Opinion / Editorial (34)
Back in early August, one observer remarked that July had been Willard Mitt Romney's "worst month ever." Not so.
The GOP presidential nominee then went off to Europe to prove that he was a foreign affairs heavyweight, by his conduct on the world stage. The former leader of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics then proceeded to insult England, this country's closest ally, by predicting lax security might tarnish the outcome of the 2012 London Olympic Summer Games. Both the British Prime Minister and the Mayor of London gave their guest a tongue lashing to his face.
Romney then proceeded to Israel, where – while trying to patronize Israelis in order to curry potential favor with Jewish voters back home – he insulted the Palestinian people by declaring that superior Jewish culture, and not billions of dollars worth of foreign and military aid, billions more in guaranteed loans which will never have to be repaid, along with even more billions in contributions from Jewish Americans, is why Israelis are wealthy and why their lazy Arab neighbors are not so wealthy.
From there he hastened on to Poland, where one of his aides managed to insult the Poles. In his three overseas stops, the Romney campaign managed three major league gaffes. So much for Mitt's non-existent foreign policy gravitas.
Then, the candidate named as his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan [R-Wis.], a staunchly conservative so-called "deficit hawk," who proceeded to give the campaign a couple of black eyes after a succession of untruthful statements, including one whopper in which he claimed to have run a world-class sub-three hour marathon. His actual best recorded time was more than four hours.
Then, in late August, the Republican National Convention met in Tampa, Fla., and it was lackluster. The Romney campaign got absolutely no post-convention "bounce," or improved ratings after the convention. In fact, First Lady Michelle Obama's speech to the Democratic National Convention the following week got more repeat viewers according to an online tracking service, than all the Republican speakers combined.
Following that convention, President Barack Obama got a healthy 5 percent bounce in most national opinion polls, as well as healthy leads in key Electoral College "battleground" states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan, which the Republican nominee must win, if he is to become the next president.
And then, and then, Romney took his foot out of his mouth and promptly began to walk on his own tongue when the infamous "47 percent" video was released, wherein Romney declared to a group of wealthy donors who paid $50,000 each to dine with him that 47 percent of the U.S. population, "are with [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them." Talk about someone who resembles Thurston Howell III, the millionaire on TV's "Gilligan's Island."
And even though Romney said himself that his point in that video had not been "elegantly stated," and although his running mate upbraided his boss, calling the statement a "misstep," there are still some Republicans who denounce the president's re-election campaign for waging what the GOP calls "class warfare."
But what beats the band in all of this is that the lifeless Romney campaign is still given a "puncher's chance" of throwing a lucky punch and knocking out the incumbent, who has so far committed no unforced errors such as Romney has done.
In this contest, former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is as a zombie, unable to be killed, because like a vampire, his campaign is already dead. As in mythology, the only way to permanently dispose of a vampire is to drive a wooden stake through his heart.
So now, the presidential debates are Mitt's last, best hope for overtaking President Obama's otherwise seemingly insurmountable lead.
Yet if Gov. Romney is held accountable for only revealing two years worth of tax returns, for example, will his support erode even further?
In the tax returns he's released his vulture capitalistic ways have been revealed, such as only divesting stock in a Chinese government oil company, and other Chinese properties just last year, while he scolds the president – all of whose investments are in U.S. Treasury Bonds and domestic American companies – for not getting tough enough with China over trade policy.
On top of all his other numerous and readily apparent flaws, Gov. Romney is also clearly a hypocrite who will say anything to knock out the president.
A hypocritical vampire, I might add, who will only go away on Dec. 9 – not Nov. 6 Election Day – the day the Electoral College officially chooses the winner of the 2012 presidential race. On second thought, we might have to wait until Jan. 20, 2013, Inauguration Day, to know that a wooden stake has in fact been driven through the heart of the un-dead, vampire presidential campaign of Willard Thurston Howell Mitt Romney, the millionaire.
Those of us in the business of maximizing opportunities for Black-owned businesses have become accustomed to acronyms... MWBEs, HUBZones, 8(a), DBE, and so on. I could probably fill a page if I worked really hard at it. Remembering all of them and their meanings demands that we slow down and make sure they're not just shorthand for continued shortchanging of the businessmen and women we work so hard for.
