Why Fox doesn’t want Americans to see NFL players protesting about race | Ameer Hasan Loggins Thursday 14 September 2017 14.04 EDT

‘I understand all too well why Fox has chosen to blackout the black NFL players protesting police brutality.’ Photograph: Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP

Did you notice that during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner, Philadelphia Eagles player Malcolm Jenkins firmly raised his fist, as a symbolic gesture of black opposition to various forms of systemic oppression? No? Did you see Rodney McLeod and Chris Long alongside Jenkins in solidarity with the cause in which he is standing for? No? You are not alone. Viewers at home did not see any of this – not by accident, but by design.

Fox kept the cameras off of the players, blacking out their protest against racial injustice. While Fox screened an interview before the game with a black player – Michael Bennett – about why he was protesting, the fact that the network hid the actual protest irked many NFL fans.

I understand that we are talking about the same Fox network, whose earliest successes came via shows like America’s Most Wanted and Cops. Programs that served not only as cheap forms of first generation Reality TV, but they also were highly effective at spreading uncritical narratives of the police as being heroic public servants, that viewers could watch on a weekly basis, cemented as dependable good guys always catching the deviant bad guys.

The birth of Fox network – having the power to carve out space to create Fox News –was an offshoot of Rupert Murdoch’s decision to build a television empire around his 1993 $1.6bn purchase of the rights to broadcast the NFL’s NFC games from CBS.

Murdoch exclaimed: “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network.” And Murdoch predicted: “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

Article continues:

Two schools in Mississippi – and a lesson in race and inequality in America – Jamiles Lartey Sunday 27 August 2017 06.00 EDT

One is predominantly white, one is predominantly African-American. The education, and outcomes, for students vary wildly. A lawsuit is exposing the reasons why

Two summers ago, Indigo Williams couldn’t have been more thrilled to send her son off for his first day of school.

Her home was zoned into Madison Station elementary school in Madison, Mississippi, an “A” rated school and district where her son JS, then five, quickly dove into Kindergarten with enthusiasm. JS was taking Taekwondo lessons and was served fresh fruits and vegetables in the cafeteria. He had access to tutoring.

But when Williams and her children moved just a few miles away before the start of the following school year, her home was instead zoned to an elementary school in the Jackson, MS school district. She was horrified to see just how dramatic the difference could be.

Now attending Raines Elementary, Williams says Jonathan’s environment “feels more like a jail than a school. Paint is chipping off the walls. They’ve served him expired food in the cafeteria,” she said.

“There are no extracurricular activities available for my son, no art or music class or even afterschool tutoring. There are not enough textbooks for him to take home or even for students to use in the classrooms, and the books that are in the classroom are outdated,” Williams added.

She worries that JS is growing bored with his classwork, and that the school doesn’t have the resources to challenge him or make learning interesting. “I’m afraid he’s falling behind other kids in better schools,” Williams said.

But Williams hasn’t just sat by and watched as her son’s quality of education deteriorated. She – and three other black Mississippi mothers – have put themselves and the Raines Elementary at the centre of a lawsuit that argues the state has reneged on 150 year-old promise to offer a “uniform system of free public schools.”

Article continues:

Lessons On Race And Vouchers From Milwaukee – Claudio Sanchez – May 16, 2017 6:04 AM ET

Howard Fuller (left) and Wendell Harris

LA Johnson/Getty/NPR

The Trump administration has made school choice, vouchers in particular, a cornerstone of its education agenda. This has generated lots of interest in how school voucher programs across the country work and who they benefit.

The oldest school voucher program was created in Milwaukee in 1990 with a singular focus on African-American students living in poverty. This school year, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program issued nearly 28,000 vouchers for low-income kids to attend dozens of private and religious schools at public expense.

Over the years though, most voucher recipients have performed no better academically than their public school peers. In some cases they’ve done worse. So who exactly is benefitting? It’s a question that has raised serious misgivings in Milwaukee’s African-American community. So much so that some of the city’s prominent black leaders today are divided.

Howard Fuller and Wendell J. Harris, in many ways, represent that split.

Harris is currently on the Milwaukee school board. As a member of the NAACP’s education committee in Wisconsin, he was one of the original plaintiffs who sued the state in 1990 in a failed effort to block vouchers.

Fuller, a professor at Marquette University, is one of the architects of the voucher program. He’s also a former superintendent of the Milwaukee Public Schools and founder of the Black Alliance for Educational Options, a national pro-voucher and school choice group.

Article continues:

Why Does a White Guy Always Have to Be the Hero? – KANYAKRIT VONGKIATKAJORN, GRACE WILSON, AND KAREN HAOFEB. 18, 2017 6:00 AM

A brief history of whitewashing—from Charlie Chan to “The Great Wall.”

