on his page, calling Jaeggi “a tireless champion for children” and a “wonderful advocate.”
Presents[4]
Photo by Isaac Jaeggi.
Elrich wrote “I don’t think I ever saw him not smiling, and he was infectiously enthusiastic and passionate about this labor of love he’d embarked on.”
He notes Jaeggi’s party-with-fire aspect, also “And then there was the amazing ball of fire making it’s way through this Rube Goldberg contraption he and his buddies made, that marked the New Year with a glorious fire that went off in the back yard.”
Jaeggi’s and the Ghandi Brigade’s Facebook pages filled with posts expressing sorrow, shock, and homage.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

My Brother's Keeper - Are Good Programs Enough?

Last week, in a joyous yet sobering White House East Room meeting, President Obama announced a long awaited initiative—My Brother’s Keeper—intended to improve opportunities and life outcomes for young African American  men and, by extension, our communities. He was flanked by some of these young men who would benefit and a cast of philanthropic leaders.
 
As someone who has dedicated the entirety of his professional career to improving the fate of young men of color, it was hard not be thrilled with the President’s sincere commitment and his use of the bully pulpit. In the late '80s and early '90s I worked at Sasha Bruce Youthwork, a Washington, DC youth services organization, where I was an outreach counselor for teens who were in trouble, out of school, or “doing dirt,” as they used to say. And for close to 10 years, on and off, I’ve worked at Vera. From both these experiences, I know there are both individual responsibility and structural dimensions to challenges confronting young men of color.
 
President Obama and the philanthropic partners who have signed on to invest $200 million over the next five years promise to find the programs that improve life chances for young men of color and to replicate them. I couldn’t agree more and we should laud the effort. As Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason said in her blog post about the initiative, it is designed to help every young man who “works hard and plays by the rules” have a chance to reach his full potential. Hard to argue with that.
 
But I also hope, as Mason’s blog post suggests and as others have observed, that the initiative’s architects will focus their firepower on more than deserving individuals and good programs. They should also look deeply at changing the structural factors—government policies and practices, among them—that are leading contributors to poor long-term outcomes for our young men. There are efforts around the country they can learn from and seek to replicate—such as, how New York City and New York State have begun to stanch the flow of kids into expensive and ineffective upstate detention facilities, and work with them close to home, close to family. They can look to the good work of a few brave and leading prosecutors, like John Chisolm of Milwaukee, who have changed case acceptance and supervisory policies in order to reduce disparities that resulted in more people of color being further ensnared in the justice system.
 
The President told those assembled in the East Room that government can’t fix the problem by itself. True enough. But there is a lot government can and should do to rectify unfair and unwise policies and practices—the structural determinants of inequity and blocked opportunity. Vera has a long track record of helping government do just this, and we will continue to do so with even more vigor and commitment in the coming years. I hope this element of the challenge is something that the architects of My Brother’s Keeper take to heart.
 
After all, it is not just about helping the rule followers. We also need to address some of the rules of the game.
 

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Kim Novak's Bid to Be Twice as Good

Hollywood's respectability politics are much the same as any other kind of respectability politics.





