In Conclusion...(Blog Reveal Prompt)

The World Wide Web has become such an integral part of our lives that many of us couldn't imagine life without it. In fact, we can literally carry out our daily routines using the Internet. Within seconds, we are able to read breaking news, get answers to virtually any question, listen to our favorite songs, access books, and send information all across the world through typed messages or video chat. Since its creation in the 1980s, the Internet has quickly changed the way the world communicates. 

The Internet and blogging as "disruptive technologies"
The McKinsey Global Institute defines disruptive technologies as advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. The Internet as a whole falls into this category because it has replaced traditional methods of sending and receiving information. Blogging in particular is changing the way information is delivered via the Internet. For example, it is predicted that blogging will have a major impact on journalism. The American Press Institute claims that the Internet has "changed the dynamic of news and turned the customer into a contributor." The group credits easily navigated web publishing tools, as well as powerful mobile devices, for giving online audiences the opportunity to create and/or critique news and other information. (We Media Report)

Blogging and the First Amendment
During the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans fought to gain racial equality throughout the nation. Non-judicial actors such the Montgomery Buss Boycott, the March on Washington, and the Freedom Riders contributed to the outcome of the movement. Protests and campaigns such as these were ways that people used their First Amendment rights to voice their opinions, both for and against civil rights. Since the Civil Rights Era, the Internet has become a significant part of our society. So much so that Americans have taken more to the Internet to express their likes and dislikes on nearly any matter. Had civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. had access to this form of communication, news of their protests would have reached a larger audience and support (and backlash) would have taken a new form. Since social media tends to be one of the more frequently used forms of expression today, it can be considered one of the many factors that drives change in constitutional law. 

White Like Me  

"What does it mean to be white?"

This is the question that filmmaker Tim Wise focuses on in his documentary White Like Me. Wise, an anti racist educator, sets out to disprove the notion that America has entered a post-racial society. Using stories from his childhood, events of the Civil Rights movement, interviews with college students, and various statistics, Wise explains that we still live in a society filled with racial inequality and white privilege. He claims that America as a whole is oblivious to the legacy of white supremacy, and that the majority of people don't realize what it means to be "white like him."

I think this documentary is interesting because I've never known of anyone to approach the issue of racism the way that Wise has. Rather than looking at society through the eyes of minorities, he explores what it's like to be white. The only things that I disliked about the documentary were the way that he interpreted some of the statistics that he used, as well as the short amount of time that he devoted to addressing reverse discrimination. I felt that Wise intended to shut down an opposing view, but instead he introduced a concept and didn't give a convincing argument against it. The facts that he used to defend his point about white supremacy included education and incarceration statistics. I felt that some of these weren't appropriate to use because they could be interpreted differently if used in another context. Wise's decision to incorporate reverse discrimination into the documentary resulted in me thinking about these statistics in a different way than he intended for his viewers to. 

Overall, White Like Me was an informative piece that brought together much of what we learned about race and inequality in our FYS class.

For more information about Time Wise and White Like Me:

http://www.timwise.org/books-and-dvds/white-like-me/

Missouri Governor Declares State of Emergency Pre-Protest

This month, a grand jury will make its decision regarding the shooting and murder of Michael Brown by a white police officer; an event that unfolded this past August. The jury is responsible for deciding whether or not Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson violated Brown's civil rights, and how he should be charged. Jay Nixon, Missouri Governor, declared a state of emergency on November 11th and called upon the National Guard to manage the protests that are sure to come. 

Nixon stated that his "hope and expectation is that peace will prevail," and that by bringing in the National Guard, “the two pillars: safety and speech’’ will be protected." United States Representatives William Lacy Clay and Emanuel Cleaver oppose Nixon's decision to bring in the guard, saying in a joint statement that "violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. We, as local and national leaders, warn that violence and counter-violence is Lucifer’s most lethal luxuriant." 

Nixon's decision to protect citizens and local businesses from potential danger may only add fuel to the fire. He emphasized that the troops will not be dealing with protestors unless major issues arise, but their presence will be felt regardless. 

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/grand-jury-decision-looming-nixon-declares-state-emergency 

Brown v. Board of Education 

Our FYS 1000 class did another moot court of the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). It was a consolidation of cases from four states, each of which questioned the constitutionality and fairness of having separate schools for black and white children. In one of the cases, Oliver Brown sued the Board of Education of the City of Topeka Kansas because his daughter was denied admittance to the white school near her home. On May 17th, 1954, the court ruled to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), declaring that it was unconstitutional to segregate schools by law.

