Affirmative Action: Part 1

Hi Friends,
Welcome to Issue 55 of this newsletter. Today, June 29, the Supreme Court struck down college affirmative action programs. This week’s topic: Affirmative Action . A conservative supermajority in the Supreme Court upending decades of jurisprudence when they decided that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional. This decision has many implications, including the potential to change the way that college admission processes are handled, and the potential to have a ripple effect that impacts the business world and corporate sector. The two cases were brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by Edward Blum. Blum is not a lawyer. According to a New York Times profile, “he is a one-man legal factory with a growing record of finding plaintiffs who match his causes, winning big victories and trying above all to erase racial preferences from American life”. He has orchestrated more than two dozen lawsuits challenging affirmative action practices and voting rights laws across the country. Rachel Kleinman, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that Mr. Blum’s opposition to affirmative action was related to “this fear of white people that their privilege is being taken away from them and given to somebody else who they see as less deserving.” At its core, affirmative action is not the practice of giving Black and Latinx students priority during college admission. While people like Edward Blum ignore the historical backdrop of the American experience and reduce establish policies to feelings over facts, today we will learn the truth about what affirmative action really is, how it came to be, and why it has been an important—albeit imperfect—part of the admissions process.

After beginning to research the history and impact of affirmative action, I’ve decided to divide this newsletter into two. Today, we will discuss the history and background of affirmative action. Next time, we will discuss the impact and implications of affirmative action and the most recent Supreme Court decision. Let’s get into it.

Key Words

“Strict Scrutiny” : The Court calls for "strict scrutiny" in determining whether discrimination existed before implementing a federal affirmative action program. "Strict scrutiny" meant that affirmative action programs fulfilled a "compelling governmental interest," and were "narrowly tailored" to fit the particular situation. To pass the strict scrutiny test, a law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The same test applies whether the racial classification aims to benefit or harm a racial group. Strict scrutiny also applies whether or not race is the only criteria used to classify.

“Race Neutral”: “Race neutral” does not appear in the opinion of the court, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, which states that colleges and universities have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin.” But when Roberts clarifies that students can still refer to their race in admissions essays, explaining challenges they’ve overcome, he and the majority are buying into the idea of race neutrality. Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote his own concurring opinion, uses the term “race neutral” repeatedly, offering it as an antidote to affirmative action.

Supreme Court Opinion: The term “opinions” refers to several types of writing by the Justices. The most well-known opinions are those released or announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each opinion sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning and may include the majority or principal opinion as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions.

Executive Order: An executive order is a signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. They are numbered consecutively, so executive orders may be referenced by their assigned number, or their topic.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: As amended, Title VII protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and related conditions, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered. The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.

Equal Protection Clause: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment ensures that all Americans receive equal protection under the Constitution. Both the majority and the minority opinions in Thursday’s ruling cited the clause, using different interpretations. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that race-based admissions programs “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause,” while Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that the decision “subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education.”

Lets Get Into It

Affirmative action, as a term, came to the fore in 1935 with the Wagner Act, a federal law that gave workers the right to form and join unions. But John F. Kennedy was the first president to link the term specifically with a policy meant to advance racial equality, according to Smithsonian Magazine.

On March 6, 1961 President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." The intent of this executive order was to affirm the government's commitment to equal opportunity for all qualified persons, and to take positive action to strengthen efforts to realize true equal opportunity for all. This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246 in 1965.

So, where exactly are we in history in 1961 when it comes to the rights of Black Americans?

• The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, 96 years prior

  • To put this in context, if a Black American lived to be around 100, they would have lived through being a slave and also been alive when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925. Most Black Americans at this time would have parents and grandparents who were slaves when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925.

• The first “Jim Crow Law” is passed in Tennessee mandating the separation of African Americans from whites on trains in 1870, 91 years prior

• Plessy v. Ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine that allows segregation, discrimination and racism to flourish in 1896, 65 years prior

• Jackie Robinson became the first Black American in the twentieth century to play baseball in the major leagues in 1947, 14 years prior

• Brown v. Board of education which desegregated public schools was in 1954, 7 years prior

• Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott took place in 1955, 6 years prior

• The Civil Rights Act, which extended civil, political, and legal rights and protections to Black Americans, including former slaves and their descendants, and put an end segregation in public and private facilities was in 1964, 3 years after

• The Voting Rights Act, which allowed all Americans access to the polls was in 1965, 4 years after

• Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated in 1968, 7 years after

The History of Affirmative Action

• 1961: The first use of the term “affirmative action” specifically with a policy meant to advance racial equality is in Executive Order 10925, as discussed above.

• 1961: The “Plan for Progress” is signed by Vice President Johnson and Courtlandt Gross, the president of Lockheed

  • NAACP labor secretary Herbert Hill filed complaints against the hiring and promoting practices of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. Lockheed was doing business with the Defense Department on the first billion-dollar contract. Due to taxpayer-funding being 90% of Lockheed's business, along with disproportionate hiring practices, Black workers charged Lockheed with "overt discrimination." Lockheed signed an agreement with Vice President Johnson that pledged an "aggressive seeking out for more qualified minority candidates for technical and skill positions.” Soon, other defense contractors signed similar voluntary agreements. However, most corporations in the south, still ruled by Jim Crow Laws, ignored the recommendations.

• 1964: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

  • Note that this same act was used to continue discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had limited the type of remedies possible by forbidding any form of discrimination. This was interpreted to include preferential hiring, which was seen as compensatory discrimination. To put it plainly — folks found a way to reason that giving Black workers preferential treatment by hiring them with an emphasis on their race could be considered discriminatory in and of itself.

• 1964: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created by Congress in 1964 to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

• 1965: President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contracts and subcontracts. This executive order requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), under the Department of Labor, monitors this requirement for all federal contractors, including all UC campuses. Compliance with these regulations (for ederal contractors employing more than 50 people and having federal contracts totaling more than $50,000) includes disseminating and enforcing a nondiscrimination policy, establishing a written affirmative action plan and placement goals for women and minorities, and implementing action-oriented programs for accomplishing these goals.

• 1967: President Johnson amended Executive Order 11246 to also include sex.

“The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship.”

• 1969: The Philadelphia Plan was implemented by Richard Nixon. For the first time, a specific industry was required to articulate a plan for hiring minority workers. The Nixon administration created specific hiring goals in the highly segregated construction industry. The Philadelphia Plan required Philadelphia government contractors in six construction trades to set goals and timetables for the hiring of minority workers or risk losing the valuable contracts. No quotas were set. This left businesses a fair amount of autonomy in determining how to meet the goals. As a result, the Philadelphia Plan withstood a court challenge and growing public hostility to affirmative action.

• 1969: Colleges voluntarily adopted similar policies to combat racial discrimination. In 1969, many elite universities admitted more than twice as many Black students as they had the year before. This change was directly linked to the civil rights movement. With civil rights activists urging schools to admit more Black applicants, colleges responded. Higher education had been almost exclusively white for most of its history, but a growing number of universities were now crafting affirmative action policies in an effort to expand access to higher education.

• 1974: Marco DeFunis Jr. v. Odegaard — Marco DeFunis, a white man, argued that he was denied admission to the University of Washington Law School because the school had prioritized admitting minority students who were less qualified, saying that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. By the time the United States Supreme Court considered the case, DeFunis was already in his last year of law school and the court ruled that the case was moot. Though the court chose not to address the issues within the case, it was the first case heard on affirmative action since the policy was established in the 1960s.

• 1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke — Alan Bakke was rejected twice from the medical school at the University of California, Davis. Mr. Bakke, who is white, argued that the school’s affirmative action policy to reserve 16 out of 100 spots for qualified minority students violated the equal protection clause as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled that the racial quota system used by the university did violate the Civil Rights Act and that Mr. Bakke should be admitted. Justice Lewis F. Powell acknowledged in his opinion that a state had legitimate interests in considering the race of applicants, and that a diverse student body could provide compelling educational benefits. The case established the court’s position on affirmative action for decades. A state university had to meet a standard of judicial review known as strict scrutiny: Race could be a narrowly tailored factor in admissions policies. Racial quotas, however, went too far.

• 1980: Fullilove v. Klutznick —While Bakke struck down strict quotas, in Fullilove the Supreme Court ruled that some modest quotas were perfectly constitutional. The Court upheld a federal law requiring that 15% of funds for public works be set aside for qualified minority contractors. The "narrowed focus and limited extent" of the affirmative action program did not violate the equal rights of non-minority contractors, according to the Court—there was no "allocation of federal funds according to inflexible percentages solely based on race or ethnicity."

• 1983: Reagan signed Executive Order 12432. The executive order requires that each federal agency with grant making capabilities establish an Annual Minority Business Development Plan with the stated goal to increase minority business participation. Agencies are expected to establish programs that assist minority business enterprises to procure contracts and manage those contracts awarded. As a stipulation of the executive order, the progress toward these goals is to be annually reported to the Secretary of Commerce. While the Reagan administration opposed discriminatory practices, it did not support the implementation of quotas and goals and did not support Executive Order 11246. Bi-partisan opposition in Congress and other government officials blocked the repeal of Executive Order 11246 but he reduced funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, arguing that "reverse discrimination" resulted from these policies.

• 1997: Proposition 209 was enacted in California, which is a state ban on all forms of affirmative action: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect. Over the past three decades, 10 states have banned affirmative action in college admissions. And in many cases, voters approved those bans.

• 1998: Washington becomes the second state to abolish state affirmative action measures when it passed "I 200," which is similar to California's Proposition 209.

• 2000: Florida legislature approves education component of Gov. Jeb Bush's "One Florida" initiative, aimed at ending affirmative action in the state.

• 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger — Barbara Grutter, a white woman who was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School, said that the school had used race as a predominant factor for admitting students. When the case reached the Supreme Court, a 5-4 opinion led by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor upheld the Bakke decision. The Court ruled that each admissions decision is based on multiple factors, and that the school could fairly use race as one of them. The case reaffirmed the court’s position that diversity on campus is a compelling state interest.