Here's a fairly great piece from Amanda Hess on how we judge actresses in their youth, and how we expect them to disappear when they age:
...81-year-old Vertigo star Kim Novak—who was roundly mocked for turning up onstage, two decades after her last movie, exhibiting extensive plastic surgery—might as well be dead. As comedian Rob Delaney cruelly joked: “Will they have time to edit Kim Novak into the In Memoriam section?” Even Matthew McConaughey’s mother, who last night aspired only to the role of proud parent, was eviscerated for rocking a keyhole-neck gown that gave the world a peek at her cleavage, which apparently only young women are allowed to possess. Twitter commentators deemed the view “leathery,” “ancient,” “inappropriate,” and “terrifying.”
So how ought an actress age? Throughout the evening, 67-year-old Sally Field (who appeared as a presenter) and 64-year-old Meryl Streep (nominated for August: Osage County) were compared favorably to Minnelli and Novak for daring to age “gracefully” and “naturally.” But we don’t know what Streep and Field do to maintain their looks—all we know is that they have successfully navigated Hollywood’s dual requirement to look amazing post-60 while never signaling that they’ve worked at it. That means avoiding obvious plastic surgery, but it can also mean spending your life investing in the habits, trainers, diets, creams, and treatments that add up to a “natural” look in old age. (Dodging illness and disability—Novak survived breast cancer in 2010—surely doesn’t hurt.)
I've spent the past couple of years thinking about the "twice as good" notion in the black community, and the bindings that we put on young black boys so that their country will not kill them. Of course "twice as good" ultimately means half as many arrive, and those who do receive half as much. Let us dispense with self-congratulation and great men. The question is not, "What did Jackie Robinson achieve in spite of racism?" It is, "How much more would he have achieved without it?" An ethic of "twice as good" divorced from any complaint, divorced from history is "Go for self" and can have no effect whatsoever upon a justice system, upon voter ID laws, upon asset forfeiture, upon Wells Fargo. The masses of the plundered will never be respectable to those who plunder them. The essence of plunder is disrespect. They can never respect you. They hate you, sir.
And I think these ideas only incidentally relate to who we call "black" and who we do not. Black people are older than white supremacy. And plunder is broad.  The female body, always marked as a field for plunder, illustrates the point.  The double standard that demands that black boys play classical music and comport themselves like Barack Obama, is comparable to the double standard that asks one thing of Jack Nicholson and another of Meryl Streep. Kim Novak also got The Talk...
When Novak entered the industry in the 1950s, studio executives made her cap her teeth, bleach her hair, shrink her body with a strict diet and exercise regime, and perpetually paint her face with the help of a personal makeup artist. I wonder where she got the idea that she mattered for her looks?
Novak's failure to absorb and fully implement this awesome wisdom makes her a target for humiliation and ultimately, maybe not death, but banishment from the public stage. 
We should probably stop bragging about Jackie Robinson, and remember that he died young. We should probably cite Ginger Rogers mostly as damning evidence. We comfort ourselves with individuals who get over, ignoring the broad masses who—necessarily—cannot. I think we should pause before noting that Sally Field is "aging well." Most of her fellow human females will not. That is because the very notion of "aging well" is riven with all our notions of who owns their body and who does not. 
Of course Baldwin knew:
The people, however, who believe that this democratic anguish has some consoling value are always pointing out that So-and-So, white, and So-and-So, black, rose from the slums into the big time. The existence -- the public existence -- of, say, Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis, Jr. proves to them that America is still the land of opportunity and that inequalities vanish before the determined will. It proves nothing of the sort. The determined will is rare -- at the moment, in this country, it is unspeakably rare -- and the inequalities suffered by the many are in no way justified by the rise of a few. [Emph. added]
A few have always risen -- in every country, every era, and in the teeth of regimes which can by no stretch of the imagination be thought of as free. Not all these people, it is worth remembering, left the world better than they found it. The determined will is rare, but it is not invariably benevolent. Furthermore, the American equation of success with the big time reveals an awful disrespect for human life and human achievement.
Forgive me if I have distracted, in any way, from Amanda Hess's piece. You start thinking and you're not sure what will come out. 

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Stay Black. And Die.

Stay Black. And Die.