Chinese director Zhang Yimou, of Hero and House of Flying Daggers fame, made his English-language debut with The Great Wall, which opened Friday. But in a story set in ancient China, Matt Damon’s character sticks out like a sore thumb. The presence of his pale mug in movie posters and trailers drew backlash even before the film’s release. “We have to stop perpetuating the racist myth that only a white man can save the world,” Fresh Off the Boat actress Constance Wu wrote in a Twitter tirade. “We don’t need salvation.” Damon and Yimou both publicly defended the film, with Damon calling it “historical fantasy.”

Producers often claim there just aren’t enough roles for Asian actors, which is true—or vice versa, which is not.

The lack of people of color in starring roles is a longstanding Hollywood problem, and things are especially bad for Asians. A 2016 study (PDF) by the Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism at the University of Southern California found that more than half of films and TV shows had no speaking roles for Asian characters—and it’s exceedingly rare to see Asians in lead roles. Producers often claim there just aren’t enough roles for Asian actors, which is true—or vice versa, which is not. Often, when the opportunity arises to cast Asian characters, Hollywood decision-makers hire white actors to portray them. Sometimes they simply rewrite nonwhite characters as white ones. These things are called whitewashing.

Article continues:

Implicit Bias Is Real. Don’t Be So Defensive. – By William Saletan OCT. 5 2016 7:35 PM

Mike Pence heard an accusation of bigotry, not an acknowledgment of human nature.

Dear white people: We need to have a talk.

We need to discuss something that keeps coming up in this year’s presidential and vice presidential debates: implicit bias. On Tuesday night, Mike Pence took offense at the whole idea. He framed it as an attack on the integrity of police officers and white people in general. That’s a natural reaction, but it’s a mistake. And it perpetuates the problem.

Every day, in one city or another, black and brown parents sit their kids down and talk to them about bias. They explain that at some point, based on the color of your skin, you might be suspected of doing something wrong. Don’t go to certain places, don’t wear certain clothes, and don’t move in any way that might be construed as a threat. Play it safe.

White people don’t have to talk to our kids this way, because our color doesn’t attract suspicion. We need to have a different talk, not about suffering implicit bias but about practicing it.

Article continues:

When LBJ and Goldwater Agreed to Keep Race Out of the Campaign – By MARK K. UPDEGROVE August 28, 2016

Senator Barry Goldwater and President Lyndon Johnson in the Oval Office, May 21, 1968. | Yoichi Okamoto/LBJ Library Photo Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/goldwater-lbj-racism-campaign-trump-bigotry-214191#ixzz4IhaesH6V  Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Senator Barry Goldwater and President Lyndon Johnson in the Oval Office, May 21, 1968. | Yoichi Okamoto/LBJ Library Photo

In retrospect, it’s clear that Barry Goldwater had a lot to gain by cynically playing the race card. It was 1964, and jittery Southern Democrats had fought in vain to prevent the historic Civil Rights Act from being signed into law. The South, solidly Democratic for a generation, was there to be won: Nationwide, a white backlash was already brewing.

Instead, Goldwater lost in one of the most lopsided elections in the history of the presidency. It probably could have been closer, except that he had a conscience.

On July 25, 1964, just over three months before Election Day, Goldwater visited the White House to privately talk to his opponent, President Lyndon B. Johnson. When he left, it was with a mutual promise not to exploit race for campaign purposes.

Now, with Donald Trump’s campaign flailing amid accusations of bigotry, it’s worth remembering a moment when a similarly hyperbole-prone candidate worked to reign in the fringe elements that could have easily overtaken his campaign.

In 2016, many observers have suggested similarities between Trump and Senator Goldwater. In some ways, they are analogous: Both were outsiders who won the nomination of a deeply divided Republican Party after defeating the preferred, more moderate candidates of the GOP establishment. And Goldwater, like Trump, had a habit of impolitic comments, as in his clarion call that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” It was a central part of Goldwater’s appeal: He tells it like it is, political correctness be damned—“In your heart, you know he’s right,” just like his campaign slogan said.

Article continues:

‘Mystery Shoppers’ Help U.S. Regulators Fight Racial Discrimination At Banks – CHRIS ARNOLD August 26, 2016 5:43 PM ET

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently disclosed that it is sending in people who pose as customers to discover racial discrimination at banks.
John Holcroft/Ikon Images/Getty Images

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau looked into the Mississippi-based regional bank BancorpSouth, it didn’t just review thousands of loan applications. It sent in undercover operatives — some white, some black — who pretended to be customers applying for loans.

“They had similar credit scores and similar background and situations,” says CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Our investigation had found that BancorpSouth had engaged in illegal redlining in Memphis, meaning refusing to lend into specific areas of the city.”

That is, neighborhoods where most residents were African-Americans or other minorities. Cordray says on top of that, the bank “charged African-American customers higher interest rates for mortgages than similarly situated white applicants.”

He also says the bank denied loans to African-American applicants more often than white applicants — nearly twice as often in relative terms, according to the complaint.