One highlight of the U.S. Black Chamber, Inc.'s (USBC) recently completed School of Chamber Management (SCM) was the signing of an MOU – Memorandum of Understanding – between our organization and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). According to Deputy Administrator Marie Johns, the goal of the document is to improve Black business owners' access to loan programs and other access to capital initiatives; government contracting programs such as the 8(a) program and the Women-Owned Small Business Program; and ensure availability of up-to-date information and access to SBA's extensive resource partner network. That sounds good, and if we're able to achieve these goals, we'll have done something that's not been done before.
What goes unsaid, however, is what this latest "treaty" between Black business and the U.S. government means to us. It means that we have a pact that guarantees that our government will listen to us, and our perspectives, while working diligently to align federal policies with the realities of the marketplace. It means that the SBA understands that a "one-size fits all" approach to meaningful inclusion in government procurement and resource allocation has not, does not and will not work.
It means, too, that the SBA believes that our approach to our mission – our 5 Pillars of Service – Advocacy, Access to Capital, Contracting, Entrepreneur Training, and Chamber Development – reflects our commitment to this critical work. It means that it's easy to see that what we're asking is "... not a hand-out, but a hand up!"
It means that we recognize change is hard, but we remain encouraged. Over the last three years, SBA has provided small businesses owners and entrepreneurs with the tools they need to not only survive, but thrive in tough economic times. We realize that through approved lenders the SBA has guaranteed more than $80 billion in loans to more than 150,000 businesses and worked to bring 1,000 community banks back to SBA lending.
If you're reading this, it means that you've accepted your own responsibility for helping to make this ongoing relationship work. Wherever you are – North, South, East or West – seek out your local SBA office and put them to work. If you're serious about doing all you can to make your business competitive, you'll find that your local Small Business Development Center or other SBA service provider is committed to aligning you with the resources needed to grow your enterprise.
We'll keep pushing too! Our service on the SBA's Council on Underserved Communities (CUC) gives us ready access to thought leaders and on-the-ground experts from across the country who all have their own reasons for helping the SBA be more responsive to ALL small businesses. The USBC and the SBA both recognize that any success earned as a result of this new partnership will be because we both realize it's a two-way street.
We've done our part – now it's time for you to do yours. Understand?
Ron Busby, Sr. is the President of the U.S. Black Chamber, Inc.
Carlos Amador emigrated with his family from Mexico in 1999 at age 14. He lived in the United States as an undocumented immigrant for almost 13 years until he recently received conditional permanent residency. Higher education for someone like him seemed like an impossible dream when Carlos finished high school. But he was determined to make it happen. As he pursued his undergraduate degree, he would go straight from working alongside his parents cleaning houses in upscale Southern California neighborhoods to his classes, never giving up. Carlos now holds his master's degree in social welfare from the University of California-Los Angeles. All along the way he has been a leader in the undocumented immigrant youth movement and one of its most outspoken voices for change. Today, Carlos is both the project coordinator of the Dream Resource Center at UCLA and one of the co-chairs of the board of the United We Dream Network, the largest national network of immigrant youths.
The courageous self-declared "Undocumented and Unafraid" students in the United We Dream Network risk deportation as they organize and speak out tirelessly so they and others can have the right to a college education and to live and work with dignity in the country that is their home. Their efforts led to a major victory with the Obama administration's June announcement that it would stop deporting young undocumented immigrants age 30 or younger without criminal records who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years, and are students, high school graduates, or military veterans in good standing.
Catherine Eusebio, who spoke alongside Carlos, repeated that determination. She came to the United States from the Philippines with her family when she was 4 years old. Today, Catherine is a graduate of the University of California-Berkeley with a degree in political science.
Five years ago as a high school senior desperate to go on to college, she suddenly became aware that she had spent her childhood growing up in California devoted to studying hard and doing well in school but that didn't matter to many adults in power: "This was in 2007 when the Congress was taking up immigration reform, and so I saw this contrast: I worked really, really hard to get to where I am so I could go to college, and then Congress is saying that these people don't belong here, that they're illegal, that we should deport them . . . I didn't understand, as someone who was very young, and suddenly being accused or made to feel like I didn't belong in America . . ."
Carlos and Catherine and their youth network participants inspired us all. They and the students they work with are a testimony to the difference one person can make, no matter how young or old. The members of the United We Dream Network have never had the right to vote. However many political people who are afraid of the enormous potential power of young people of all backgrounds who do have the right to vote have made young people one of their targets in voter suppression efforts that threaten voting rights and democratic processes across our country. States are adding new photo ID and residency laws and laws restricting early voting and pre-registration that all make it harder for young people to vote—including college students who may carry college IDs that are no longer allowed, or who may need to vote in the state where they attend school but are not considered "residents" under new restrictions, or in their home state on a day other than Election Day.
