A+ R A-

George Curry

NFL Domestic Abusers Get Tap on Wrist

E-mail Print PDF

The NFL – which has been referred to as everything from the National Felons League to, in the cases of players, Not For Long – has imposed a lifetime ban on Ray Rice yet rarely disciplines other brazen offenders. And when a team takes the rare action of disciplining a player for striking a woman, it usually results in a tap on the wrist.

The National Football League initially imposed a two-game suspension of Rice after it was disclosed that he had abused his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, in an Atlantic City, N.J. casino hotel elevator. But after the celebrity website TMZ aired the full video showing Rice knocking out his future wife with a strong blow to the face, rendering her unconscious, the Baltimore Ravens voided Rice’s contract and the NFL banned him from pro football for life.

Commissioner Roger Goodell, who is in charge of protecting the nation’s most popular sport’s  $10 billion in annual revenue, acknowledged that the NFL “got it wrong” when it imposed only a two-game suspension on Rice.

But what Goodell, who earns $44 million a year, didn’t admit was the NFL continues to get it wrong while serving as a high-profile enabler for other domestic abusers in the league. For example:

Rice’s teammate, All-Pro Linebacker Terrell Suggs, continued playing after Candace Williams, the mother of his three children and his future wife, filed for two protective orders against him in the last five years. The first was in December 2009. The Baltimore Sun reported, “According to the complaint …Williams said Suggs threw a soap dispenser at her head, hit her in the chest with his hand, and held a bottle of bleach over her and their 1-year-old son, which spilled on them and caused a rash. Baltimore City District Court Judge Ronald Alan Karasic wrote that a laceration was visible on Williams’ chest.” Though the protective order was granted, Suggs was never charged with a crime. Three years later, Williams filed for another protective order, alleging that Suggs “punched her in the neck and drove a car containing their two children at a ‘high rate of speed’ while she was being dragged alongside.” The couple later married. In neither case did the Ravens or the NFL take any action against Suggs.

Carolina Panthers All-Pro Defensive End Greg Hardy was convicted last summer of assaulting and threatening to kill his former girlfriend, Nicole Holder, but no action was taken against him until the Ray Rice story exploded on the national scene. In her request for a protective order, Holder said Hardy threw her into a tile tub, pulled her from the tub by her hair, choked her with both hands and picked her up over his head and threw her onto a couch filled with assault rifles and shotguns. At the trial, Holder testified, “He looked me in my eyes and told me he was going to kill me. I was so scared I wanted to die. When he loosened his grip slightly, I said, ‘Just do it. Kill me.’” Hardy was found guilty of misdemeanor charges and sentenced to a 60-day suspended sentence and 18 months of probation. He is appealing the verdict. Hardy was deactivated for last Sunday’s game against the Detroit Lions.

San Francisco 49ers defensive end Ray McDonald was allowed to play in last Sunday’s game, despite being arrested and charged with felony domestic violence connected with allegedly striking his pregnant fiancée. A hearing scheduled for Monday was postponed, pending further investigation.

These are not isolated cases. A database maintained by USA Today shows that there have been 713 arrests of NFL players since 2000 – 85 for domestic violence. The database covers only incidents reported by the media.

Of the 56 known domestic violence cases that occurred on Goodell’s watch, players were suspended only a combined total 13 games, excluding Ray Rice. Typically, players involved in domestic disputes had charges dismissed after they were placed in a diversion program for first-time offenders, completed anger management counseling or performed community service. In many cases, the abused woman refused to file charges.  Only 10 players were released by their team and three of those landed on other squads.

Overall, arrest rates among NFL players are lower than the national average for men in their age range. Among NFL teams, according to the New York Times, the Minnesota Vikings had the most players arrested since 2000, with 44, followed closely by the Cincinnati Bengals and the Denver Broncos. The Arizona Cardinals and the St. Louis Rams, with 11 each, tied for the lowest mark. Baltimore had 22 players arrested over that period, mirroring the league average.