• 2003: Gratz v. Bollinger — Though decided on the same day and focused on the same university, the Gratz case and Grutter case had different outcomes. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white, were denied admission to the University of Michigan. They argued that a point system in use by the admissions office beginning in 1998 was unconstitutional. Students who were part of an underrepresented minority group automatically received 20 points in a system that required 100 points for admittance, which meant that nearly every applicant of an underrepresented minority group was admitted. In a 6-3 opinion led by Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled that the point system did not meet the standards of strict scrutiny established in previous cases. The Grutter and Gratz cases provided a blueprint for how schools could use race as a factor in admissions policies. The Court held that the OUA’s policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority” status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue.

• 2006: Meredith v. Jefferson — Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) were integrated by court order until 2000. After its release from the order, JCPS implemented an enrollment plan to maintain substantial racial integration. Students were given a choice of schools, but not all schools could accommodate all applicants. In those cases, student enrollment was decided on the basis of several factors, including place of residence, school capacity, and random chance, as well as race. However, no school was allowed to have an enrollment of black students less than 15% or greater than 50% of its student population. The District Court ruled that the plan was constitutional because the school had a compelling interest in maintaining racial diversity.

• 2006: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 — The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. A non-profit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools (Parents), sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law. A federal District Court dismissed the suit, upholding the tiebreaker. On appeal, a three-judge panel the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was a major setback for affirmative action.

• 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (Two Cases) — Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected from the University of Texas, said that the school’s two-part admissions system, which takes race into consideration, is unconstitutional. The university first admits roughly the top 10 percent of every in-state graduating high school class, a policy known as the Top Ten Percent Plan, and then reviews several factors, including race, to fill the remaining spots. Upon a second review of the case by the Supreme Court, a 4-3 opinion led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ruled that the university’s policy met the standard of strict scrutiny, meaning this was okay for the school to do.

Affirmative Action in Colleges and Universities

If you’re like me, you’re reading through this timeline and thinking that a lot of these policies seem directly aimed at businesses, while there’s no clear law that might ask a college or university to do something specific in regards to affirmative action. Affirmative action in colleges and universities was not enacted through a specific federal law, but rather through a series of executive orders and court rulings. Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and Executive Order 11246 in 1965 are cited when discussing affrimative action in schooling. The Supreme Court case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978 upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action in a university setting. Since then, there have been ongoing debates and legal challenges regarding the implementation of affirmative action in college admissions. The policies and specific requirements for affirmative action have varied across states and institutions, with some implementing more extensive programs than others. However, affirmative action as a concept has been recognized and practiced by many colleges and universities throughout the country. Personally, I’m always surprised by the ways laws work in the United States. From what we hear and see on the news, you would imagine schools were being forced to meet quotas (which is actually unconstitutional) or do something really specific and widespread, but thats completely not the case.

So, what positive impact has affirmative action had on colleges and universities?

Affirmative action has played a crucial role in fostering diversity on college campuses. By considering race or ethnicity as one factor among many in the admissions process, universities have been able to create more inclusive environments that reflect the broader society. It also seeks to address historical and ongoing inequalities by providing equal opportunities for underrepresented groups, such as Black Americans, Latinx Americans, and Indigenous peoples. It acknowledges that systemic barriers and discrimination have limited access to education for certain communities, and aims to level the playing field by considering the broader context in which applicants' achievements and qualifications are evaluated. Affirmative action has also helped mitigate the impact of unconscious biases that can influence the admissions process. Unconscious biases, often shaped by societal stereotypes, can unintentionally favor certain groups while disadvantaging others. By explicitly considering race or ethnicity, universities can counteract these biases and ensure fairer evaluations. Affirmative action also contributes to breaking down stereotypes and reducing isolation on college campuses. It helps create environments where students can engage with diverse peers, challenge stereotypes, and build relationships based on shared experiences and understanding. Affirmative action has been essential tool for advancing diversity and equal opportunity in higher education. Reports have shown that schools that once implemented affirmative action policies experience a massive drop in Black and Latinx students when those policies are changed. Without affirmative action, schools will surely become more white and less diverse.

The most noteworthy and compelling piece of the affirmative action conversation, in my opinion is the concept that affirmative action is an inherently unequal policy alongside the inescapable fact that historic inequalities exist in America. The truth is, there are so many ways in which everyday Americans are afforded certain privileges in education, business, housing, funding, and nearly every facet of life. It is noteworthy that affirmative action is often attacked when these other areas are not. The next newsletter will discuss some of these concepts along with more reactions to the most recent Supreme Court decision. See ya then.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Stop and Frisk

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 53 of this newsletter. This week’s topic is: Stop and Frisk. I was inspired to write on this topic from some of my reading for a class I’m taking at Columbia called “Human Rights in the United States”. Stop and frisk was up for debate at the 1968 Terry v. Ohio supreme court case which found it to be legal, and set this precedent: “Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person ‘may be armed and presently dangerous.’" Outside of New York, this practice is known as a Terry Stop, based on the name of the case. However, in 2013, in Floyd v. City of New York, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk had been used in an unconstitutional manner due to racial profiling and directed the police to adopt a written policy to specify where such stops are authorized. Stop and frisk was a signature policy of the Bloomberg administration beginning in 2002 and reaching its peak in 2011 with over 600,000 incidents that year alone. A . According to a highly researched study by the NYCLU, “over 97 percent of all stops that occurred from 2003-2021 took place during [Bloomberg’s] time in office.” Stop and frisk never reduced crime, but always took a toll of Black and Latinx communities. Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

Stop and frisk: The controversial policy allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search New York City citizens on the sole basis of “reasonable suspicion.”

Terry v. Ohio: A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. . The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

Floyd v. City of New York: The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the federal class action lawsuit Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. against the City of New York to challenge the New York Police Department’s practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City residents. The named plaintiffs in the case – David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis – represent the thousands of primarily Black and Latino New Yorkers who have been stopped without any cause on the way to work or home from school, in front of their house, or just walking down the street. In a historic ruling on August 12, 2013, following a nine-week trial, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops. Floyd focuses not only on the lack of any reasonable suspicion to make these stops, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also on the obvious racial disparities in who is stopped and searched by the NYPD.

Broken Windows Theory: Kelling and Wilson suggested that a broken window or other visible signs of disorder or decay — think loitering, graffiti, prostitution or drug use — can send the signal that a neighborhood is uncared for. So, they thought, if police departments addressed those problems, maybe the bigger crimes wouldn't happen. Stop and frisk was seen as a way of managing this. Kelling and Wilson proposed that police departments change their focus. Instead of channeling most resources into solving major crimes, they should instead try to clean up the streets and maintain order — such as keeping people from smoking pot in public and cracking down on subway fare beaters. If broken windows meant arresting people for misdemeanors in hopes of preventing more serious crimes, "stop and frisk" said, why even wait for the misdemeanor? Why not go ahead and stop, question and search anyone who looked suspicious? In Chicago, the researchers Robert Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush analyzed what makes people perceive social disorder. They found that if two neighborhoods had exactly the same amount of graffiti and litter and loitering, people saw more disorder, more broken windows, in neighborhoods with more African-Americans.

Let’s Get Into It

A 2019 report by NYCLU on Stop and Frisk encapsulated so much relevant information to how this system has operated in New York City, so all of the info below will be pulled from there.

The New York City Police Department’s aggressive stop-and-frisk program exploded into a national controversy during the mayoral administration of Michael Bloomberg, as the number of NYPD stops each year grew to hundreds of thousands. Most of the people stopped were black and Latino, and nearly all were innocent. Stop-and-frisk peaked in 2011, when NYPD officers made nearly 700,000 stops.

It is notable that “actions of engaging in a violent crime” was a reason listed in only seven percent of reported stops between 2014 and 2016. During the height of stop-and-frisk, the NYPD routinely argued that the disproportionate number of stops of Black people was justified because, according to the department, Black people are disproportionately involved in violent crimes. Given that over 90 percent of stops had nothing to do with a suspected violent crime, the race of those convicted of violent crimes generally cannot explain the disproportionate number of Black people stopped every year

Stops of Males Age 14-24

• 24.9% (22,998) Young Black Males but only 1.9% (158,406) of NYC’s population

• 12.8% (11,193) Young Latino Males but only 2.8% (226,677) of NYC’s population

In 2011, 685,724 NYPD stops were recorded — this is at the peak of Stop and Frisk under Bloomberg

• 605,328 were innocent (88 percent).

• 350,743 were Black (53 percent).

• 223,740 were Latinx (34 percent).

• 61,805 were white (9 percent).

In 2021, 8,947 stops were recorded.

• 5,422 were innocent (61 percent).

• 5,404 were Black (60 percent).

• 2,457 were Latinx (27 percent).

• 732 were white (8 percent).

• 192 were Asian / Pacific Islander (2 percent)

• 71 were Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian (1 percent)

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

2019 Bail Reform Law

Hello Friends!

Happy New Year and welcome back, this is Issue 52!

I’m so excited to share that I finished my first semester at Columbia with a 4.0! For my final paper, I wrote about the 2019 bail reform law in New York. In short, this law virtually eliminated bail for the most common, non-violent crimes, and reduced our jail populations by over 30%. By April of 2020, however, due to fearmongering and unsubstantiated claims made by groups like the NYPD, 12 crimes had their new bail policies rolled back, rendering the original law virtually useless.

Remember — bail criminalizes poverty.

This is how the jail system works: you are accused of a crime or potentially found in a position that seems suspicious, you’re taking to jail, you brought before a judge for arraignment, the judge decides if you are allowed to post bail before your trial or not and sets an amount, the bail is due immediately. If you are unable to pay bail, you stay in jail to await trial. (Jail is a temporary space for shorter sentences and those that cannot pay bail, prison is for longer sentences after your trial has occurred). Take note that you are in jail while you await trial, meaning, you are still not sentenced at this time. In Rikers Island, one of New York’s most notorious jails, only 10% are released within 24 hours, while 25% stay locked up awaiting trial for two months or longer. If these individuals could afford to pay bail, many would be home with their families, continuing to work and live their lives during these months.

Kalief Browder was held at Rikers for three years from 2010-2013, spending over two of those years in solitary confinement — after being accused of stealing a backpack, a crime which he plead “not-guilty” to. His trial was delayed by a backlog of work at the Bronx County District Attorney's office. Eventually the case was dismissed after Browder experienced irreparable mental, emotional and physical abuse. He eventually died by suicide in 2015 after suffering from his trauma. He said while being in jail “I feel like I was robbed of my happiness.”