When regulators get people to pose as customers, it’s called “testing.” This case marks the first time the CFPB has said it is using testers for enforcement. It just disclosed that earlier this summer when it announced a $10.6 million settlementwith BancorpSouth.

Article continues:

Despite the Republican nominee’s apparent flip-flopping on his signature immigration issue, those on the alt-right have been emboldened by his candidacy – Dan Roberts in Washington Saturday 27 August 2016 06.00 EDT

A Donald Trump T-shirt displayed at a rally in Jackson, Mississippi, this week.

The hate that dared not speak its name was in fine voice this week. In a grand Washington townhouse behind the supreme court, the air was thick with talk of what Donald Trump would do for white Americans.

“Everyone says we’re a nation of immigrants but we’re not,” said one man, proudly sporting a Trump T-shirt. “We’re a nation of northern European immigrants. We shouldn’t have to pay more just to live among our own demographic.”

“Absolutely,” agreed the woman next him. “My family go back to the 1680s.”

The party, thrown by Breitbart News, former employer of Trump’s new campaign chief Steve Bannon, was given a further veneer of respectability by an author signing a table full of hardbacks with Latin in the title. Ann Coulter’s new book, In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, echoed the racially triumphant mood.

“The same way virtually any immigrant to Finland makes it less white, almost any immigrant to America makes it less honest,” Coulter writes in her 182-page hagiography. “There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven. Except change his immigration policies.”

Unfortunately, at the very moment of the book-signing, that was exactly what Trump was doing.

In an interview on Fox News, the struggling Republican candidate dramatically rowed back on his signature pledge to deport undocumented immigrants, seemingly hoping to recapture moderates alarmed by the stridency of what he appears to have unleashed.

The electoral risk posed by Trump’s flirtation with white nationalism was underlined a day later, when Hillary Clinton used links to so-called “alt-right” thinkers to mount her fiercest attack yet.

“The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump campaign represents a landmark achievement for the ‘alt-right’,” Clinton said. “A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican party. All of this adds up to something we’ve never seen before.”

She added: “This is not conservatism as we have known it. This is not Republicanism as we have known it. These are racist ideas, race-baiting ideas, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-women, all key tenets making up the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.”

Article continues:

The 1965 Law That Gave the Republican Party Its Race Problem – By JOSH ZEITZ August 20, 2016

LBJ didn’t think the Immigration and Nationality Act would be revolutionary. He was wrong.

AP Photo

AP Photo

History Dept.

LBJ didn’t think the Immigration and Nationality Act would be revolutionary. He was wrong.

During the long, three-year debate over the immigration act of 1965, members of Congress debated the wisdom and morality of removing 1920s-era quotas on immigration to the United States. Not far from the center of this debate was the nettlesome issue of race.

“The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, [and] the people of Holland,” griped Senator Sam Ervin, a conservative Democrat from North Carolina. “With all due respect to Ethiopia, I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.”

President Lyndon Johnson, hoping to tamp down concerns about the immigration act at a time when Congress was engaged in an even more ferocious debate over the voting rights act, sought to downplay the implications of the proposed immigration law: “This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill,” he said upon signing it. The president, like many other of the law’s supporters, sincerely believed that Europeans were most likely to take advantage of less stringent U.S. immigration policy.

He was wrong.

Article continues:

One Reason School Segregation Persists – By Dana Goldstein JULY 15 2016 5:51 AM

White parents want it that way.

Parental choice alone cannot rectify school segregation, which is also driven by housing segregation and the too-rigid boundaries between school zones. Comstock/Thinkstock

Parental choice alone cannot rectify school segregation, which is also driven by housing segregation and the too-rigid boundaries between school zones.

A key question in the raging debate over school segregation is how much the personal choices of white and wealthy parents contribute to the isolation of poor children of color in separate and often subpar schools.

new paper sheds light on exactly that. The study, by Steven Glazerman and Dallas Dotter of Mathematica Policy Research, took advantage of the school lottery system in Washington, D.C., which allows families to apply for classroom seats outside of their neighborhoods. Past research shows that when asked, American parents claim that academic performance is their greatest priority when selecting schoola for their children. But Glazerman and Dotter were looking for “revealed” preferences: the conclusions that could be drawn not by talking to parents, who might feel pressured to give socially acceptable responses, but by examining how 22,000 applicants of varying races and classes actually ranked 91 public charter schools and 110 district schools, at the pre-K, elementary school, middle school, and high school levels.

The researchers tested a broad range of factors that could explain why parents choose a school: its proximity to a family’s home, test scores, after-school activities, uniform policies, class size, the crime and income levels of the surrounding neighborhood, and the racial and socio-economic makeup of the school’s student body. Only three of these factors significantly drove parental choice. Parents preferred high test scores, schools closer to home, and schools where their own child would be alongside more peers of his or her same race and class.

Article continues: