The False Premise of Suing Schools Over Affirmative Action

by Alan Eggleston

Conservatives oppose Affirmative Action under the premise that placing students in schools in favor of their race deprives White students of a place. They suggest that such favoritism deprives these White students of their rights. I suggest this is a false premise. Here is why.

One bedrock notion of Affirmative Action is that the students who have been given placement in favor of their race were originally deprived of their educational rights. In depriving them of their rights, an undue benefit was given to someone else who was given their seat, the White student. Showing the preference to the student of color didn’t deprive the White student of his her benefit, it removed the undue benefit, returning the benefit to the student of color.

We need to stop looking at affirmative action as relieving White students of a benefit. That simply isn’t the case. Because students of color have been discriminated against in assigning enrollment – either at college or earlier in their school experience where they didn’t get the benefit of a better education – because they were students of color, affirmative action seeks to relieve the injury of discrimination and, thus, the loss of due benefit in school enrollment. White students who miss out on enrollment because of it have not been denied a benefit because it was no more due them than it was denied them when other White students were enrolled in their place.

The cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court were poorly argued. The schools arguing on behalf of affirmative action allowed the opposing side to argue that White students were deprived of a right or a benefit. Until we come to the realization those White students were not entitled to enrollment simply because they were White in deference to the students of color and were not “robbed” of some inalienable right in the process, educational equality will never be won for the millions of students in America who are robbed of their rights simply because of the color of their skin.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions is now looking to prosecute universities and colleges that have enrolled students of color under Affirmative Action policies based on the idea that it discriminates against White students. White students are not suffering any such discrimination. Far from it. They have enjoyed a much better education at the expense of others through the very discrimination they decry they themselves have suffered. This is simply moronic posturing by the attorney general and the Trump Administration.

©2017 Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.


Frankly My Dear…

by Alan Eggleston

Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. You’ll remember those were the final words of Rhett Butler to Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind. They’re also my words to pundits as we exit the convention phase of the 2016 presidential election and they already speculate on who might be running for the presidency in 2020. Ted Cruz is one name.

Head in Hands

Photo: Wikipedia. Creative Commons license.

Can we get through the 2016 election first before we even think about who is lusting after the office in 2020? Can we give whoever wins the presidency in 2016 a chance to work on the promises they have made and will make before we give a stage to those who will condemn them for a 2020 run? Can we give American voters and those who watch our elections from the outside a breather, a chance to catch up on the other parts of their lives, before we launch breathlessly into the next media-induced horse race?

Your crystal ball and rumor mill tell you politicians are already queuing up to run in 2020. Fine. Keep it to yourself, because frankly, it doesn’t matter right now. Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.

(c) 2016. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.

What Is “Establishment”?

The question of what it means to be “establishment” has come up several times this primary election season. For Democrats and Republicans. For politicians and organizations. It makes perfect sense to ponder what it really means, because a lot rides on the answer.

When Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Organization expressed their support for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race, Bernie Sanders said they were part of the establishment. Planned Parenthood, HRO, and others recoiled at the remark, suggesting that somehow being organizations that offered services for the needy made them part of the fringe.

Bernie Sanders remarked during a recent debate that Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate, and Hillary Clinton countered that with more than 29 years in Congress no one was a better example of establishement politician than Bernie Sanders.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz battle it out over who is the most outsider candidate, neither one admitting to the status of establishment politician, and the same can be said for the candidate who placed third in the recent Iowa caucuses, Marco Rubio.

So what makes someone “establishment”? Is it just someone who works in Congress? Is it just someone who works with lobbyists to represent Washington, D.C. power political interests? I would suggest it is far more than that.

I would suggest that any organization that curries politicians and businesses and celebrities for funding – such as Planned Parenthood – is establishment. Any group that takes public stands on issues and sides with established politicians to move its agenda is establishment – such as Planned Parenthood.

Further, I would suggest that anyone who has been First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, rubbed elbows with Washington, D.C., power elite – indeed, the power elite of the world – to raise funds for the world’s most powerful foundation, and raised political fund from lobbyists and special interest groups who seek to shape public opinion and public policy but not necessarily for public good is establishment. Like Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, I would suggest that being on Congress for over 29 years is not in and of itself enough to make you an establishment candidate. Not when you spend your whole career fighting establishment power elite and establishment agenda. Not when you refuse to accept establishment funding for your campaign. Like Bernie Sanders.

Donald Trump may not be a member of the political machinery, but he has funded it and rubbed elbows with it for decades. As a very rich man, he has not only been a funder of campaigns but he has been influential in campaigns. And he has been influential in the growth and economy of many metropolitan areas. I would say that Donald Trumps is very establishment.

In the same way, Ted Cruz is a creature of the establishment, not just because he is a sitting U.S. Senator, but because he is a creature of political fundraising among the conservative money establishment. He was also a busybody in Congress fomenting revolution among the U.S. House members, vying for political power against the House leadership. Perhaps not as establishment as some members of the U.S. Senate, he remains beholding to his seat in the Senate and the religious right political movement for his power and to big money for his campaign, and that makes him establishment in my book.

These are just a few of the figures in today’s fluid political environment who we can look at in the question of what is “the establishment” and wonder who fits the moniker. There are few who don’t fit it today.

Christie Speaks Humanely About Addiction

by Alan Eggleston

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ)

Photo by Wikimedia under Creative Commons license.

There isn’t much that I agree with Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) on. But on the effects and the ineffectiveness of the treatment of drug addiction, we apparently agree. A talk Christie gave recently that was posted on the Huffington Post has now been viewed three million times. If you watch the video, you will see why — it is a very humane approach to the entire topic of addiction, be it to drugs, alcohol, or tobacco.

This is related to a topic I addressed in my article yesterday: We can agree to disagree on many things, but on those issues to which we agree, let’s find a way to take action.

I’m mildly addicted to chocolate. I once gave it up for a whole year and when I didn’t notice much of an effect, I tried a piece to see if I noticed a change. I was immediately hooked again. I had a devil of a time giving it up again. This, of course, is nothing like an addiction to heroin, crack cocaine, tobacco, or alcohol. But it gave me the tiniest inkling of what it might be like to be addicted to something truly strong.

My late father was addicted to tobacco — nicotine, actually. At the height of his addiction, he smoked a few packs of cigarettes a day, having started smoking when he joined the Army during World War II. When I was a boy, my father smoked incessantly. He smoked when he got up in the morning, he smoked after meals, he smoked when he drove, he smoked in the evening while watching television. He smoked at restaurants. I remember him smoking right next to me in the car, even when I asked him to stop because the smoke bothered me. I have asthma today because I was constantly within breathing distance of his second hand smoke. Although my father became angry whenever I brought up studies that showed that smoking was bad for his health, and just as much so when I told him that second hand smoke was bad for me, I know he didn’t smoke in my presence out of ill regard for me; it was because he was addicted to the nicotine and couldn’t stop. He was a denier of all the facts about smoking as a defense against his addiction.

We shouldn’t judge people who are addicted to substances, and that’s part of what Governor Christie is saying. We shouldn’t harshly incarcerate people because they deserve what they freely choose to do. Most people don’t choose to become addicted. Most are deniers. They refuse to believe that they themselves will become addicted — it will never happen to them; they’re too strong or they’re too young or they have better DNA. But then it does happen to them, and then it’s too late. We see it happen to people all the time. And try as they may, these people can’t overcome the addiction without help. It’s help they need, not our condemnation and not jail.

I watched my father try to kick his nicotine addiction multiple times. I’ve watched others try to kick it, multiple times, too. It took a stroke to help my father kick the nicotine habit, cold turkey.

The first step in helping others kick their habit, whatever it is, is to stop judging them for it. The second step is to get them help, not throw them in jail, where their habit will be reinforced and where jail time will make it impossible forever after to get a job, live a normal life, and kick the habit while contributing positively to society. And that’s really the other part of Christie’s message: The current method of dealing with drug addiction isn’t working.

There is evidence that people on the left and the right acknowledge that incarceration for drug (and other) addiction isn’t working. We need to find common ground and solve this the intelligent, humane way. Do it in a way that not only gets people off their addictions, but also makes it possible to live good, just, socially responsible lives. There are a lot of reasons people become addicted to the various substances.  Perhaps Governor Christie’s talk is a beginning to address all of it.

While I don’t agree with Christie on a lot, I apparently agree with him on this, and I applaud him for speaking out on this issue.

© 2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.

What If

by Alan Eggleston

Let’s play “What If” for a moment.

What if people aren’t as bad as we imagine them to be? For instance, what if red neck conservatives and white collar liberals aren’t the horrid beasts that each is sure the other is? Or what if all corporate CEOs and union bosses aren’t the corrupt leaders they are made out to be? Even, what if every billionaire campaign contributor and every community organizer isn’t the sleaze bag political partisans suppose them to be?

Shaking hands

Agreeing to disagree. Photo by Spot Us under Creative Commons license.

I’ve recently stopped reading Twitter as I watch the news and I’ve stopped watching as much political news as I used to. It’s partly an experiment and it’s partly out of being tired of getting tangled in the web of hate that is the partisan divide that the United States finds itself suffering through. And you know what? I find that I can look at people with less cynicism and with less suspicion while still using my critical thinking skills.

It’s not that I don’t question some of the things that NBC’s Chuck Todd says about Hillary Clinton while letting Republicans slide on lies or misinformation. But I don’t see everything he says as a partisan attack on Democrats. It isn’t that I don’t find Black Lives Matter organizers interrupting Democratic candidate events irritating. But I can see their point that talk is cheap and action means way more than talk, and challenging candidates at events does force their hands — it’s actually a smart tactic for a group that frankly needs action way more than words when their very lives are in danger every day in the everyday streets of America.

There are lots of things I can see more clearly when I don’t have people continually suggesting how bad “the other guys” are, when I’m not part of the tribe mentality that says it’s us versus them. As an American the us is all of us, not just “our” part of us.

The challenge is to get all the artificial tribes created by people with cynical agendas to break down the barriers long enough to come back together as one nation. Sure, we have differences of opinion. But we are all victims of the same phenomena. People who have axes to grind or power to broker or political positions to gain have divided us into tribes to benefit themselves. And until we can break down those tribes, we will continue to be at each others’ throats.

How do we stop being a nation with a deep partisan divide? We stop looking at everyone through our separate filters. We stop joining our tribes on social media. We stop focusing only on our tribal cable/satellite channels. We stop uniting around cynical visions of “the others.” It’s not going to happen overnight. It’s not going to happen without effort. But it’s certainly not going to happen without the recognition that it’s happening.

So, what if? What if we agree to disagree but still seek solutions based on what we can agree on? Wouldn’t that be something?

© 2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.

Where Ted Cruz Gets the Supreme Court Wrong

by Alan Eggleston

I watched presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz’s appearance last night on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (CBS). It was an even handed interview, friendly in tone but few of Cruz’s political assertions were left unchallenged. At one point the audience started to boo Cruz and Colbert kindly instructed them not to boo him, because Cruz was his guest.

2016 Presidential Candidate Senator Ted Cruz

Photo by Gage Skidmore on flickr under Creative Commons license.

Near the end of the interview Cruz lifted his puppy-dog eyes to the audience and the TV cameras as he is often want to do, and he complained without naming them that the Supreme Court are nine unelected lawyers who without justification write legislation into law with their decisions. That single erroneous assertion went unchallenged as Colbert ran out of time for the interview. But here’s where Ted Cruz and many other conservatives get that assertion wrong.

The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t write legislation or law. It interprets the merits of cases. It decides what is constitutional. And its members don’t need to be elected, the institution and its functions are provided for by Article III of the U.S. Constitution as originally written by the founding fathers. While the president alone decides who to appoint for the highest court in the land, they only sit on the bench with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, who are elected, and thus Supreme Court justices are in a sense “elected” by the representatives of the people. Moreover, it is Congress who decides how many justices will serve on the bench.

Thus, contrary to Ted Cruz’s assertion, the Supreme Court doesn’t pop in out of the clear blue sky to seize power. They are there because the founding fathers provided for them, the president appoints them, and the Congress approves them. Even if individual members of Congress like Ted Cruz may not vote for individual members.

Most justices of the Supreme Court are have law degrees, studying in the most prestigious law schools in our nation. The Constitution doesn’t set down any qualifications for justices as it does for president or members of Congress, but it does make sense that justices have a background in law since they must interpret and decide on the law.

While most of us will find some Supreme Court decision or other to disagree with over time, the founding fathers created the institution as part of its genius method of balance of power between the branches of government. Without the Supreme Court there would be continual war between the executive and legislative branches.

The cases that come before the Supreme Court vary in complexity and subject matter – some seem mundane and others are indeed controversial. But as the highest court of the land, and often the last court of appeal, they function as the court that settles the final question on matters of law and the constitutionality of law. That we sometimes don’t agree on their decisions should not be an indictment of the institution but on the law itself and how it is often used or abused by those in power – men like Ted Cruz, who seek to demonize American institutions to further their ambitions.

Ted Cruz got it wrong about the Supreme Court. They don’t try to legislate from the bench. Legislators write weak or erroneous laws in pursuit of egregious agendas and when the Supreme Court corrects them, those legislators blame the justices. I really wish that Stephen Colbert had corrected Cruz one more time.

A further point about the Supreme Court and how it is misused. Men like Ted Cruz who have an agenda often bring cases before the court in order to “enact law” through judicial activism, forcing the court to decide an issue the court itself would never have brought up itself. Again, this isn’t the court being activist, it’s those who bring the case to court being activists. Sometimes the case goes their way, sometimes it doesn’t.

Read More About the Supreme Court:

©2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.

An Answer for Kim Davis

by Alan Eggleston

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis is in a tight spot. She says she can’t issue any marriage licenses as her job demands because she doesn’t believe in same-sex marriages. When asked by whose authority she refuses to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Ms Davis replies, “God’s authority.”

I believe I have an answer for her dilemma.

The U.S. Supreme Court says that same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states. And the governor of Kentucky has ordered all county clerks in the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But that isn’t good enough for Ms Davis. She continues to feel that affixing her signature to a marriage license for same-sex couples implicates her in sin, and it’s a matter of heaven or hell for her.

Various courts have told Ms Davis that she must issue the licenses. Ms Davis appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they refused to hear the case. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) took Ms Davis to court, asking the court to fine her. Instead, the court jailed Ms Davis in contempt of court until she changes her mind, for at least a week.

Most people suggested that Ms Davis either give in and issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples — that is the job she is paid by taxpayers to do — or resign. She apparently would prefer to sit in jail.

But there is another way out for Ms Davis.

Ms Davis has been divorced three times and married four. When her detractors bring this up, Ms Davis and her supporters claim that she has since been saved by Jesus and cleansed of her sins. In essence, Ms Davis has become a Christian zealot. The problem with zealots is they become the mega faithful, self-righteous and unbending. (Jesus points out that when you divorce your husband and marry another you are an adulterer. Finding Jesus doesn’t change that if you stay with your new husband, by the way.)

But if you truly believe in the Gospel of Jesus, Kim Davis, consider Matthew 22: 15-22. That’s the scripture in which the Pharisees try to trip up Jesus by asking if the Jews should really pay a tax to the government. Jesus asks the Pharisees to see a coin that is paid in tax and they show him a Roman coin. He asks whose face is on the coin, and the Pharisees respond that it is Caesar’s. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” instructs Jesus, “but give to God what is God’s.”

In essence, Jesus is telling Ms Davis that she can meet her obligation to her government job issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples (giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s) while continuing to believe in her heart that same-sex marriages are wrong (giving to God what is God’s), thus not personally being a party to what she sees as wrong. That, according to her Bible, is the authority that God gives.

Kim Davis isn’t the only conservative Kentucky country clerk having trouble with the idea of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for religious reasons. They should all remember to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s while feeling safe in giving to God what is God’s in their hearts.

© 2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.

We Should Support Ricky Martin’s Call to Arms Among Latinos

by Alan Eggleston

On August 26, 2015, singer Ricky Martin wrote an op-ed piece on Fusion calling on all Latinos to unite against Donald Trump for his attack on the Latino community. It’s important for a couple of reasons.

Did you know that anyone born in Puerto Rico, like Ricky Martin, is a U.S. citizen?

First, Martin is the voice of a person of high standing in both the Latino community and in the rest America who is taking a stand.

Second, it is someone from the Latino community voicing what most Latinos, Hispanics, Mexicans, Chicanos, and many other immigrant communities are very likely feeling, giving voice to an otherwise silent but likely frustrated group. It’s time they finally raised their voices, and Martin is stirring their souls.

Donald Trump and other Republicans have been using immigrants as a political piñata for a long time. They raise immigration reform as an issue but never do anything about it. They rail against the abuse of the system by immigrants, but never actually try to reform the system. Those left feeling the brunt of the complaints are the immigrants — all immigrants, documented and undocumented. It has been a prolonged and sustained assault for purely political purposes.

Now Trump is rising in the polls as we head into the presidential primary season mostly on the volume of his anti-immigrant rhetoric, stirring up resentment and hatred among his base. Some of his fans are even taking action against people they assume are undocumented immigrants based on that soaring rhetoric.

So it is good that Ricky Martin has stepped up to say something, to engage the Latino community to defend themselves, because it won’t get any better for them over the next year if they don’t. And other immigrant communities – other ethnic communities – must join them, because it ultimately affects them all.

Progressives and liberals need to stand at their side. If we stand for justice and equal treatment under the law, if we believe in civil rights for all, if we think our nation is stronger because of our diversity, if we understand that a term like “anchor baby” is a ruse and that “Mexican” isn’t a synonym for “rapist” and “gangster” but a code for “person of color,”  then we need to stand with our brothers and sisters from other nations who come to America out of desperation and seeking economic opportunity, not as a chance to “drop and leave” a baby.

The anti-immigrant movement is strong only because they are united by their intolerance and their hatred. The pro-human rights movement can be strong because we are united by our love of humanity and support of basic human rights, and we can be stronger.

Pass along this op-ed piece by Ricky Martin and support him and the Latino and other ethnic communities. Put Donald Trump and his ill-informed supporters in their place for good.

Politifact fact-checked the “anchor-baby” claims being thrown around by Republicans. Their research showed that most immigrants come to America for the hope of a job, not to live off the benefits of having a baby in America. Immigration numbers rise and lower with the American economy. When times are hard and job opportunities are few, the flow across the border declines. The act of having a baby in America simply for its citizenship benefits occurs more often among the already affluent of other nations and is relatively rare.

Republicans have had decades to do something meaningful about immigration reform, including very recently with a bi-partisan bill passed in the U.S. Senate but held off the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives by the Republican leadership. Instead, they use the issue as a cudgel to whip up fundraising and votes among their base. And caught in the middle are people just looking for hope and a job. Some voicing that rhetoric were benefits of immigration themselves.

It’s too bad Republicans haven’t learned how to court Latinos and other ethnic communities for their votes by doing positive things for them instead of counting them out by badgering them. Ricky Martin’s call to action may further distance any hope Republicans ever have of addressing this growing demographic of the American populace.

© 2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.


“What’s Wrong with Slavery?”

by Alan Eggleston

Republican extremists just don’t like immigrants. Their talk has turned increasingly ugly, from presidential candidate Trump demeaning Mexicans down to Iowa talk radio right-winger Jan Mickelson, who recently called for enslaving any immigrant who is identified as undocumented, told to leave, but remains in Iowa. He even asked, “What’s wrong with slavery?” Are you kidding me?

Mickelson may not remember, but America declared slavery illegal on January 1, 1863, with the Emancipation Proclamation and sealed the deal by the North winning the Civil War against the South.

He may also not remember that the world declared slavery an act of inhumanity after World War II when members of the then German government were brought to trial for war crimes after they enslaved and killed Jews en masse during the war. Now, Mickelson hasn’t yet called for the mass killing of undocumented immigrants, but who’s to say this won’t come next?

Right wing extremists have a problem discerning who among Hispanics/Latinos and others from south of the U.S. border who live in America are here legally (actual citizens as well as those who are legally documented). Anyone who looks or sounds like someone from this group to the average right-winger is automatically open to suspicion. So the idea of Hispanics and Latinos being continually harassed for documentation (sound familiar?) and any people being rounded up (sound familiar?) for enslavement should be repugnant to any real patriotic American. Americans went to war and died to end this kind of inhumane treatment.

It doesn’t help that Trump and other Republican presidential candidates are stoking the fires of this bigoted rhetoric. Their fans are already taking action based on the hate these candidates are spouting on the campaign trail.

America is heading down a very dark trail with this horrific anti-immigrant rhetoric. That anyone on the campaign trail takes it as serious political policy is a problem that America must address before it does get to the point of enslaving and killing people as a matter of public policy.

© 2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.

Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders – Part II

by Alan Eggleston

The more I look at this issue, the more interesting it becomes. The more questions it raises.

For instance:

  • Does Black Lives Matter as an organization oppose Bernie Sanders the person or Bernie Sanders the growing popular icon of White male progressivism?
  • Do the protesters from Black Lives Matter who disrupted Bernie Sanders in Seattle and other venues represent the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole or just themselves?
  • Does Black Lives Matter Seattle and Black Lives Matter Ohio, both very vocal and active groups opposing White progressive involvement in their movement represent the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole?

There is an interesting new dynamic apparent on the Black Lives Matter website, too. I urge you to visit and read it thoroughly. In addition to the website author’s interest in the risk to Black lives at the hands of the police, she expresses a sensitivity to Black transgender and cisgender or non-binary issues. (I wrote about transgender and cisgender issues late last year.) The transgender and cisgender community has become more vocal and more aggressive in fighting for their rights recently.

So consider this dynamic possibly at play: A group of people under attack and at risk for their lives because of the color of their skin that is also transgender or cisgender now also feels under attack and at risk for their lives because of their sexual orientation or lack of sexual orientation. Feeling that White progressives “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk,” they have given up on a traditional vocal ally, turning more radical to seek a solution on their own.

There are websites and blogs online reporting that Black Lives Matter organizations are refusing the help of Whites, refusing to allow Whites to participate in their demonstrations or even their meetings, refusing White journalists to cover their activities. Moreover, there are reports that Black Lives Matter organizations have demanded that other protest groups cancel or move protests that occur at the same time or place as those of Black Lives Matter, even when those other protests were planned earlier. The Black Lives Matter website seems to resent White male progressives and feel a sense of betrayal over a lack of their effort on behalf of Black lives.

So were the protests at Bernie Sanders’ speaking engagements an attempt to take control of the message at the events? Were they an attempt to send a message not to Bernie Sanders but to the White progressive movement? Do they come out of frustration with progressives who they view are vocal about the issues of Black lives but are not active in helping end the attacks? Is this the start of a new revolution similar to the Black Panther movement of the 1960s, a more radical and less patient attempt to revolt against racism and injustice in the wake of a society resistant to change?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to any of these questions. I don’t pretend to know the motives of those in the Black Lives Matter movement — or anyone’s motives, for that matter. But we need to figure this one out. If not to decide what our role should be in helping create a more just and equal society, certainly to decide whether we are culpable in keeping one from arising because we talk a lot but we don’t do a lot. And most especially, we need to clarify whether this movement represents a large group or a small one.

Bernie Sanders released a plan during his appearance in Portland, Oregon, Sunday to address Black Lives Matter concerns. One of the Seattle protesters noticed and seemed to think her protest had produced an effect. We will see if this furthers the conversation or if the protests continue.

In the meantime, White progressives and particularly we White male progressives would do well to consider just how much support we have provided to a Black community in fear for their lives and not only not seeing any progress in their lives but seeing past progress pushed back. What do we need to do more of to make their lives better?

Some additional reading on the Black Lives Matter issue:

(c) 2015. Alan Eggleston. All Rights Reserved.