The money-driven bail system in America is inhuman, unjust and blatantly criminalizes poverty — which is inextricably tied to race in America. If you want to learn more about the 2019 bail reform in New York through a human rights lens, check out my final paper below.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Cash Bail

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 51 newsletter. This week’s topic is: The Cash Bail System in America. First and foremost, we should establish what bail is and how it’s used. The terms “jail” and “prison” are often used interchangeably, but they actually are two separate institutions. A jail is for short-term sentences, or where someone waits for trial. A prison is for a long-term sentence, including a life sentence. There are other differences between jails and prisons in terms of who oversees them, what the incarcerated person can access, potential resources and more. In 2019, there were “1,566 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,850 local jails, 1,510 juvenile correctional facilities, 186 immigration detention facilities, and 82 Indian country jails, as well as in military prisons, civil commitment centers, state psychiatric hospitals, and prisons in the U.S. territories.” When someone is accused of a crime, a judge decides if they are 1) held without bail, 2) released, 3) held with bail. If someone cannot pay bail, they go to jail. This is before they have a trial. Every day, nearly half a million individuals sit in local jails who have not been convicted of any crime. Why are most of them there? Because they cannot afford cash bail. In 2014, only 14% of New Yorkers could afford to pay their bail, meaning 86% of those accused of a crime were sitting in jails for days, weeks, or even years. To avoid this, many people plead guilty and take a plea deal instead of waiting for a trail. Only about 5% of cases go to trial at all. This has lasting consequences. Bail criminalizes poverty. Let’s get into it.

Key Terms

Bail: Cash bail is a refundable, court-determined fee that a defendant pays—regardless of guilt or innocence—to await trial at home instead of in jail. While “innocent until proven guilty” is ingrained in the American psyche, the use of bail means that if you can’t pay you serve jail time.

Bond: The words “bail” and “bond” are often used almost interchangeably when discussing jail release, and while they are closely related to each other, they are not the same thing. Bail is the money a defendant must pay in order to get out of jail. A bond is posted on a defendant’s behalf, usually by a bail bond company, to secure his or her release.

Bail Schedule: A bail schedule is a list of bail amount recommendations for different charges. Some states allow defendants to post bail with the police before they go to their first court appearance. The required amount of bail will depend on the crime that the defendant allegedly committed. A key difference between police bail schedules and bail determinations by judges is that a judge has discretion to alter the amount. They can consider many different factors, such as a defendant’s criminal history, employment status, and ties to the community. These intangible factors do not affect the bail schedule in a jail. If you are unwilling to pay the amount required by the bail schedule, you likely will need to go to court and present your case to a judge.

Plea Deal: Plea deals—which are entirely within the discretion of a prosecutor to offer (or accept)—typically include one or more of the following: 1) the dismissal of one or more charges, and/or agreement to a conviction to a lesser offense, 2) an agreement to a more lenient sentence and length, 3) an agreement to stipulate to a version of events that omits certain facts that would statutorily expose a person to harsher penalties.

Criminal Conviction: Besides direct consequences that can include jail time, fines, and treatment, a criminal conviction can trigger many consequences outside of the criminal court system. These consequences can affect your current job, future job opportunities, housing choices, immigration status. You may have to disclose your criminal record to employers. You may find it difficult to obtain a mortgage, auto loan, business loan, or other loan due to your criminal conviction. While a conviction does not automatically eliminate your eligibility for financial aid for college, it could impact on your ability to qualify. Landlords often conduct background checks before approving a prospective tenant and may not approve you for housing. In some states, you could lose your right to vote, serve on a jury, or hold a public office if you are convicted of a felony. Your conviction could have serious implications for your immigration status. Even a misdemeanor conviction can limit your ability to travel to other countries. You may lose custody of your children.

Risk Assessments: Developed and implemented by a mix of jurisdictions, states, private companies, nonprofit organizations and academic institutions, these special algorithms use factors such as age, education level, arrest record and home address to assign scores to defendants. Risk assessment tools are marketed as a way to automate a resource-strapped system and remove human bias. But critics say that they can amplify existing inequities, especially against young Black and Latino men and people experiencing mental illness. More than 60 percent of Americans live in a jurisdiction where the risk assessment tools are in use, according to Mapping Pretrial Injustice, a nonprofit data campaign critical of the tools.

The 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Let’s Get Into It

Fast Facts About Bail

• COVID-19 has exacerbated bail issues and led to longer stays in jail for people who have yet to have a trial. In New York, for example, for people who do not make bail, average jail stays have become longer. The average number of days people were in custody in New York City jails rose from 198.4 in January 2020, or roughly six and a half months, to 286.5 days, or more than nine months, in August 2021 – a 44% increase.

• The average length of pretrial incarceration in the US is 26 days

• At any given time an estimated half a million Americans, or about two-thirds of the overall jail population, are incarcerated because they can’t afford their bail or a bond.

• The median bail amount for felonies is about $10,000.

• About 94% of felony convictions at the state level and about 97% at the federal level are the result of plea bargains. That means only 3%-6% of all cases actually go to trial.

Why Does Bail Exist And How Does It Work?

• From The Marshall Project:

  • You’ve been arrested, taken to jail, fingerprinted and processed. Within 24 to 48 hours, you’ll go to an initial hearing known as an arraignment.

  • There, a judge will formally present the charges against you, and you will plead innocent or guilty. Then the judge either grants bail and sets the amount; releases you on your own recognizance without a fee; or denies you bail.

  • Bail is usually denied if a defendant is deemed a flight risk or a danger to the community because of the nature of the alleged crime.

  • If you get bail, you have three choices:

    • Pay the amount in full and get out of jail. You’ll get the money back when the trial is over, no matter the outcome.

    • Pay nothing. You’ll return to jail and await trial.

    • Secure a bail bond and get out of jail. In this case, you’ll pay a private agent known as a bondsman a portion of the amount, usually 10 percent and collateral such as a home or jewelry to cover the balance. (In turn, bail bond companies guarantee the full amount to the court.) The fee you pay for a bail bond is not refundable, even if your charges are dropped.

Resources

• Listen to “The Criminalization of Poverty: Bail”

• Support: The Bail Project

Friends, the bail system is absolutely horrific, and this is just scratching the surface.

I plan on discussing bail a lot more in this newsletter since it’s something I’m focusing a lot of thought on in school. This newsletter is just the start so I wanted to cover the basics. My final paper for one of my classes will center around bail, specifically as it impacts New Yorkers. Bail is absolutely heinous and destroys people’s lives. Let’s keep talking about it. See ya next week!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Human Rights

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 50 of our newsletter. This week’s topic is: What Are Human Rights? You probably know by now that I’m pursuing a masters degree from Columbia University in Human Rights Studies from the Institute for the Study of Human Rights. You might be wondering what that means. For a lot of us, we think of human rights as an umbrella term, a vague topic that covers a lot of different things. Racism, discrimination, homophobia, poverty, addiction, mental illness, refugee status — these might be some topics that pop into our heads when we think of human rights. But what exactly are capital H, capital R, Human Rights? It’s actually a very specific area of study, let’s get into it!

Key Terms

Human Rights: Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The UDHR, which turned 74 in 2022, continues to be the foundation of all international human rights law. Its 30 articles provide the principles and building blocks of current and future human rights conventions, treaties and other legal instruments. The UDHR, together with the 2 covenants - the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - make up the International Bill of Rights.

Respect, Protect and Fulfill: All countries in the world should seek to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of its citizens. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights.

United Nations: The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945. Currently made up of 193 Member States, the UN and its work are guided by the purposes and principles contained in its founding Charter. The UN has evolved over the years to keep pace with a rapidly changing world.

Let’s Get Into It

Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR)

The UDHR codified the meaning of human rights. It’s comprised of 30 articles and these articles tell the world — these are your rights, no one has to give them to you, you get them just for being a human being, and when we talk about Human Rights, these are the exact things we are talking about! Some of the most important rights included in this document are:

• Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

• Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, etc.

• Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security.

• Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

• Article 4: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

• Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

• Article 11: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

• Article 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

• Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

• Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

• Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

• Article 23: Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

• Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

• Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.

• Article 26: Everyone has the right to education.

Now, if you’re anything like me, you read this and feel a little confused. How can the whole world be entitled to these things? How can the intent of this document be to impact every human being, when so many are clearly, openly and actively being denied these human rights? I am especially struck by Article 4 and it’s direct contradiction to the United States prison system. I am struck by Article 24 and the ways in which so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck without any sort of safetynet or compassion, without any true access to rest or leisure and absolutely without “reasonable limitation of working hours.” Let’s continue to discuss the ways in which America falls short when discussing Human Rights.

Human Rights In The United States

The United Nations’ Universal Human Rights Index is “a repository of recommendations and observations issued by bodies of the United Nations human rights monitoring system” — meaning, various countries will share recommendations for one another and this is where all of those recommendations are logged. When we look at the United States, we see the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has made the most recommendations, with 187 recommendations listed. There are even recommendations around these topics under the general Human Rights Committee, with 105 recommendations, many including discrimination and concerns around the prison system. This is no surprise. The rest of the world looks at the United States and sees racism and discrimination as one of — if not THE — key concern. According to Pew Research: “Between 82% and 95% in every public outside of the U.S. believe this kind of discrimination is at least a somewhat serious problem, and more than four-in-ten call it very serious..”

Other top concerns in the United States around human rights violations are: child prostitution, the carceral system, gender discrimination, adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, the human rights of migrant and safe drinking water.

While there is so much more to share around Human Rights and the issues that impact the lives of Americans, I felt like this was a helpful introduction. Something I took away from some of my early discussions at school is that the UDHR clearly spells out what the basis for human rights violations are. In this way, while some things might feel bad, they may not truly be a violation of our human rights. Crimes and human rights violations can intersect, but they can also be different. As I continue to learn more about human rights through my school and eventual research and thesis, I’ll be sure to bring you along. See ya next time!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

War On Drugs

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 49 of this newsletter. This week’s topic is The War On Drugs. “The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution and trade by dramatically increasing prison sentences for both drug dealers and users. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today.” The War on Drugs was popularized by Richard Nixon who said, "If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "I am not prepared to accept this alternative." This drug war has led to consequences that have proliferated violence around the world and contributed to mass incarceration in the US. Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

The War On Drugs: The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution and trade by dramatically increasing prison sentences for both drug dealers and users. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today.