Though the most common offense was driving while drunk, domestic violence has taken center stage.

The domestic cases are chronicled by Sidepin. The website stated, “Goodell is perceived as being tough on players. He’s an authoritarian, the likes of which the league has never seen!! But there’s one thing Goodell will tolerate, and that’s NFL players abusing women.”

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA.) He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook.

Differences in Black and White

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) Public opinion polls confirm a fact that has been documented in instances ranging from the O.J. Simpson verdict to recent events in Ferguson: When it comes to race, Blacks and Whites largely view events through a different set of lenses.

Several recent polls provided yet more proof of this disheartening trend.

According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, more than half of Black Americans polled – 57 percent – said the killing of the unarmed, 18-year-old Michael Brown by Ferguson, Mo. Police Officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9 was “not justified.” Among Whites, 25 percent said the shooting death was unjustified.

In addition, 31 percent of White Americans, and 71 percent of Blacks, said they think police are generally more likely to use deadly force against a person of color than a White person.

The performance of Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, also received mixed reviews, so to speak. He mobilized the Missouri State Highway Patrol and then activated the Missouri National Guard after declaring a state of emergency and imposing a curfew. Blacks were twice as likely as Whites to say involving the National Guard only made matters worse.

Only a quarter of Blacks nationally are satisfied with Gov. Nixon’s actions, while nearly half said Nixon’s performance in the aftermath of the shooting was unsatisfactory. In contrast, Whites were divided: A third were satisfied and a third dissatisfied

Not surprisingly, Blacks, Obama’s most loyal bloc, continue to back him by large margins.

Sixty percent of African Americans said they were satisfied with the president’s actions; 20 percent said they were dissatisfied. Whites were split, with 35 percent in support of President Obama and 39 percent dissatisfied.

The New York Times poll showed that 10 percent of those surveyed thought race relations have improved since Obama has been in office, 52 percent felt they are about the same as before and 35 percent said race relations have gotten worse under Obama. Of those saying things had gotten worse, 40 percent were White and 21 percent were African American.

There are many independent markers that indicate, in general, that race relations have improved over the last half century, including attitudes toward interracial marriages. Amid such progress, however, there is undeniable evidence that Blacks and Whites look at racially-tinged events from a different perspective.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 80 percent of African Americans say the shooting in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson raises important issues about race that merit discussion. By contrast, only 37 percent of Whites – less than half the ratio of Blacks – feel that way. In addition, among Whites, 47 percent feel race is getting more attention than it deserves in the Michael Brown case. But only 18 percent of Blacks share that view.

According to the poll, 65 percent of Blacks feel police have gone too far in reacting to Michael Brown’s death and 20 percent feel the response was about right. Again, Whites had a different reaction, with 33 percent saying police had gone too far and a roughly equal proportion, 32 percent saying authorities had acted properly.

More than half of all African Americans – 54 percent – reported they were following events in Ferguson very closely. Less than half of Whites –25 percent – and Latinos – 18 percent – said they were closely following the events in Missouri.

There was a political divide as well, with 68 percent of Democrats feeling the Michael Brown case raises important issues while only 22 percent of Republicans contending it raises racial issues that need to be discussed. Also, 61 percent of Republicans say the issue of race has gotten too much attention in the case; only 21 percent of Democrats support that view.

The 1996 murder trial of O.J. Simpson exposed this raw divide. A CNN/USA Today Poll showed that 62 percent of African-Americans supported the jury’s decision to acquit the former football star. However, only 20 percent of Whites agreed with the jury. There was a similar split in polls taken during Hank Aaron’s campaign to break Babe Ruth’s all-time home run record and Barry Bond overtaking Aaron.

Even on a supposedly race-neutral issue such as federal aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina, racial views were split. According to a CNN/USA Today poll, six in 10 African Americans said the federal government was slow to rescue residents of New Orleans because many of them were Black. However, only one in eight Whites concurred.