We can't allow these negative undemocratic efforts to succeed. Young people and all of us need to speak out loudly against voter suppression in every form. Young people also can help with voter registration, get out the vote campaigns, poll watching, and other parts of the electoral process. They and all of us must be committed to using the power we have and never let hurdles and negative policies passively shape our lives. Like Carlos and Catherine and all their courageous Dream partners, we too can and must be agents of change.
Marian Wright Edelman is president of the Children's Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.
D.C. Delegates Continue to Fight
Great to see our delegates to the National Democratic Convention still pushing for D.C. Statehood for citizens of the District of Columbia ["D.C. Delegates Push Agenda despite DNC Snub" September 6, 2012].
As we all know the District is changing, and with the influx of new residents, I have a strange feeling that our fight will soon be won. Congress and the powers that be can no longer use the excuse that the District is a majority one party, which I believe is a code for majority black, and therefore did not deserve to have status as a state because it would add an additional Democratic senator.
Hopefully, our new residents will join the fight for full citizenship and help to put pressure on Congress for Statehood for the District of Columbia no matter what their party affiliation. Hopefully, Statehood is as important to our new residents as it has been to those of us who have been fighting this battle for years.
Kenneth Davis
Washington, D.C.
HIV/AIDS Doesn't Discriminate
That was a great article written by Freddie Allen in your September 6th issue, "Straight Black Men Ignored in AIDS Initiatives." The most dramatic statement to me in the article was the one you highlighted by Dwayne Morrow, "What we don't want 10 years from now, if there is still an HIV/AIDS epidemic, we don't want to find heterosexual Black men facing the same epidemic that White gay men were in the '80s."
If you know anything about the AIDS epidemic, that statement can be so real. I have heard some people say the media is now trying to make AIDS a black disease, or they are inflating the numbers to spread panic in the black community, or they are saying these things to make black churches look bad. All that stuff is just talk, the real issue is that AIDS is a disease, and if you are not informed, educated and careful you can be infected regardless of your gender or race.
Raymond Stevens
Alexandria, Va.
Fathers Make the Difference in Children's Lives
The front-page photograph on your August 30, 2012 issue, of Ward 5 Council member Kenyan McDuffie walking his daughters to school on opening day was one of the best photographs I've seen in your paper in some time.
My reason for saying this is that it brought back so many memories of when my daughters were young and I would walk them to school. As a single parent, I took a very active and supportive role in the education of my daughters. I believe parents, especially the fathers, should be very visible in the educational process of their children.
When fathers are involved everyone seems to be more attentive – the administration, the teachers and the students. I will never forget the look in my daughters' eyes when I would help out in their classrooms doing whatever the teacher asked me to do. It showed them that what they do everyday is important and that their father would take a day off from work to be involved in what they do. My daughters are both college graduates and I hope that when they have children of their own, they will be involved in their children's education like I was with theirs.
Robert Bailey
Washington, D.C.
Lessons Learned from Art
Kudos to the Washington Informer for your insightful story on Willard Wigan. The story by Barrington Salmon published in your August 30 edition was a truly wonderful read.
While Wigan is not a household name in this part of the world, his work appears to be extraordinary. Our children could learn a lot from his victory over the odds and his unwillingness to fall victim to ignorance and racism. I'm sorry I missed the opening at the Parish Gallery but I'll be sure to visit the exhibit before it leaves the District.
Robert Mallory
Hyattsville, Md.
The 2012 political season is in full throttle toward the November 6h national elections. The Democrats and the Republicans have determined their respective national standard bearers and delineated their issue platforms and public policy agenda and priorities. Black Americans, Latino Americans, and millions of other Americans who are eligible and registered to vote will determine not only the future of the United States for the next four years, but also the future of America's standing in the world community.
Obama-Biden verses Romney-Ryan will be the ultimate political contest between the forces of progress and the forces of backwardness. But even amid the multitude of negative radio and television ads that attempt to attack the character and integrity of candidates for high office and service to the nation, caution should be put in place to avoid being turned-off or cynically alienated from the important civic and moral responsibility to stand up, speak out and vote.
In particular, I am appealing to Black Americans and others of good will and judgment to not fall prey to the revived campaigns of voter suppression in many of the crucial swing states. We need a record Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) effort across the nation. There are some mischief-makers who are trying to suggest that Black Americans should not be enthusiastic about voting in 2012 because of the persistence of poverty and unemployment, as well as the disproportionate incarceration in our communities. These real matters, however, are exactly why we should have the highest voter turnout ever.
There is another matter that I feel obligated to lift up at this time and it is the issue of the steady rise in both overt and covert acts, rhetorical statements, and other schemes where the tenets of White supremacy are being openly practiced and advocated to the detriment of Black Americans and others who believe in a pluralistic, racially-diverse democracy. For those of us who have personally witnessed reactionary behavior in response to the long struggle of Black Americans for freedom, justice and equality, this is nothing new. A politrick is a deceptive political tactic that attempts to use positive discourse, phrases or rhetoric to hide the negative intent and consequences of extremist ideological actions.
In 2012 the politricks of racial hatred, division and obfuscation continues to escalate into a counterproductive manifestation of what I call the 'politricks of White supremacy.' In Ohio, state election officials publicly bemoan what they feel is a "contortion of the voting process to accommodate urban voters." That's a politrick to try to justify the suppression of Black American voters and other who are concentrated in the urban centers of Ohio.
When Vice President Biden accurately stated in Virginia: "They want to put y'all back in chains," Republican politicians cried and wept profusely in another glaring politrick maneuver. In Iowa, Hank Williams Jr. sang at the state fair and said to more than 8,000 people, "We've got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S., and we hate him." Williams displayed the politricks of White supremacy to the cheers of the crowd at the fair.
Extremism is on the rise once again across America and sometimes it takes a very violent form such as the Oak Creek suburban community near Milwaukee, where self-avowed White supremacist Wade Michael Page, attacked a peaceful people in a Sikh Temple and killed six of the 10 people that he shot. Thus, this is not just about political campaigns or the tricky tongues of wealthy politicians. This is about life, safety and not being intimidated by those who are determined to retrogress into a society based on inequality, injustice, and racial and political hatred.
We have come too far and already suffered too much to contemplate any notion of going backwards. We will not allow the politricks of the present moment to divert us off course. Nor will allow our consciousness to be dulled by the attempts of the perpetrators of injustice and economic inequality to make some of us believe that the social conditions of Black Americans and others are in a permanent, irreversible state. Change has happened and more change will happen again. Our job and responsibility is to stay focused and keep our eyes and minds on the realizable prize of empowerment, equality and equity. Forward ever, backwards never!
Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. is president of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network and Education Online Services Corporation. He also serves as senior adviser for the Diamond Empowerment Fund and National Director of Occupy the Dream and can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Regular readers of this column know that I am a "born again" baseball fan. I grew up on baseball in New York but lost interest during my teen years. In 2000, I reconnected with baseball through a reintroduction, of sorts, to the work of the late, great Curt Flood, the St. Louis Cardinals outfielder who took on Major League Baseball over their system of indentured servitude called "the reserve clause."
As a resident of the Washington, D.C.-area, I was excited when Major League Baseball returned to the District. Even though I grew up on the NY Mets and remain a Mets fan, I adopted the Washington Nationals as my second team. While the Nationals remain my second team, and as much as I love attending baseball games, I find myself increasingly uneasy with the culture of the games and the atmosphere that is created.
First, Nationals Park is located in an area that has been fundamentally redeveloped, right next to the Anacostia River. It is an impressive but strange social island in the District of Columbia. At game time, masses of White people swarm into the area and into the stadium. Buses drop off loads of people, more than likely traveling from the suburbs. And then, just as quickly, after the game they are gone except those staying around to drink and party.
Second, there is very little that takes place during the games that acknowledges Black people. Don't get me wrong. There are the mandated "Jackie Robinson Day" events that celebrate the desegregation of Major League Baseball. And there are certainly Black people working there, at least at the ticket counters, food service and as ushers. But when you look up at the screens during the breaks between the innings, you rarely see anything that has to do with us. Here's an example. There is an employee of the team who travels around the stadium with a camera team to film human interest moments. There is a contest that he has with three randomly chosen individuals who are all supposed to perform in one way or the other and gain the applause of the crowd, i.e., whoever is the most impressive gets the loudest applause and, therefore, wins. In the years that I have attended Nationals games I can probably count on two hands the number of times that I have seen a Black contestant. Additionally, when the camera focuses on people in the stadium, you rarely see one of us of color.
Another example: The players. The focus of the media is largely on the White players. Consequently, the heroes inevitably are the White players, be they Ryan Zimmerman or Stephen Strasburg, or another Caucasian. Again, don't get me wrong. I think that these guys are outstanding players but there is something about the way that they have been worshiped by Washington, D.C. Nationals media and fans that makes me uneasy. There are plenty of reasons to celebrate these players but what about African American and Latino players?
All of this unfolds in what, at least for the moment, remains a predominantly African American city. Nevertheless, at a Nationals' game it is easy to feel invisible.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, the co-author of Solidarity Divided, and the author of "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty other myths about unions. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
You may have missed this in the news but over the last several months the West African nation of Mali has been unraveling. There is very little attention in the mainstream media and the situation seems to move from bad to worse to insane.
The gist of the situation is that a revolt broke out in the northern part of Mali among the ethnic group known as the Touareg or Azawad. They are a Berber people who live in the Saharan region of Africa. There has been a long-standing ethnic tension in Mali (going back to when Mali became independent of France) and in the aftermath of the overthrow of Col. Qaddafi in Libya, guns began flowing very freely into northern Mali. The government of Mali attempted to stop the rebellion, but suffered a series of military defeats. This, ultimately, led to a military coup against the government of Mali. In the aftermath of ths coup, the country has, in effect, become a divided land with the northern part in the hands of various rebel groups and the southern part under a military dictatorship.
The fact that the rebellion has resulted in various rebel groups operating in the northern part of Mali–rather than a unified movement–set the stage for chaos and a retreat into Muslim fundamentalist irrationalism on the part of some of the forces. For instance, the historic city of Timbuktu has been occupied by fundamentalists who have proceeded, much like the Taliban did in Afghanistan in 2001, to destroy historic sites. Muslim burial grounds, for instance, that date back to the 14th century have been destroyed by these forces allegedly because they represent something contrary to Islam.
While some people will focus on the problem of Muslim fundamentalism in Mali, the major problems revolve around 1) the inability of states created as a result of European colonialism to survive in the current era without an economy that they control and that serves the needs of their people; 2) The lack of popular democracy, and 3) An inability and/or unwillingness to resolve long-standing ethnic issues. With regard to ethnic conflict, there is the specific problem faced by the Touareg. They are found not only in Mali but in several countries in that region. They have raised demands for national equality and national sovereignty. Yet, as with many other ethnic groups, these demands have largely been ignored by the dominant forces in the respective countries leading to slippage into ethnic strife and civil war.
Muslim fundamentalism of the irrationalist sort that we are witnessing in Mali is not only an embarrassment to Muslims, but a criminal enterprise destroying some of the most important historical features of Mali. Yet these forces did not pop out of nowhere. The Libyan revolution and the NATO intervention helped to unleash unintended consequences. It is also the case that some of these same forces have been created or backed by various governments in the region in order to serve as proxy armies to carry out their own objectives.
Mali must be saved and this will necessitate a dynamic role for the African Union, and perhaps the United Nations. It is not a role that should involve the U.S. military, however, which will certainly be the impulse of those forces that see Muslim fundamentalism as the main threat to humanity. Mali must be saved through negotiations and the active role of Mali's neighbors. It cannot be allowed to sink to the levels of another Somalia, a country broken and all but forgotten until yet another disaster unfolds.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, the co-author of Solidarity Divided and the author of the forthcoming "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty other myths about unions. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the cornerstone piece of legislation of the Obama administration. The court found the Obama administration and Congress were constitutionally within their rights but for the wrong reason.
The Obama administrations primary argument in supporting health care reform legislation was that Congress had the power to enact the ACA based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause stating Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." The Court held that the ACA was unconstitutional based upon the Commerce Clause but is constitutional based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, that states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties..."
Politically, the Obama administration argued that the individual mandate of the ACA – requiring everyone to obtain insurance or face a fine – was a penalty, not a tax. They downplayed the tax aspect of the law, even downplaying the word "tax" in the legislation itself. The administration did not want to fall into the conservative trap of being labeled a tax-and-spend liberal administration.
This court's decision provides an interesting conundrum for the administration and the opposition. The administration won in the Supreme Court, but can it now win in court of public opinion? Can the administration construct a narrative that explains to the American people that the ACA is a positive piece of legislation?
According to the Washington Post "A majority of Americans view... the changes enacted in President Obama's health care bill in an unfavorable light...in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 52 percent regard the 'federal law making changes in the health care system' in a negative light." If they don't construct a better narrative they could win the battle and lose the war.
Mitt Ronmey and his conservative cohorts have contributed to this public perception by basing their argument that the ACA was unconstitutional and an overreach by the administration. They argued that this is an intrusion by the government into the lives of average American citizens. They even engaged in the politics of deceit to bolster their arguments. For example, according to Fact Check.org House Republicans have sought "... to repeal what they call "Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law."
Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.
The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
This is a great victory for the Obama administration and the American people. Republican State Attorney Generals and Republican governors colluded with GOP members of Congress and other conservatives to challenge the Obama administration in the highest court in the land. It was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, who sided with more liberal justices and handed the administration the victory. President Obama went up against the entire Republican and conservative onslaught – and won.
It is imperative that the American people connect the dots. Sen. Minority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky) said more than two years ago that his primary objective was to see to it that Barack Obama is a one-term president. The Republicans refusal to work with the administration on "the people's business" has done this country a great disservice.
People need to ask themselves, "Where would this country be if Republicans had worked with President Obama by finding common ground instead of holding their ground for the sake of bigoted obstructionist political ideology?"
The administration won the health care battle in the court of law. Can they win in the court of public opinion?
Wilmer Leon is the producer/ host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon," and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University. Go to his Prescription @ Face Book.com He can be reached at www.wilmerleon.com or by email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . www.twitter.com/drwleon
Ai-Jen Poo, a powerful and passionate advocate for the rights of domestic workers, leads the National Domestic Workers Alliance. Who are these folks? They are the private household workers (maids) who propped up inept women in the movie, The Help. They are the home health aides who take care of our elders when they are ill or disabled, bringing them meals, bathing them, and accompanying them to medical appointments. They are the nannies that care for children when parents are working. In some ways, they are a backbone of our economy, and yet they often have neither voice nor money.
I was struck by the situation of domestic workers when I heard Ai-Jen at the National Council for Research on Women's annual conference. While some of us focus mostly on race, she is more likely to focus on class and the many ways that public policy is made from an extremely privileged perspective. The women who stitch together a living by working two and three domestic jobs certainly don't have the time to put their situation in context with public policy. And those who make public policy have only limited exposure to those who have to live it. Ai-Jen and the National Domestic Workers Alliance bridge that gap.
The organization started in 2007, and now has representation in more than 20 states. In New York, NDWA was instrumental in the passage of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that went into effect in November 2010. It requires that people who work in other people's homes for 40 hours a week or more (except for relatives and casual employees such as babysitters) must be paid the minimum wage, must receive overtime pay, vacation time, workers' compensation and disability benefits. One might assume that some of these benefits are already written into law, and in some ways they are. But domestic workers are more likely to be treated as casual workers than as professionals, and if they are working full-time, they must be treated as professionals.
Listening to Ai-Jen Poo was like a blast from the past for me. My early academic work focused on private household workers. Although the Minimum Wage Act was passed during the Depression, private household workers and farm workers were excluded form the legislation until 1974. Even then, the law had so many loopholes that few adhered to it. At the same time, failure to abide by the law has tanked many a nominee for a federal appointment. Judge Kimball Wood comes to mind as a capable jurist who was snagged by her failure to take Social Security taxes out of the wages of her full-time housekeeper.
Ai-Jen's presentation reminded me how little has changed for private household workers. There are employers who deduct from low wages if there is breakage in their homes. There are others that may deduct for meals. Without intervention, the majority of 2.5 million workers take care of our most precious assets, our children and our parents, without being paid fairly. They cook our food, and who wants someone who feels that they are being paid unfairly to cook their food? After all, even the private household workers in the pre-civil rights South weren't always benign.
In California, a piece of legislation that is similar to the New York bill is being considered. Indeed, Assembly Bill 889 passed the lower house of the California State legislature, but the California State Senate is dragging its heels. Indeed, some have so distorted the bill that they describe it as "the babysitter law," even though those who do not work full time are specifically excluded from the legislation. Those who oppose the bill talk about their free market rights, but have blinders on when it comes to the rights of others. Unfortunately, while women are the majority of private household workers, it is also women who are the majority of those who hire, and often exploit, them.
It is amazing how stuck the feminist movement has become around issues of women on the bottom. Twenty years ago there were passionate debates about housework pass along and the many ways that the women's movement could be mutually supportive along class lines. Now, though a passionate woman is fighting for domestic workers, she is not often joined by those who have greater voice, more power, and the ability to make a difference.
While domestic workers today are less likely to be African American than Latino, we in the African American community need to remember that the workplace has long been oppressive to those at the bottom. In speaking up for domestic workers, we speak up for our mothers and grandmothers, but also for ourselves, no matter what our economic status.
Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer. She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.
ADVERTISMENT
ADVERTISMENT