The Drug Scheduling System: Under the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government — which has largely relegated the regulation of drugs to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) — puts each drug into a classification, known as a schedule, based on its medical value and potential for abuse. You can view the current Drug Schedules here.

Let’s Get Into It

Drug Use In America Before The “War On Drugs”

• According to historian Peter Knight, opium largely came over to America with Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. Americans, already skeptical of the drug, quickly latched on to xenophobic beliefs that opium somehow made Chinese immigrants dangerous.

• Cocaine was similarly attached in fear to Black communities, neuroscientist Carl Hart wrote for the Nation. The belief was so widespread that the New York Times even felt comfortable writing headlines in 1914 that claimed "Negro cocaine 'fiends' are a new southern menace."

• Drug use for medicinal and recreational purposes has been happening in the United States since the country’s inception. In the 1890s, the popular Sears and Roebuck catalogue included an offer for a syringe and small amount of cocaine for $1.50.

• In some states, laws to ban or regulate drugs were passed in the 1800s, and the first congressional act to levy taxes on morphine and opium took place in 1890.

• The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 banned the possession, importation and use of opium for smoking.

• In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine.

• In 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified, banning the manufacture, transportation or sale of intoxicating liquors, ushering in the Prohibition Era. The same year, Congress passed the National Prohibition Act (also known as the Volstead Act), which provided guidelines on how to federally enforce Prohibition.

• In 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act” was passed. This federal law placed a tax on the sale of cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. While the law didn’t criminalize the possession or use of marijuana, it included hefty penalties if taxes weren’t paid, including a fine of up to $2000 and five years in prison.

The War On Drugs

• President Richard M. Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law in 1970.

• In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs,” stating that drug abuse was “public enemy number one.”

• Nixon went on to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973.

• In the mid-1970s, the War on Drugs took a slight hiatus. Between 1973 and 1977, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession.

• Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 after running on a political campaign to decriminalize marijuana.

• In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reinforced and expanded many of Nixon’s War on Drugs policies. In 1984, his wife Nancy Reagan launched the “Just Say No” campaign, which was intended to highlight the dangers of drug use.

• In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses.

• On September 5, 1989, in his first televised national address as president, George H.W. Bush called drugs "the greatest domestic threat facing our nation today," held up a bag of seized crack cocaine, and vowed to escalate funding for the war on drugs. He later approved, among other drug-related policies, the 1033 program (then known as the 1208 program) that equipped local and state police with military-grade equipment for anti-drug operations.

It’s Impact On Incarceration And Racist History

• The escalation of the criminal justice system's reach over the past few decades, ranging from more incarceration to seizures of private property and militarization, can be traced back to the war on drugs. After the US stepped up the drug war throughout the 1970s and '80s, harsher sentences for drug offenses played a role in turning the country into the world's leader in incarceration.

• During a 1994 interview, President Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, provided inside information suggesting that the War on Drugs campaign had ulterior motives, he was quoted saying:

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”

• When the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed, it was heavily criticized as having racist ramifications because it allocated longer prison sentences for offenses involving the same amount of crack cocaine (used more often by Black Americans) as powder cocaine (used more often by white Americans). 5 grams of crack triggered an automatic 5 year sentence, while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to merit the same sentence.

• Critics pointed to data showing that people of color were targeted and arrested on suspicion of drug use at higher rates than whites.

• Overall, the policies led to a rapid rise in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 2014, nearly half of the 186,000 people serving time in federal prisons in the United States had been incarcerated on drug-related charges, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

• The number of Black men in prison (792,000) has already equaled the number of men enslaved in 1820. With the current momentum of the drug war fueling an ever expanding prison-industrial complex, if current trends continue, only 15 years remain before the United States incarcerates as many African-American men as were forced into chattel bondage at slavery's peak, in 1860.

The War On Drugs Today

• Today, the US still continues to have the largest prison population on the planet. Learn more about it in my newsletters on Prison Reform.

• Between 2009 and 2013, some 40 states took steps to soften their drug laws, lowering penalties and shortening mandatory minimum sentences, according to the Pew Research Center.

• In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

• The recent legalization of marijuana in several states and the District of Columbia has also led to a more tolerant political view on recreational drug use. However, estimated 40,000 people today are incarcerated for marijuana offenses even as the overall legal cannabis industry is booming; one state after another is legalizing; and cannabis companies are making healthy profits.

• Although Black communities aren't more likely to use or sell drugs, they are much more likely to be arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses.

• A 2014 study from Peter Reuter at the University of Maryland and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago found there's no good evidence that tougher punishments or harsher supply-elimination efforts do a better job of pushing down access to drugs and substance abuse than lighter penalties.

• Most of the reduction in accessibility from the drug war appears to be a result of the simple fact that drugs are illegal, which by itself makes drugs more expensive and less accessible by eliminating avenues toward mass production and distribution.

• Enforcing the war on drugs costs the US more than $51 billion each year, according to the Drug Policy Alliance. As of 2012, the US had spent $1 trillion on anti-drug efforts.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Bystander Intervention

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 49 of this newsletter. This week’s topic is Bystander Intervention. An engaged bystander is someone who lives up to that responsibility by intervening before, during, or after a situation when they see or hear behaviors that threaten, harass, or otherwise encourage violence. Bystander Intervention is a social science model that predicts the likelihood of individuals (or groups) willing to actively address a situation they deem problematic. I remember my parents telling me about the Kitty Genovese Case, where a woman was attacked and killed on the street in Queens and 37 people saw it happen, but no one helped her. As a child, my parents always encouraged me to step up and say something. I live my life operating from a place of, “If I don’t say something, who will?” Bystander Intervention does not mean jeopardizing your wellbeing or confronting violence with violence. Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

Bystander: A bystander is anyone who observes a situation. We all observe numerous incidents and interactions daily, but usually do not acknowledge the situation as needing our response. An active bystander is someone who acknowledges a problematic situation and chooses how to respond.

Bystander Intervention: Bystander Intervention is a social science model that predicts the likelihood of individuals (or groups) willing to actively address a situation they deem problematic.

The Bystander Effect: The Bystander effect is a phenomenon in which people are less likely to help someone in an emergency due to the presence of the people (bystanders) around them. The phenomenon of the bystander effect was first explained by two psychologists named John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968. Darley and Latané proposed that with the increase in the number of people around the person in the emergency, the people become less likely to help the one in need.

The Virtual Bystander Effect: With the rise in the impact of social media on people’s lives, the influence of the bystander effect has also evolved on the digital platform. The social media platforms allow us to get aware of the injustice happening in the nearby or the faraway places. The impact of the bystander effect on social platforms is even more than the real world as one can not see that how other people are physically reacting to the given situation. Examples include the 2017 sexual assault of a teenage girl by a group of five men was Live broadcast on Facebook and a Facebook Live broadcast of a man with a mental disability being tortured by a group of people. In both cases no one alerted the authorities.

Let’s Get Into It

Before diving into how to be a better bystander and what steps to take to safely intervene, we first must understand the Bystander Effect and the overall concept that—odds are— you probably won’t help someone in need if you think it’s someone else’s responsibility to do so. While it’s not always safe to personally intervene, it’s always possible to alert the proper authorities, take to social media to amplify a message, or seek help in some other manner.

The Bystander Effect

• The Bystander Effect does not only affect everyday people. One example is an incident of a 53-year-old resident of Alameda, California named Raymond Zack. Raymond went into the water and when his foster mother called authorities, alerting them that Raymond might be trying to harm himself, both police and fire fighters stood on the beach and did nothing. The police thought the fire department would act. The fire department thought the police would act. After hours, a random civilian went into the water and dragged Raymond out.

• There are various factors that are responsible for the bystander effect:

  • Diffusion of Responsibility: Diffusion of responsibility occurs when a duty or task is shared between a group of people instead of only one person. The moral obligation to help does not fall only on one person, but the whole group that is witnessing the emergency. The blame for not helping can be shared instead of resting on only one person. The belief that another bystander in the group will offer help means you may not feel you have to engage.

  • Evaluation Apprehension: This refers to the fear of being judged by others when acting publicly. Individuals may feel afraid of being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or facing the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance.

  • Pluralistic Ignorance: Due to pluralistic ignorance, people are less likely to help others as almost every person is looking for the other person to act first. Pluralistic ignorance basically means when you look around and see no one else is intervening, you think, “Hmm, I must be wrong to think this is an emergency or I must be getting the wrong social cues here because if no one else is reacting then I too should not react.”

  • Confusion of Responsibility: This occurs when a bystander fears that helping could lead others’ to believing that they are the perpetrator. This fear can cause people to not act in dire situations.

Latané and Darley (1970) proposed a five-step decision model of helping, during each of which bystanders can decide to do nothing:

1. Notice the event (or in a hurry and not notice).

2. Interpret the situation as an emergency (or assume that as others are not acting, it is not an emergency).

3. Assume responsibility (or assume that others will do this).

4. Know what to do (or not have the skills necessary to help).

5. Decide to help (or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.).

Real Life Examples Of The Bystander Effect

• Honestly, these examples were deeply disturbing. These examples are extremely useful because we like to think, “I would never do that, I would definitely step up and say something” — but studies show, the larger the group, the slower you will be to respond and the less responsible you will feel to act. These examples deal with everything from sexual assault to murder and how these victims were attacked with many bystanders around including teachers, principles, law enforcement, friends and classmates, without receiving any help.

How To Safely Intervene

When I was a little kid my mom would tell me over and over that if I was in danger I needed to drop all of my belongings (my backpack, my books, my toys) and run for safety. Practicing this prepared me to understand that if I was being chased or abducted or trying to flee an unsafe environment, the weight of my heavy backpack might slow me down. In the same way, we must prime ourselves to understand that if we see someone in danger, we are expectant and prepared to take action.

Before stepping in, try the ABC approach:

• Assess for safety: If you see someone in trouble, ask yourself if you can help safely in any way. Remember, your personal safety is a priority – never put yourself at risk.

• Be in a group: It’s safer to call out behaviour or intervene in a group. If this is not an option, report it to others who can act.

• Care for the victim:Talk to the person who you think may need help. Ask them if they are OK.

When it comes to intervening safely, remember the four Ds – direct, distract, delegate, delay. These don’t have to be done in any specific order so consider what might be best in the situation!

Watch this three minute video on the four Ds

• Direct action: This is the most direct and risky interaction. Call out negative behaviour, tell the person to stop or ask the victim if they are OK. Do this as a group if you can. Be polite. Don’t aggravate the situation - remain calm and state why something has offended you. Stick to exactly what has happened, don’t exaggerate.