How can we narrow the racial divide when we can’t even agree if there is one?

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA.) He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook.

Democrats' Smart Butt White Boys Syndrome

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) In 1984, former UN Ambassador Andrew Young described the inner circle of Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale as “smart a– White boys” who thought they knew everything.  Obviously, they didn’t because Mondale lost the general election by a large margin to Ronald Reagan.

Knowing that in a president’s second-term, the party in power usually loses 29 House seats, along with the real possibility of Democrats losing control of the Senate this year, some party leaders are trying to give the appearance they are in control and Democrats will buck that historical voting trend.

In an interview with a group of African American reporters last week, for example, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,  described how much better positioned Democrats are this year compared to past off-year elections. He spoke of the DCCC hiring a diversity director for the first time, adding a national voter training director, creating an Internet platform for vendors of color and allowing resumes to be dropped off in the field.

In other words, he talked about the kind of things smart butt White boys talk about. My fear is that another group of smart butt White boys will lead Democrats down the path of defeat unless the strategists reverse course.

The upcoming mid-term election may be yet another example of Black voters never getting the credit they deserve winning seats for the party but getting an overabundance of blame when Democrats get their heads handed to them.

The Washington Post, carried a story under the headline, “Will black voters be House Democrats’ midterm firewall?” In the story, Israel noted that in 15 of the top 25 districts being targeted by the DCCC, Blacks make up at least 10 percent of the voting-age population, enough to provide the margin of victory.

“We have a unique challenge in offsetting drop off with African American voters, with Hispanic voters, and with young female voters,” Israel said. “So we’re tackling those challenges head on.”

In the meeting with reporters, Israel mentioned efforts from getting commercials cut by First Lady Michelle Obama to getting Black voters to sign cards committing them to vote in November. As Election Day nears, those cards will be mailed back to prospective voters, hoping that action will get them to turn up at the polls.

The most troubling aspect of the exchange with Israel was that he appears to be putting more faith in such long-shot gimmicks as voter commitment cards than reaching the Black community through the Black Press.

In fact, when pressed on the issue of utilizing Black media,  Israel said while there may be some Black media buys, “The vast majority of our budget is spent on one thing – that is buying television time. That’s it.”

That may be “it” for Democrats in November if they think the best way to reach Black voters is to lump them in with everyone else who watches TV. Even if television reaches more Black voters than Black newspapers, radio stations, magazines and Internet sites, it is not as trusted by African Americans as the Black Press.

As a Nielsen study found, “Companies mistakenly believe there are no language barriers, that a general market ‘one-size-fits-all’ strategy is an effective way to reach African-Americans. Just the opposite is true.”

If smart butt White boys are as smart as they think, they would recognize that in the Black community, the messenger is as important as the message. And that is not limited to the Black Press. It also applies to the largely White-controlled 527 organizations established in recent elections that acted as though they knew more about our community than grass root organizations that are on the ground every day, yet continue to struggle for funding.

Democrats face another hurdle – 67 percent of the Democratic base does not know there is a mid-term election in November, according to polling done for the DCCC by Cornel Belcher, an African American.

In addition, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in July found: “Currently, 45% of registered voters who plan to support the Republican in their district say they are more enthusiastic about voting than in prior congressional elections; that compares with 37% of those who plan to vote for the Democratic candidate.”

Democrats need to give Blacks something to vote for rather than overly relying Republican calls for impeachment to motivate the Black base.

According to an analysis of the Black vote by the Associated Press, African Americans voted at a higher rate than Whites in 2008 and 2012. Obviously, having Barack Obama’s name on the ballot was a key factor.

Blacks can vote at high levels again in 2014 if they understand the success or failure Obama’s last two years in office will be determined by who gets elected in November. But if Democrats stubbornly stick to relying on television to reach Black voters, they will lose in 2014 just as smart butt White boys lost 30 years ago.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA.) He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook.

The Politics of Federal Judges

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) The two conflicting appeals court rulings last week on the legality of a key provision of the Affordable Care Act – one supporting it and the other rejecting the health law – underscore the nexus between politics and the judiciary. All of the judges voting to uphold the ACA were appointed by Democrats. All of the judges voting to strike down the law were appointed by Republicans.

We’ve seen this scenario played out at the U.S. Supreme Court, with most controversial rulings decided on a 5-4 vote, with conservatives clinging to a one-vote margin. But the most important appointments might be those of federal appeals court judges, the last stop before a case reaches the Supreme Court.

Approximately 10,000 cases are appealed to the Supreme Court each year. Of those, only 75-80 are accepted. Therefore, many important decisions are made in cases that never reach the  Supreme Court.

Separate appeals court rulings on a key provision of the Affordable Care Act on July 22 vividly illustrate the why looking are lower court judges is extremely important.

At issue was whether the federal government could provide subsidies to low- and middle-income citizens in the form of tax credits to purchase insurance coverage on the insurance marketplace operated by federal authorities.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said no, with two Republican judges voting against the subsidies and the lone Democrat voting to uphold the provision.  In the majority were Thomas Griffith, appointed by George W. Bush, and Raymond Randolph, an appointee of H.W. Bush.  Dissenting was Harry T. Edwards, a Jimmy Carter nominee.

Hours later, a three-judge panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, all appointed by Democrats, ruled that the Internal Revenue Service correctly interpreted the law when it issued regulations allowing health insurance tax credits for consumers in all 50 states. Judges Andre Davis and Stephanie Thacker were appointed by Obama and Roger Gregory was originally appointed Bill Clinton.

Over the years, the 4th Circuit was considered a bastion of conservatism.  With six appointments since he has been in office – and a seventh pending – President Obama has been able to flip the court’s majority from Republican to Democratic appointees.

This discussion of appeals court is not intended to minimize the importance of Supreme Court justices. In all likelihood, the next president will make one or two appointments that will determine whether the High Court continues to drift to the right or return to the center.

That’s why it’s so important that African Americans again turn out in record numbers for the presidential election in 2016. This November should be a trial run for mobilizing the Black vote without Barack Obama’s name appearing on the ballot

Federal judges have lifetime appointments. And nyone who asserts that a judge’s politics doesn’t impact his or her rulings is living in a make-believe world.

In a study titled “Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation,” published in the Virginia Law Review, the authors  (Cass R. Sunstein, David Schkade, and Lisa Michelle Ellman)  studied 4,400 legal opinions involving politically sensitive issues and discovered that appeals judges –  as they did recently in the case of the Affordable Care Act –

usually decide cases in keeping with the political philosophy of the president who appointed them to the bench.

“From 1980 through 2002, Republican appointees cast 267 total votes, with 127, or 48 percent, in favor of upholding an affirmative-action policy. By contrast, Democratic appointees cast 198 votes, with 147, or 74 percent, in favor of upholding an affirmative-action policy. Here we find striking evidence of ideological voting,” the study found.

An analysis of George W. Bush’s judicial appointments by Robert Carp, Kenneth Manning L. and Ronald Slidham discovered, “Reagan found a good many conservatives on the bench when he took office. Thus he has had a major role in shaping the entire federal judiciary in his own conservative image for some time to come.”

But as bad as Reagan was, George W. Bush appointed judges who were even more conservative.

Carp told reporters, “Our findings are significant because the general consensus is that President Reagan is the most modern conservative president on record, and yet the judges appointed by George W. Bush are even more conservative than the Reagan judges.”

The Virginia Law Review article concluded: “No reasonable person seriously doubts that ideology, understood as normative commitments of various sorts, helps to explain judicial votes. Presidents are entirely aware of this point, and their appointment decisions are undertaken with full appreciation of it.”

