 In September 2012 I wrote an article entitled "Racially Based High School Entrance Exams?" I was not in agreement with the lawsuit being filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Latino Justice PRLDEF and The Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College against my alma mater, one of the "elite" schools in NYC, Stuyvesant High School. I did not buy in to the concept that a standardized entrance exam could be racially biased. After all, I took the exam and passed. I went to Stuyvesant and graduated in 1975. How could things be worse now than they were close to forty years ago. I was so wrong. The year that I graduated was the high water mark for Black and Latino student enrollment at Stuyvesant. Since then it's been a downward spiral. In a March 2012 Huffington Post Blog Stuyvesant alumni Richard Buery writes:
 I'm outraged.
When I'm told there is not a racial distrust of President Obama. When I'm told we live in a post racial society and there's no longer a need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. When I told Affirmative Action has run it's course and it's time for us to move on. When I'm told there is no organized voter suppression plan. When I have to read about this: On Monday, first lady Michelle Obama had a question and answer session on Twitter focused on her campaign for healthy kids. On Tuesday the Daily Kos published an article documenting some of the remarks that were posted under the hashtag #AskFLOTUS.  One rationale for continuing stop and frisk practices is that it is a viable, proactive, and productive way for law enforcement to combat crime. Personally, I beg to differ. In my opinion it’s like using a sledgehammer on a nail. You may get the desired result but what else are you smashing? That’s how I feel about “Stop and Frisk”. We are well aware of the controversy surrounding the stop and frisk practices in New York City. There have been studies done, articles written, lawsuits filed, and issues debated yet this practice still continues. Other cities, Chicago for example, are now looking to use similar tactics as a means to reduce crime. In a Chicago Tribune article City Treasurer Stephanie D. Neely wrote: "We have a choice between living with the uncertainty of random gun violence and an occasional random stop that helps the entire community reduce the threat of guns. Would we prefer to continue being held hostage by thugs? Or deal with the inconvenience of stop and frisk?" Occasional random stops; held hostage by thugs; they have to do better than that. This is the same messaging used in New York City. We also have New York City Commissioner Ray Kelly asking "Why leaders upset with ‘Stop And Frisk’ aren’t protesting violence instead". He further went on to say: “The fact of the matter is that 96 percent of shooting victims are people of color, yet the community leaders are not speaking out about this. We’d like to hear from them,” Statements like these are the reason why we must continue to fight against stop and frisk practices. The end does not justify the means. These tactics do more harm than good.
In my opinion it is unacceptable for anyone to use that word anymore. Although I understand and cautiously accept the position that from an historical, educational or entertainment perspective the "N" word may be used (I did see Django), I do not subscribe to the wholesale use of the word as a term of endearment among African Americans. I'm not going to get into the historical reasons for my opinion. We all know what the word meant and how many people fought against the use of it. My knee-jerk response to my friend's question was: The issue is bigger than the "N" word. Somehow, somewhere we lost our sense of history and respect for those that came before us. Somewhere along the line speaking proper English became "sounding white". "Stupid" became cool. Individualism overtook community. There is so much more to be learned and shared about these powerful, trailblazing women. Their contributions to the civil rights movement have for the most part gone unnoticed.
Sometimes decisions are made that have a pivotal effect on the direction of a movement and changes the course of history. These decisions should be debated but they should not be criticized. Unless we were there at the time we have no insight into how things really were and what was necessary at that time to start a movement.
Rosa Parks was not the first person to sit in the white section of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. She was not the second person either. Rosa Parks was the sixth person and was chosen to represent the movement because she "fit the mode". The NAACP wanted to put a face to the Montgomery bus boycott that people could identify with. This article is not meant to demean or devalue the efforts of Rosa Parks or the decision to use her as the face of the boycott. This article is to acknowledge and celebrate the women who paved the way for the boycott to happen. |
EditorErnest R. Heyward is the Founder and President of the Marketplace for Social Awareness and Social Responsibility Inc. 
Categories
All
Click for more details
Archives
June 2020
|