photo(3)In the days that have passed since the Jordan Davis/Michael Dunn mistrial verdict on the count of murder in first degree, the following picture has been circulated frequently via social media. Put a pin in that, we’ll come back to it.
Before we go further, let me go ahead and say this upfront. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even qualified to be a paralegal and I’ve never been to or seen an Everest College campus or student. So I’ll concede that my legal acumen is subpar, but I do have a really hard time understanding how you can be convicted of attempted murder for spraying a car but not be convicted of the success of your attempts.
While I don’t understand it, I see how it happened. While watching news coverage on Friday evening of the jury deliberations via the Jane Velez-Mitchell show on HLN, they were taking callers. One of the callers, clearly an older white male stated what I feel is an unfortunate but not surprising sentiment shared by many folks paying attention: why did the boys in the truck drive off then come back without taking him to the hospital? It is the belief of quite a few people that somehow, someway, those boys dumped of the gun that made this man feel scared for his life enough to dump 10 shots into a Durango at fairly close range. Somehow, this man (and a few other callers) seemed very disinterested in the psychopathic nature of Mr. Dunn, just the behavior of the youth that caused Mr. Dunn to fear for his life. Emphasis mine and intentional. Causation is a b*tch.
Which leads back to the picture and the message therein. Simply, white folks and Black folks have different “important” talks with their sons. This is true. It was true before the recent spate of high profile deaths by Black males at the hands of white people and it will be true if we never have another Black man die in the same fashion again.
To put it all on the table and go Captain Obvious, there has always been a different set of rules for Black people and white people. I remember my father teaching me the most important lesson of my even now to date. He sat me down and said to me quite clearly, “(Panama), your mother is white. You are not.” I never had any identity issues after that. But what followed was a string of conversations about what it meant to be a Black man in America. What was most interesting is that I didn’t even live in America while I was receiving these conversations. Near my home in Bad Homburg, Germany (right outside of Frankfurt) was this huge field. My father would tell me to come with him and we’d make the long walk to the field and walk around and he’d fill me in on life. Sometimes it was about the birds and the bees, but many times it was about what life looks like for people like us.
I imagine those conversations have been happening for 100s of years at this point. Because it’s always been different. Hell, my father STILL manages to drop those nuggets of information when its relevant. It’s why most Black males (and Black people) have such a healthy distrust of the police. Its also not just the police, either. It’s what happens AFTER the police do police things to us. It’s the knowledge that your freedom is pretty much like a car window. You can roll it up and lock your doors, but its just a piece of glass. If somebody wants to break into your car, it takes nothing to get into it. Your freedom is fragile and easy to destroy. And once its been tampered with, you realize that everybody else gets the opportunity to destroy you regardless of the facts. The numbers of people released due to the Innocence Project illustrates that very clearly. As a Black male, you spend your life doing your damnedest trying to NOT end up in the system at all. Well, most of us do. You figure if you just live your life right then you should be okay. And that probably is the situation.
But its when we’re robbed of the potential of the Black community that we’re reminded just how fragile that freedom is. Which is why we have to have those talks in the first place. Those talks wouldn’t have prevented that situation. In fact, the necessary talk in Florida is probably to tell all Black males to avoid all interaction with white men. But that’s just not realistic, is it?
photo(4)I also saw this other picture all over social media. I think this one is a bit unfair. Nobody is going to want to hear this but it’s not just “white vision” glasses that see this picture. While I’m happy that we can all rally in our community behind miscarriages of justice in the courtroom, and Black boys do matter, many Black people view certain Black males in the exact same fashion as white people do – sometimes for the same reasons, sometimes for different reasons. I get the point being made, and perhaps its unnecessary to even point out that Black folks are just as guilt of this stereotyping, but my point is that we have some work to do on our own. We’re mad that Black boys don’t matter, but to some degree, we’re just not pulling the trigger on them. That’s food for thought for that ass.
And I’ll be the first to admit how conflicted I can be. It’s like the scene in Crash where Ludacris’s character is going on about how unfair it is to be stereotyped as a thug who is about to commit a robbery…and then commits a robbery because he’s exactly who they think he is. It’s the justification for paranoia: If I’m right then I’m right; but if I’m wrong, I could have been right, so I’m still right because maybe I’m not wrong. While this doesn’t hold up in court (or at least shouldn’t), I know many people who not only live by this credo, they are married to it til death do they part. Interestingly, none of them feel Dunn was right in any way, shape, or form.
“I don’t have to do sh*t but stay Black and die.” I’ve heard this statement more times that I can count. Usually stated in some form of defiance after somebody attempts to tell another what to do. Rarely is it meant to be prophesy. It’s supposed to be dying on our own terms as God intends. Not at the hands of another who doesn’t respect your life or even acknowledge that it exists.
Stay Black and die. Okay. But we probably need to amend those talks not only to include the police and the justice system to “boy, you don’t have to do anything but stay Black and try not to die at the hands of white man who will not be held accountable by those police or that justice system I already told you about.”
Yeah. That.
-VSB P aka THE ARSONIST