• Distract: Interrupt, start a conversation with the perpetrator to allow their potential target to move away or have friends intervene. Or come up with an idea to get the victim out of the situation – tell them they need to take a call, or you need to speak to them; any excuse to get them away to safety. Alternatively, try distracting, or redirecting the situation.

• Delegate: If you are too embarrassed or shy to speak out, or you don’t feel safe to do so, get someone else to step in. Any decent venue has a zero tolerance policy on harassment, so the staff there will act. Remember, calling the authorities might not be the best option. Marginalized communities like communities of color and trans communities might not feel safer with law enforcement present.

• Delay: If the situation is too dangerous to challenge then and there (such as there is the threat of violence or you are outnumbered) just walk away. Wait for the situation to pass then ask the victim later if they are OK. Or report it when it’s safe to do so – it’s never too late to act.

Intervening in a potential life or death situation can be terrifying. It can also be disturbingly calm, imagining nothing is wrong because everyone else is acting like nothing is wrong. Prepare yourself mentally and emotionally to intervene in a way that is safe, non violent, and thoughtful. Don’t follow the crowd. Be the one that wakes up the group and urges them that there is danger. As always, live life with purpose. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek.” See ya next time!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Reperations

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 47 of this newsletter. This week’s topic is Reparations. The word “reparations” out of context simply means “the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.” In the context of American slavery, most people hear the word “reparations” and understand it to be a reference to all of the free labor enslaved people endured (not to mention the emotional, physical and mental trauma and abuse). You’ve probably heard “40 acres and a mule” referred to in your history class as a promise to former slaves, but do you know how that really went down? “Making the American Dream an equitable reality demands the same U.S. government that denied wealth to Blacks restore that deferred wealth through reparations to their descendants in the form of individual cash payments in the amount that will close the Black-white racial wealth divide.” Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

Jim Crow: Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens.

Reparations: A system of redress for egregious injustices.

40 Acres and a Mule: After the Civil War, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman issued Field Order, No. 15, confiscating Confederate land along the rice coast. Sherman would later order “40 acres and a mule” to thousands of Black families, which historians would later refer to as the first act of reparations to enslaved Black people. After Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865, the order would be reversed and the land given to Black families would be rescinded and returned to White Confederate landowners.

The Marshall Plan: The Marshall Plan, also known as the European Recovery Program, was a U.S. program providing aid to Western Europe following the devastation of World War II. It was enacted in 1948 and provided more than $15 billion to help finance rebuilding efforts on the continent.

Field Order 15: On January 16, 1865, during the Civil War (1861-65), Union Gen. William T. Sherman issued his Special Field Order No. 15, which confiscated as Union property a strip of coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina, to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland thirty miles in from the coast. The order redistributed the roughly 400,000 acres of land to newly freed Black families in forty-acre segments. Additionally, some families were to receive mules left over from the war, hence 40 acres and a mule.

Let’s Get Into It

The case for reparations is complex, but one of the main focuses is the reality that while white Americans had the opportunity to build wealth Black Americans (and many other marginalized groups) were not afforded the same opportunities to build generational wealth, security and societal advancement. Read my newsletter on redlining for more on this as well.

In this article from Brookings, Rashawn Ray and Andre M. Perry share some important stats:

• Today, the average white family has roughly 10 times the amount of wealth as the average Black family.

• White college graduates have over seven times more wealth than Black college graduates.

• In 1860, over $3 billion was the value assigned to the physical bodies of enslaved Black Americans to be used as free labor and production.

• In 1861, the value placed on cotton produced by enslaved Blacks was $250 million.

• Economists William “Sandy” Darity and Darrick Hamilton point out in their 2018 report, What We Get Wrong About Closing the Wealth Gap, “Blacks cannot close the racial wealth gap by changing their individual behavior –i.e. by assuming more ‘personal responsibility’ or acquiring the portfolio management insights associated with ‘[financial] literacy.’” In fact, white high school dropouts have more wealth than Black college graduates.

• The racial wealth gap did not result from a lack of labor, it came from a lack of financial capital.

• In 2016, white families had the highest median family wealth at $171,000, compared to Black and Hispanic families, which had $17,600 and $20,700, respectively

The United States has yet to compensate descendants of enslaved Black Americans for their labor. Nor has the federal government atoned for the lost equity from anti-Black housing, transportation, and business policy. Not only do racial wealth disparities reveal fallacies in the American Dream, the financial and social consequences are significant and wide-ranging. Wealth is positively correlated with better health, educational, and economic outcomes.

The History Of Reparations

The United States government is familiar with reparations:

• Native Americans have received land and billions of dollars for various benefits and programs for being forcibly exiled from their native lands — though obviously we are well aware of the constant horrors that the Native community has and continues to face.

• $1.5 billion was paid to Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II.

• Via the Marshall Plan, the United States helped to ensure that Jews received reparations for the Holocaust

• Black Americans are the only group that has not received reparations for state-sanctioned racial discrimination, while slavery afforded some white families the ability to accrue tremendous wealth.

  • About 15 percent of the enslaved shipped from Western Africa died during transport.

  • One in three marriages between enslaved people were split up and one in five children were separated from their parents.

40 Acres and a Mule:

• The first major opportunity that the United States had and where it should have atoned for slavery was right after the Civil War.

• Union leaders including General William Sherman concluded that each Black family should receive 40 acres. Sherman signed Field Order 15 and allocated 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land to Black families.

• Additionally, some families were to receive mules left over from the war, hence 40 acres and a mule.

• After President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, President Andrew Johnson reversed Field Order 15 and returned land back to former slave owners.

• In Washington D.C., slave owners were actually paid reparations for lost property—the formerly enslaved. This practice was also common in nearby states.

Proposed Methods For Reparations

• Individual payments for descendants of enslaved Black Americans: The U.S. government owes lost wages as well as damages to the people it helped enslave. The cumulative amount of restitution for individuals should eliminate the racial wealth gap that currently exists. According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent numbers in 2016, based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, white families had the highest median family wealth at $171,000, compared to Black and Hispanic families, which had $17,600 and $20,700, respectively.

• College tuition to 4-year or 2-year colleges and universities for descendants of enslaved Black Americans

• Student loan forgiveness for descendants of enslaved Black Americans

• Down payment grants and housing revitalization grants for descendants of enslaved Black Americans

• Business grants for business starting up, business expansion to hire more employees, or purchasing property for descendants of enslaved Black Americans\

Who Should Receive Reparations

One key question after deciding what a reparations package should include is who should qualify. In short, a Black person who can trace their heritage to people enslaved in U.S. states and territories should be eligible for financial compensation for slavery. Meanwhile, Black people who can show how they were excluded from various policies after emancipation should seek separate damages.

• For instance, a person like Senator Cory Booker whose parents are descendants of slaves would qualify for slavery reparations

• Senator Kamala Harris (Jamaican immigrant father and Indian immigrant mother) and President Barack Obama (Kenyan immigrant father and white mother) may seek redress for housing and/or education segregation

• Sasha and Malia Obama (whose mother is Michelle Robinson Obama, a descendant of enslaved Africans) would qualify

Will reparations really happen in The United States? Right now, it seems impossible on a nation level. However, at the local level, activists have made some impact. In 2015, Chicago enacted a reparations ordinance covering hundreds of African Americans tortured by police from the 1970s to the 1990s. Last spring, students at Georgetown University voted to create a fund that would raise $400,000 annually to benefit the descendants of almost 300 enslaved people sold by the college in the 1830s. Ultimately, these aren’t the reparations that Black Americans deserve, but they’re the only example we have. See ya next time!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Equity v. Equality

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 46 of this newsletter. This newsletter isn’t going to be super long because we are focusing on a very specific topic, Equity vs. Equality. The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice. While equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and that we must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures (NACE). Let’s get into it!

Let’s Get Into It

The terms “equity” and “equality” are constantly used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing.

Equi­ty involves try­ing to under­stand and give peo­ple what they need to enjoy full, healthy lives.

Equal­i­ty, in con­trast, aims to ensure that every­one gets the same things in order to enjoy full, healthy lives.

Like equi­ty, equal­i­ty aims to pro­mote fair­ness and jus­tice, but it can only work if every­one starts from the same place and needs the same things. (AECF)

We all start from different places based on a variety of factors such as race, socioeconomic status, class, gender identity and more. Equity takes these factors into consideration and levels the playing field so we can all reach our goals. Equality does not take these factors into consideration. Check out the video above for a deeper explanation, but honestly, it’s that simple friends.

Equity really means everyone gets the best chance for a good life. Equality only feels good to those who start from a position of privilege. That’s all for today, see ya next week!

The Racist History of BMI

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 44 of this newsletter. This week’s topic is The Racist History of the Body Mass Index (BMI). Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet was a statistician (not a medical professional) who sought the specifications for the “average man” or l’homme moyen by predominantly measuring white men—and no women—to find a bell curve of data where the peak was considered “normal” and “everything differing from his proportion or condition, would constitute deformity or disease…or monstrosity.” This was during a boom of scientific racism and Quetelet is credited with co-founding the school of positivist criminology which laid the groundwork for criminologists like Cesare Lombroso, who believed that people of color were a separate species. The Quetelet Index took into account Quetelet’s ideal man based on body type, but was never supposed to be a measure of health. Remember, he was a statistician, and this index was designed to learn more about the average body size of the general male population.

Read more to learn how this index quickly became the BMI after insurance companies needed a way to determine a person’s coverage and refuse the “overweight”. When this system was designed with white men in mind (literally like everything else), it’s no wonder marginalized groups are misdiagnosed, discriminated against and shamed for their BMI, when the index was never created with their bodies in mind. Black women are especially demonized by the BMI scale, being the largest at-risk group based on the index—no shock there. Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

BMI (Body Mass Index): BMI is defined by the CDC as “a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. BMI is an inexpensive and easy screening method for weight category—underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and obesity…BMI can be a screening tool, but it does not diagnose the body fatness or health of an individual. To determine if BMI is a health risk, a healthcare provider performs further assessments.”

Quetelet Index: Quetelet’s cross-sectional studies of human growth led him to conclude that other than the spurts of growth after birth and during puberty, 'the weight increases as the square of the height', known as the Quetelet Index until it was termed the Body Mass Index in 1972 by Ancel Keys (1904-2004).

Weight Bias: Negative attitudes, beliefs, judgments, stereotypes, and discriminatory acts aimed at individuals simply because of their weight. It can be overt or subtle and occur in any setting, including employment, healthcare, education, mass media and relationships with family and friends.

Obesity Stigma: Obesity stigma involves actions against people with obesity that can cause exclusion and marginalization, and lead to inequities – for example, when people with obesity do not receive adequate health care or when they are discriminated against in the workplace or in educational settings.

Obesity: The CDC describes obesity as " a serious chronic disease, and the prevalence of obesity continues to increase in the United States. Obesity is common, serious, and costly. This epidemic is putting a strain on American families, affecting overall health, health care costs, productivity, and military readiness.” They continue with, “Obesity impacts our nation’s health, economy, and military readiness…About 1 in 5 children and more than 1 in 3 adults struggle with obesity…Nearly 1 in 4 young adults are too heavy to serve in our military.” It also states on the CDC website, “weight that is higher than what is considered healthy for a given height is described as overweight or obesity. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a screening tool for overweight and obesity.”

Let’s Get Into It

The Origin Of BMI

• Lambert Adolphe Jacques (22 February 1796 – 17 February 1874) was a mathematician, astrologer and statistician in Belgium during the mid-19th century.

• He wanted to categorize the average man” (l’homme moyen, in French) and define what he looked like, an idea that already hinted that some people were inherently below average and, therefore, inferior to others.

• Quetelet is credited with co-founding the school of positivist criminology, “which asserted the dangerousness of the criminal to be the only measure of the extent to which he was punishable.” That positivist school laid the groundwork for criminologists like Cesare Lombroso, who believed that people of color were a separate species. Homo Criminalis, Lombroso argued, were “savages” by birth, identified by physical characteristics that he claimed linked them to primates. This was the booming era of scientific racism — read my newsletter on that here.

• “If the average man were completely determined, we might consider him as the type of perfection,” he wrote in his book A Treatise on Man and the Development of His Faculties. “And everything differing from his proportion or condition, would constitute deformity or disease ... or monstrosity.”

• Quetelet believed that the mathematical mean of a population was its ideal, and his desire to prove it resulted in the invention of the Index, a way of quantifying l’homme moyen’s weight.

• He created the Quetelet Index by using a calculation involving a weight-to-height ratio and set out to determine "the ideal."

• He started with human physical features, like the chests of Scottish Highland regiment soldiers, and moved on to moral and intellectual qualities including suicide, crime, madness, and even poetic ability.

• The features measured primarily were those of caucasian men. (I can’t find any research that mentions ANY non-white men whatsoever, but also haven’t found anything that definitively says it was ONLY white men.)

• Instead of labelling the peak of the bell-curve as merely normal, he labelled it ‘ideal’, with those deviating either ‘overweight’ or ‘underweight’ instead of heavier than average or lighter than average. He envisioned the normal (i.e., typical) as the ideal or something desirable.

• Quetelet never intended that this index be used to measure a person’s health or wellness. “Initially it was used to categorize people and look at the distribution of a population,” says Diana Thomas, Ph.D., a professor of mathematics at West Point.

• “By the turn of the next century, Quetelet’s l’homme moyen would be used as a measurement of fitness to parent, and as a scientific justification for eugenics — the systemic sterilization of disabled people, autistic people, immigrants, poor people, and people of color.”

How Did BMI Become The Standard In Medicine?

• In the late 20th century, health and life insurance companies adopted the Quetelet Index to replace their own height-weight tables (which were already based on stats drawn from mostly white men and some white women).

• At the time, it seemed “simplest and most informative to express the weight of the individual as a percentage of the average weight of persons of the same height, age and sex in the population to which he belongs. That was the reasoning that led to publication of standard height-weight tables by the life insurance industry, beginning with the Medico-Actuarial Mortality Investigations of 1912.”

• Insurers could use this information to determine a person’s coverage and could refuse to cover the “overweight” while many doctors saw these “medico-actuarial tables” as a quick tool to decide who they’d take on as a patient.

• In 1972, Ancel Keys, a physiologist who studied diet, claimed he had a tool that was more accurate then the previously mentioned height-weight tables.

• Keys and his colleagues did a large study on fatness, looking at predominantly white European and American men and concluded that the Quetelet Index, or the “body mass index,” was the most useful tool.

• The researchers’ subjects were drawn from predominantly white nations (the United States, Finland, Italy), along with Japan and South Africa, though their study notes that findings in South Africa “could not be suggested to be a representative sample of Bantu men.” Most of their findings, the authors note, apply to “all but the Bantu men.” That is, Keys’ findings weren’t representative of, or applicable to, non white men. Today, there is a push for Asian populations to have a different scale for BMI, proving that even the Japanese subjects used in this study were not the intended demographic.

Problems With Using BMI As A Measure Of Health

• When white men are the standard for “normal” and “ideal” bodies and their dimensions are seen as the most healthy, it’s no wonder other racial groups and genders are viewed as abnormal.

• The standards for BMI, based on the bodies of white men, have been applies globally, “like in Central Africa where white people are the minority.”

• According to an article from NPR, the formula for BMI itself is nonsensical. “There is no physiological reason to square a person's height. Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.”

• It is physiologically incorrect because “it makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body.”

• Global acceptance of BMI doesn’t take into account that higher or lower BMI might be more appropriate for certain groups. “A large 2003 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), for example, has shown that higher BMIs tend to be more optimal for Black people, and that Black women don’t necessarily show a significant rise mortality risk until a BMI of 37.”

• Many people with “high” BMIs are healthy. 47% of people categorized as having overweight BMI are metabolically healthy. Using BMI perpetuates weight bias. Claiming “obesity is bad” without considering other “genetic, social and environmental factors harms more than it heals.”

• Maria Monge, M.D., director of Adolescent Medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, says: “Many of my [larger-bodied] patients have been told that they’re not healthy, but when I checked their labs and vital signs, everything was pristine,” says Dr. Monge. “The only thing that was out of the range considered 'normal' was their BMI.”

BMI And Its Negative Impact On Marginalized Groups

• BMI doesn’t take into account important social factors related to health. "One of the greatest predictors of health outcomes is socioeconomic status,” says to Kim Gould, MS, LMFT, a therapist, a Health at Every Size personal trainer, and the owner of Autonomy Movement. “Socioeconomic status tells us whether we can afford health care, have access to medical treatment, nutritious foods, and opportunities to move our bodies. It also determines our quality of sleep and how high our anxiety levels are. If our bodies are in a state of fight or flight and there’s cortisol pumping through our systems long-term, that’s destructive."

• BMI is especially problematic for Black women. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Minority Health (OHM), Black women have the highest rates of "obesity" and being “overweight.” These health assessments often fail to consider how chronic stress, economic inequality and institutionalized racism affect Black women in America, never mind the fact that these index was designed with white men in mind.

• Studies show that “racial discrimination is associated with increased body mass index (BMI) and obesity among [ethnic minorities]…[and] this association strengthens with increasing time in the United States.”

I know many friends, coworkers and fitness professionals read my newsletter. Friends, let’s do better for our communities, clients and for ourselves. While we have all become accustomed to hopping on the scale for our yearly physicals, it’s not even necessary for patients to be weighed unless their prescription dosage is based on body mass or for specific medical tests. We need to break the cycle of fat stigma, discrimination and sexism that the Body Mass Index perpetuates. See ya next time!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Food Insecurity

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 43 of this newsletter. This week’s topic is Food Insecurity. In 2020, an estimated 1 in 8 Americans were food insecure, equating to over 38 million Americans, including almost 12 million children. Feeding America states, “food insecurity does not exist in isolation, as low-income families are affected by multiple, overlapping issues like lack of affordable housing, social isolation, economic/social disadvantage resulting from structural racism, chronic or acute health problems, high medical costs, and low wages.” Food deserts, food swamps and food mirages are prevalent across America, with the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighting these communities. Let’s dive in by talking about some key terms, learning some stats, and taking on some action steps to create real-world change. Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

Food Insecurity: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity as a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life.

Social Determinants of Health: The conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning and quality-of-life outcomes and risks

Food Desert: Food deserts are regions where people have limited access to healthful and affordable food. This may be due to having a low income or having to travel farther to find healthful food options. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) define a food desert as an area that has either a poverty rate greater than or equal to 20% or a median family income not exceeding 80% of the median family income in urban areas, or 80% of the statewide median family income in nonurban areas. In order to qualify as a food desert, an area must also meet certain other criteria. In urban areas, at least 500 people or 33% of the population must live more than 1 mile from the nearest large grocery store. In rural areas, at least 500 people or 33% of the population must live more than 10 miles from the nearest large grocery store.

Food Swamp: A food swamp is a region that provides adequate access to healthful and affordable food, as well as an overabundance of less healthful food options. In Canadian urban areas, food swamps are more common than food deserts.

Food Mirage: A food mirage describes an area where people live close to grocery stores offering a variety of healthful foods but cannot afford those foods. Because of this, people must travel farther to find healthful foods that are within budget.

Food Justice: The right to grow, sell and eat healthy food.

Food Apartheid: A term growing in popularity to “Food Desert” because it highlights the political reality of food insecurity. Food and agriculture is deliberately not made available to specific communities (Black, brown, low-income and Indigenous).

Food Sovereignty: The right of people, especially farmers, to define their own agricultural and food systems. Food sovereignty demands that the policies and mechanisms involved in production, distribution and consumption of food focus on creating ecologically sustainable systems and healthy lives for people, rather than profits for corporations.

SNAP: SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), formerly called food stamps, is a government program that helps people buy the food they need for healthy lives. Across the United States, there are 9.5 million families and children using SNAP to buy food. It is the largest program working to fight hunger in America.

Let’s Get Into It

Though food insecurity is closely related to poverty, not all people living below the poverty line experience food insecurity and people living above the poverty line can experience food insecurity. Studies have found that wealthy districts have three times as many supermarkets as poor ones do, that white neighborhoods contain an average of four times as many supermarkets as predominantly Black ones do, and that grocery stores in Black communities are usually smaller with less selection.