So when someone tells you that the political affiliation of the president appointing judges doesn’t matter or when a president claims to be appointing judges who interpret the law and not legislate from the bench, don’t believe them.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA.) He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook.

A Victory for Affirmative Action

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) Almost lost among the news last week about the war in the Middle East and a war of another kind in Washington between Republicans and President Obama was a bit of good news:  A federal appeals court, acting on a case remanded by the Supreme Court, upheld the University of Texas’ modest affirmative action program.

Celebration of the victory is expected to be short lived because it is certain that the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last summer, will take the case up again, this time ruling directly on whether the university’s carefully crafted affirmative action program is constitutional.

Unlike the court’s last affirmative action ruling involving Michigan – which had less to do with the merits of affirmative action and was more about whether a state ballot initiative could be used to ban affirmative action – the Texas case goes to the heart of affirmative action.

The lawuit was brought by Abigail Fisher, a White applicant who was turned down for admission to the University of Texas at Austin, the state’s flagship university, in the fall of 2008. Texas operates a Top Ten Percent Plan, which grants automatic admission to state universities to students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.  The year Fisher applied, 81 percent of the university’s admission slots was filled in that manner.

The remaining openings were filled through what the university calls a holistic review program, which looks at such factors as demonstrated leadership qualities, extracurricular activities, honors, awards, essays, work experience, socioeconomic status, family composition, family responsibilities, the applicant’s high school and race. No numbers were assigned to any of those categories.

Fisher did not finish in the top 10 percent of her class, forcing her to compete with 17,131 other applicants for the remaining 1,216 seats for Texas residents. Given the number of Top Ten Percent students accepted to the University of Texas, even if Fisher had been perfect in her holistic review, school officials said, “..she could not have received an offer of admissions to the Fall 2008 freshman class. If she had been a minority, the result would have been the same.”

Of all of the factors admissions counselors examined, such as essays and awards, Fisher chose to blame her failure to gain admission strictly on race.

Like a string of Whites challenging affirmative action, she filed suit claiming the consideration of race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution, a provision that was first adopted to protect former slaves from Southern lawmakers. It states that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As the University of Texas noted, the holistic review was created to give students an individualized review during the admissions process.

“Close scrutiny of the data in this record confirms that holistic review – what little remains after over 80% of the class is admitted on class rank alone – does not , as claimed, function as an open gate to boost minority headcount for a racial quota. Far from it,” the appeals court stated. “The increasingly fierce competition for the decreasing number of seats available for Texas students outside the top ten percent results in minority students being under-represented – and white students being over represented – in holistic review admissions relative to the program’s impact on each incoming class.”

For example, the court noted, “Of the incoming class of 2008, the year Fisher applied for admission, holistic review contributed 19% of the class of Texas students as a whole – but only 12% of the Hispanic students and 16% of the black students, while contributing 24% of the white students.”

In 2003, the Supreme Court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in a case involving the University of Michigan Law School. The court’s 5-4 majority accepted the assertion that diversity is essential to the educational mission of universities, but required a standard of “strict scrutiny” be applied, requiring that remedies be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of a diverse student body.

The University of Texas, following a long, documented history of racial animus, complied with that narrow Supreme Court standard and the Fifth Circuit originally sanctioned those efforts. The decision was appealed and the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court. Now, for the second time since 2011, the 5th Circuit judges have stated unequivocally that UT is operating a lawful affirmative action program.

That was evident to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone dissenter in the 7-1 decision to send the Texas cases back to the 5th Circuit . She said, “…Like so many educational institutions across the Nation, the University has taken care to follow the model approved by the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger.”

But this conservative-dominated Supreme Court will probably visit this case yet again, trying to find a way to chip away at one of its own rulings.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA.) He is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. Curry can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com. You can also follow him at www.twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook
.

Page 1 of 36

Quantcast

BVN National News Wire