My group defended segregation, using the following arguments; 

1. The Plessy v. Ferguson ruling and the "separate but equal" doctrine- schools provided for black children in Topeka, Kansas were equal to those provided for whites 
2. Integration of schools would not have kept black children from feeling inferior to whites. They were not as well educated, and putting the two races in the same schools would prevent students from reaching their full potential
3. State and local governments are responsible for making decisions regarding education- an issue of federalism

The group in favor of integrating the schools argued that segregation made black children feel inferior to whites. They also pointed out the dangers that black children faced on their way to a school that may not have provided the same level of education as a school for white children. 

For more information about the case, visit archives.gov

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson resulted in a decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Louisiana Separate Car Act. The state railroad companies had to provide separate accommodations for both blacks and whites ("separate but equal"). Homer Plessy, a man who was 1/8 African American, bought a first class ticket from the East Louisiana Railroad and sat in the "whites only" car. Plessy was arrested after refusing to vacate the car and move to his appropriate section.

Plessy argued that the generally applicable law was not content neutral. 

In class, Plessy's lawyers argued that: 

• Separate accommodations violate the equal protection clause
• The 13th Amendment made Plessy a citizen and therefore he was not exempt
• Any distinction between races acts as an act of slavery and violates the 13th Amendment
• The employees of the railroad company actually violated the 1890 law for separate rail cars---somehow Plessy was able to purchase a ticket for the first class white car and passed through several people without recognition (he was hardly recognized as an African American)
• When dealing with mixed races (as many people were in Louisiana at the time), it is hard to distinguish between white and black. As a mix of races, what car was he supposed to sit in?

The group that presented their arguments the best, in my opinion, was the defense:

• Both races had cars equal to the value that they could pay. The railroad could charge whites more money, which meant that they had nicer cars. This was more of a business issue than a race issue---Plessy knowingly broke the law, perhaps to force the issue of equality
• Plessy was not asked to leave the train all together; he was just asked to move to a different car, which had the same accommodations as the car he was in. The railroad company followed separate but equal
• The law does distinguish among the two races, but does not imply the inferiority of either race

On May 18, 1896, the Supreme Court decided that the "separate but equal" doctrine was constitutional. 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/2726/Plessy-v-Ferguson-1896.html

The North Carolina NAACP vs. the Voting Rights Act 

North Carolina's new voting law has caused much controversy among North Carolina officials and activist groups. Last week, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals made provisions to the law, which include 1) allowing same-day voter registration during early voting, and 2) casting ballots if they are in the right county, but wrong precinct. State officials have looked to the Supreme Court for help, asking the court to issue a stay of the ruling by the 4th Circuit. 

Representatives of the state of North Carolina are arguing that a change in the election rules will cause chaos and confusion for voters. Opposing a stay in the ruling are groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the North Carolina NAACP, and The League of Women Voters. President of the North Carolina NAACP, Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, stated that, "under North Carolina's voter suppression law, African Americans would have faced higher barriers to the ballot this November."

North Carolina voting suppression protest

Link to this article: http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/state-asks-u-s-supreme-court-for-stay-of-decision/article_b6c8c8c8-4a4b-11e4-925a-001a4bcf6878.html

For more info: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-north-carolina-voting-laws-20141001-story.html

The Change the Mascot campaign in Washington

Photo taken by Andrew Harnik

National Society of American Indians President, Brian 

Cladoosby, speaks at a Change the Mascot campaign  

press conference on Capitol Hill.

Critics of the Washington Redskins' name have been rallying against the team for quite some time now, but recently they've gained momentum by taking advantage of the NFL's negative spotlight. This story pertains to our FYS class because of what is causing the opposition. An advocacy group including members of Congress, American Indian groups, and civil rights and religious groups, wrote letters to 31 NFL teams expressing their displeasure with the Redskins' team name. The letter states that, "in a country and sports fan base that is becoming ever more diverse, Mr. Snyder is jeopardizing the welfare of the league by promoting an epithet against people of color."

There are many Native American organizations and tribes who wish for the name to be changed, but there is very scarce evidence supporting a majority opinion. The Redskins franchise conducted a national survey in 2004 and found that 90% of self-identified Native Americans did not find the name offensive. There have been no national surveys conducted since then to show if attitudes have changed, however.

The Redskins' owner, Dan Snyder, claims that the he will not change the name of his football team, as it is used in a way that honers American Indians. I suspect that within the next 10 years or so, Mr. Snyder will have no other choice than to change the name. According to the Washington Times, Senator Maria Cantwell is already planning to introduce a bill that would "strip the NFL of its tax-exempt status if it allows the team to keep its name." I don't think that the league would take that risk in order to save the Redskins name, especially in a society where people don't take racial slurs lightly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/16/redskins-name-change-movement-heads-capitol-hill/?page=2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/new-poll-says-large-majority-of-americans-believe-redskins-should-not-change-name/2014/09/02/496e3dd0-32e0-11e4-9e92-0899b306bbea_story.html