“Part of the problem is how the US government’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS is the standard used by the federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments) categorizes retail outlets that sell food. According to the NAICS code, small corner grocery stores are statistically lumped together with supermarkets, such as Safeway, Whole Foods Market, etc. In other words, a community with no supermarket and two corner grocery stores that offer liquor and food would be counted as having two retail food outlets even though the food offered may be extremely limited and consist mainly of junk food.” Many of the convenience stores that had items such as a bunch of bananas or a few apples would sell the fruits individually. Because these items are not priced, the customers are often at the mercy of the person behind the counter who determines the cost then and there. Customers who don’t have a good understanding of English might never ask the price of the item.

Those living in food deserts may also find it difficult to locate foods that are culturally appropriate for them, and dietary restrictions, such as lactose intolerance, gluten allergies, etc., also limit the food choices of those who do not have access to larger chain stores that have more selection. Additionally, studies have found that urban residents who purchase groceries at small neighborhood stores pay between 3 and 37 percent more than suburbanites buying the same products at supermarkets.

Some of the health effects of living in a food desert include:

• a higher incidence of obesity

• increased prevalence of diabetes

• other weight-related conditions, especially in children

View fullsize

View fullsize

Levels Of Food Security

According to Feeding America, households are often described as either food secure or food insecure, four levels of food security describe the range of households’ experiences in accessing enough food.

Food Insecurity And Chronic Disease

The cycle of food insecurity and chronic disease begins when an individual or family cannot afford enough nutritious food, illustrated by the image below. The combination of stress and poor nutrition can make disease management even more challenging. Further, the time and money needed to respond to these health conditions strains the household budget, leaving little money for essential nutrition and medical care. This causes the cycle to continue, increasing the risk of worsening existing conditions.

Food Insecurity In The Black Community

• The Black community consistently faces hunger at higher rates than whites due to social, economic, and environmental challenges. In 2020, 24% of Black individuals experienced food insecurity - more than three times the rate of white households.

• Discriminatory policies and practices have led Black people to be more likely to live in poverty, more likely to face unemployment, and have fewer financial resources like savings or property than their white counterparts. All of these factors increase someone's likelihood to experience hunger.

• The median income for Black households is roughly $46,000 per year while non-Hispanic, white households earned a median income of roughly $71,000 per year.

• While the United States has an overall poverty rate of 11.4%, within the Black community, the poverty rate is 19.5%. Meanwhile, poverty in the non-Hispanic, white community is 10.1%.

Food Insecurity In The Latinx Community

• Latinx communities experience unique challenges and are more likely to face hunger than non-Hispanic white communities. In 2020, more than 19% of all Latinxs in the United States was food insecure.

• Racial prejudice and language, education, and cultural barriers create inequalities that make Latinx communities more vulnerable to food insecurity.

• Latinxs were 2.5 times more likely to experience food insecurity than white individuals. Latinx children were more than twice as likely to live in food-insecure households as white children.

• According to the Census, 1 in 6 Latinos live in poverty compared to 1 in 16 white people.

Food Insecurity In The LGBTQ+ Community

• Transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people experience high rates of poverty, joblessness, and homelessness, which drive risk for food insecurity.

• More than 25% of LGBTQ+ adults (about 2.2 million people) did not have enough money for food for themselves or their families, at some point in the last year. This is compared to 17% of non-LGBTQ+ adults

• More than 25% LGBT adults aged 18-44 participated in SNAP, compared to 20% of non-LGBT adults in the same age group.

• In North Carolina, the disparity is even greater, with 47% of transgender respondents saying they faced food insecurity, compared to 12% of others; according to Feeding America, a nonprofit organization, about 14% of North Carolinians, including 20% of children in the state, faced hunger.

• Within the transgender community, ethnic minorities face even greater disparities when it comes to food insecurity.

Resources

Effective responses to food insecurity must address the overlapping challenges posed by the social determinants of health (defined above). Click the links below to learn more about how to make and impact:

• Work with Feeding America.

• Find Mutual Aid networks.

• Contact your representatives.

• Stock a community fridge.

• Volunteer at a food bank.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Ahmaud Arbery

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 41 of this newsletter! This week I’m covering the Ahmaud Arbery case and the trials of his murderers, Gregory McMichael, his son Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. Right. Currently, we are at day 5 of the trial so I will continue to share more in my weekly newsletters as the case develops. At first, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery in February 2020 went largely unnoticed outside the South Georgia community where the 25-year-old lived and died. It wasn't until a video of the shooting surfaced on May 5, 2020, that the Black man's death drew nationwide attention. Three white men have all pleaded not guilty to Arbery’s murder. I was shocked while researching this case that four prosecutors have already been appointed to this case and recused themselves because they either are connected to or agree with the murderers. I was shocked that Judge Timothy Walmsley said the court "found that there appears to be intentional discrimination" on the part of the defense after they chose only one single Black juror and twelve white ones—yet still has allowed the case to go forward. How can Black Americans ever have justice when white supremacy continues to infiltrate and dominate our systems of supposed law and order? Let’s get into it.

Let’s Get Into It

The Timeline

February 23, 2020: Ahmaud Arbery is fatally shot

• Ahmaud was out for a jog in mostly white Satilla Shores neighborhood near Brunswick.

• Gregory McMichael and his son Travis McMichael pursed Arbery in a truck, both armed with guns.

• Gregory McMichael is former police officer and investigator in the local District Attorney's Office.

• Gregory McMichael told police he and his son had pursued Arbery because they suspected he was responsible for a string of recent purported burglaries in the neighborhood. There had only been one burglary, reported more than seven weeks prior to the shooting.

• A third man, William "Roddie" Bryan, also joined the pursuit and recorded the shooting on his cellphone.

• During the struggle, Arbery is shot three times, twice in the chest, after which he slumps to the ground.

• It took 74 days after Arbery’s death for the men to be arrested and charged.

February 27, 2020: AG's office learns Brunswick Judicial Circuit district attorney recusing herself

• Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson recused herself from the case, citing Gregory McMichael's position as a former investigator in her office.

April 7, 2020: Second prosecutor recuses himself, lays out a defense of the McMichaels

• The case was then taken over by District Attorney of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, George Barnhill.

• Barnhill’s son worked in Johnson's office and had previously worked with Gregory McMichael on a previous prosecution of Arbery.

• He only asked to relinquish the case in early April at the request of Arbery's mother, though he knew about the personal conflict sooner.

• Barnhill said he believed the McMichaels' actions were "perfectly legal."

• Finally, Atlantic Judicial Circuit District Attorney Tom Durden is appointed to the case.

May 5, 2020: Video of the shooting surfaces

May 7, 2020: The McMichaels are arrested 

May 11, 2020: A fourth prosecutor takes over

• AG Carr announced a fourth prosecutor, Cobb County District Attorney Joyette Holmes, would lead the case after Durden had asked to step down due to a lack of sufficient resources.

May 21, 2020: Bryan is arrested 

June 4, 2020: Travis McMichael used racial slur after shooting Arbery, GBI agent testifies 

• Bryan tells investigators he heard Travis McMichael use the n-word after shooting Arbery dead.

• GBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard Dial said there were "numerous times" Travis McMichael used racial slurs on social media and in messaging services.

• Bryan also had several messages on his phone that included "racial" terms, Dial said.

June 24, 2020: All three suspects indicted on murder charges

• Glynn County Grand Jury indicted Gregory and Travis McMichael and Roddie Bryan on malice and felony murder charges.

• McMichaels face several other charges, including aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

• Bryan also faces a charge of criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

July 17, 2020: Suspects plead not guilty

November 13, 2020: Bond denied for the McMichaels

April 28, 2021: Suspects are indicted on federal hate crime charges

• Federal prosecutors announced a grand jury had indicted the McMichaels and Bryan on hate crime and kidnapping charges.

• Each were charged with one count of interference with rights and one count of attempted kidnapping.

• Gregory and Travis McMichael were also charged with using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.

May 11, 2021: Suspects plead not guilty in federal court

October 18, 2021: Jury selection begins

November 3, 2021: A jury is seated

• It took 2 1/2 weeks for the jury selection process to be completed.

• A panel of 12 people -- 11 white jurors and one Black juror -- was seated on Wednesday, November 3.

• Prosecutors for the state accused defense attorneys of disproportionately striking qualified Black jurors and basing some of their strikes on race.

• Judge Timothy Walmsley said the court "found that there appears to be intentional discrimination" on the part of the defense — yet still has allowed the case to go forward.

What’s a Citizen’s Arrest?

• Defense attorneys will likely argue that the men’s actions were protected by Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law, which at the time allowed a person to detain someone whom they believe just committed a crime.

• The attorneys may claim the men acted in self-defense while attempting to carry out a legitimate citizen’s arrest of Arbery, whom they suspected of burglary.

• Georgia’s outdated and dangerous citizen’s arrest law — one that was created in an era of slavery and emboldened citizens to act on their worst biases — has since been repealed.

• Georgia’s citizen’s arrest statute had its origins in the Civil War era. Passed in 1863, when slavery was still considered legal by Southerners despite the Emancipation Proclamation, the law stated that a private person could “arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.”

• Also factoring into the Arbery trial are Georgia’s open carry law (which makes it legal to openly carry firearms in the state with the proper permits) and “stand your ground” law (which allows for the use of deadly force if a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or severe bodily injury).

I am absolutely heartbroken for Ahmaud Arbery and his family. His parents who had to sit in a courtroom with their son’s murders and watch footage of their child’s death—lynched in the street, called a nigger by an ex-police officer in broad daylight in America. As always, I am devastated, disappointed, exhausted, but never defeated, in my fight for racial justice.

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

How to Become an Activist

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 39 of this newsletter! This week’s topic is How to Become an Activist. The last time I sent out a poll for upcoming newsletters, this was one of the most requested topic and I’m excited to jump into it today. Activism is defined as a political ideology. Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct, or intervene in social, political, economic, or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good. An activist is someone who advocates for or practices activism. Sometimes we have a perception that one can only be an activist if they are raising a lot of money for a cause, or giving a speech at a rally, or (in today’s world) have hundreds of thousands of instagram followers who re-share their infographics. The truth is, anyone can be an activist in their daily life but it takes more than being a slacktavist on social media, it takes time, patience, and mental and emotional strength to stand up for justice. Let’s get into it!

Key Terms

Activist: an activist is someone who works to support a cause. One who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change. A proponent or practitioner of activism.

Activism: activism is the use of direct action to achieve an end, either for or against an issue. The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause. The doctrine or policy of taking positive, direct action to achieve an end, esp. a political or social end.

Social Justice: Social justice examines the distribution of wealth, privileges, and opportunity within a society and involves fighting oppression such as ableism, ageism, classism, racism, sexism and oppression of those who are members of the LGBTQIA+ community, are from different countries, or are religious.

Racial Justice: Racial justice is the systematic fair treatment of people of all races, resulting in equitable opportunities and outcomes for all. Racial justice initiatives address structural and systemic changes to ensure equal access to opportunities, eliminate disparities, and advance racial equity—thus ensuring that all people, regardless of their race, can prosper and reach their full potential. Racial justice and equity is not achieved by the mere absence of racial discrimination or the perceived absence of harmful racial bias, but rather through deliberate action to dismantle problematic and build positively transformational systems – action must be carried through with the conviction, commitment and dedication of advocates.

Climate Justice: “Climate justice” is a term, and more than that a movement, that acknowledges climate change can have differing social, economic, public health, and other adverse impacts on underprivileged populations. Climate justice begins with recognizing key groups are differently affected by climate change. Climate impacts can exacerbate inequitable social conditions.

Keyboard Warrior: A person who posts highly opinionated text and images online in an aggressive or abusive manner, often without revealing his or her own identity.

Slacktivism: The United Nations has defined slacktivism as when people “support a cause by performing simple measures” but “are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change.” Slacktivism typically means taking to social media. It encompasses things like retweeting words of hope after a national disaster or liking a charity’s Facebook page—as the study implies. However, it can also include non-digital actions like wearing a ribbon on your shirt to bring awareness.

Let’s Get Into It

There’s no one path to becoming more active in your community, whether it’s politics, climate change, gender inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, prison reform, racial justice or any other area. In my own personal experience, I was hesitant to call myself an activist as I sat on my sofa re-posting infographics, then as I researched and wrote my own, and still as I started becoming an anti-racism educator. In hindsight, I realize I didn’t need to do something specific to finally earn the title activist, nor is it crucial to my identity or my work to have a title. Below are some ways I have gotten more active, uncomfortable, effective and impactful in my work over the last two years:

Take A Look Inside

Before we can go out and change the world, we have to take a peek inside of those dark, dusty corners of our hearts and minds and figure out what is important to us and why, while also asking ourselves a few questions. What are my implicit biases? How have I perpetuated systemic racism, homophobias, sexism, gentrification and more? Who am I and who do I want to be? You definitely don’t have to be perfect (who is?) but having those honest inward conversations will only make you more relatable, honest and empathetic as you start trying to reach others.

Do The Work

It means what it sounds like. Work. Don’t just read one book, read many and read them consistently. Talk to people who are close to you and talk to strangers at book clubs and workshops and seminars. Learn about what you are passionate about. Why do you think I write this newsletter every single week? I have taught myself so many anti-racism related topics week in and week out because I can’t expect to motivate and educate without continuing to learn myself in a consistent and disciplined way.

Use Your Voice

Whether you’re introverted or extroverted, a strong public speaker or a great writer, the host of a podcast or the curator of an Instagram account followed by 200 friends, use whatever platform you have and use your voice. The first time you challenge the status quo or proudly claim your truth, it will be scary. It will not be glamorous and it will not always feel triumphant. Sometimes it feels like an anxious uncertainty or a whisper of regret, because being comfortable is always easier. But it is not about being comfortable, it is about being a changemaker in your community.

Start Today

It will start out messy. My first newsletter was a hot mess. My first IG live conversation I was so quiet and monotone, trying to hide the quiver in my voice. My first podcast I was shivering with nerves. But start. Start and be afraid. Start and be uncertain. Start and make mistakes. But start and do it now. When Kira West and I started ACTIV-ISM, our anti-racism wellness company, we had a text thread, a zoom call, and a blurry vision, and yet 60 people followed us through that first month long program and all 60 found community, understanding and a sense of purpose simply because we were present, vulnerable, and ready to make mistakes. Start today, you won’t regret it.

When we are behind our phone screens sharing infographics that we barely skim, tapping auto-populated information into digital petitions, and arguing in the comments section of a Facebook post, it definitely feels like we are doing something. It feels stressful, and chaotic and oddly satisfying, but does it make for real change? How much more work would it take for you to find a local non profit and start volunteering? How much more challenging would it be to call a family meeting and dive into a conversation with your parents and siblings? Virtual movements filled with hashtags and petitions are absolutely useful and there will always be folks ready to take up that mantle, but there aren’t many willing to do the work in real life. Are you?

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Slavery & the White House

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 38 of this newsletter! This week’s topic is Slavery & the White House. Construction for the White House began in 1792. Apparently, the commissioners for the District of Columbia, charged by Congress to build the new city under the direction of President George Washington, initially planned to import workers from Europe to meet their labor needs, but soon decided relying on enslaved people for labor was a better (and surely cheaper) solution. After the White House was burned down in 1814 during a British invasion that was part of the War of 1812, slaves were once again used during reconstruction. The White House’s history is further complicated by the fact that 12 US presidents owned slaves during their lifetime, while 41 of the 56 founding fathers owned slaves upon signing the Declaration of Independence. The history of this country is marked and marred with the suffering and exploitation of human beings. Let’s get into it.

Let’s Get Into It

The Founding Father’s & Slavery

• In his 1775 treatise, Taxation No Tyranny, British author Dr. Samuel Johnson rhetorically asked, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” — He candidly pointed out the fact that many of the founding fathers who so avidly opposed British control continued to exploit, rape, murder and traffic human beings.

• The institution of slavery had been a part of American society for more than 150 years when the Revolutionary War began in 1775.

• It is estimated that nearly 10% of the Continental Army was African American at one point. This would be the only integrated American Army until the Korean War almost two hundred years later.

• Slavery existed, and was protected by law, in all 13 American colonies when they declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776.

• It’s estimated that 41 of the 56 founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were slave owners.

• Four of the first 5 presidents of the United States were slave owners. 7 presidents in total owned slaves while living there. (Plus George Washington though he didn’t bring his slaves to the White House). 12 presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives.

• When Washington died, he made a statement to the nation and freed the slaves he owned in his will, the only founding father to do so. George Washington owned between 250 and 300 slaves during his presidency, according to the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies

• Thomas Jefferson is one of the most criticized slave owner — as he should be. The man who wrote the very words, “All men are created equal,” constantly raped his slaves, impregnating Sally Hemings when she was only a child. Jefferson was the first to bring his slaves — a dozen of his household servants from Monticello — to 1600 Pennsylvania.

• Ultimately, these contradictions and discrepancies lead to the Civil War in 1861.

The White House & Slavery

• Construction on the President’s House began in 1792. The Capitol and other iconic buildings in Washington, D.C were also constructed by slaves.

• The Commissioners of the Federal District paid regional plantation owners for use of their enslaved workforce; the owners pocketed the wages, while the commissioners provided housing, some medical care, and rations for slaves.

• As of now, we can link 307 enslaved men, women and children to the building and staffing of the White House.

• Wage rolls for May 1795 list five enslaved people, Tom, Peter, Ben, Harry and Daniel, four of whom were owned by White House architect James Hoban. Daniel was owned by Hoban’s assistant, Pierce Purcell.

• Slaves were likely involved in all aspects of construction, including carpentry, masonry, carting, rafting, plastering, glazing and painting and slaves appear to have shouldered alone the grueling work of sawing logs and stones.

• In addition to constructing the buildings, slaves also worked the quarries where the stones for the government buildings came from.

• Enslaved individuals worked in a variety of positions in the president’s household, including as chefs, gardeners, stable hands, maids, butlers, lady’s maids, valets, and more.

• Enslaved individuals working in the White House often slept in the attic or in the Ground Floor rooms which were damp and rodent infested.

• Ironically, the Statue of Freedom that sits atop the Capitol dome was made with the help of Philip Reid, a man enslaved by sculptor Thomas Crawford, who was commissioned to build the statue. According to the Architect of the Capitol, Reid was paid $1.25 a day by the federal government for his contributions.

• According to surviving documentation, at least nine presidents either brought with them or hired out enslaved individuals to work at the White House: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor.

• The White House Historical Association’s website says the president’s salary at this time was $25,000 a year and “it was not enough to maintain the house properly, so there was no realistic way an individual president could afford to keep up the house without either enslaved staff or extensive personal wealth.” — I feel like this could have definitely been worded in a better way, this feels gross and like a justification for slavery (in my opinion).

• The first child born at the White House was born into slavery. In November 1801, Ursula Granger Hughes, a fourteen-year-old enslaved cook, arrived at the White House from Monticello (Jefferson’s estate) to work in Thomas Jefferson’s presidential household. She gave birth to a child who soon died, likely named Asnet Hughes, in March 1802.

• Abolitionists have juxtaposed the Capitol, the symbolic heart of American democracy and liberty, with the hypocrisy of slavery, writing: “Scenes have taken place in Washington this summer that would make the devil blush through the darkness of the pit, if he had been caught in them. SIXTY HUMAN BEINGS, were carried right by the Capitol yard to the slave ship!” Here, we are specifically talking about the Yellow House, an infamous slave prison owned by William H. Williams. The Yellow House was located just south of the National Mall. A flag waved atop this prision holding Black bodies waiting to be sold down the river in the nation’s very capital.

Learn More About The Capital’s Construction Here

The history of the United States of America is far from the simple fairytale we were taught in elementary school. It is vile, exploitative and shameful in many ways. When Michelle Obama said, "I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves,” the magnitude of that statement was not lost on me and even listening to it now bring tears to my eyes. I waiver between moments of hope and moments of sobering outrage when I think of this country. How do you feel about your America?

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Biracial & Multiracial Identities in America

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 37 of this newsletter! This week’s topic is Biracial & Multiracial Identities in America. In the past, I’ve referred to myself as “mixed-race” because I am Latinx and Black, but really, that doesn’t mean I’m mixed-raced at all. The first step in having conversations around race and oppression is understanding the language that we use, and I was mistaken when I interpreted my intersectional identity as a mixed-race identity. In short, Latinx or Hispanic is not a race, it’s an ethnicity. And race—while tied to ethnicity—is based more on phenotype (or your appearance) than anything else. Some might say language makes these conversations too difficult, but I say it makes it more specific, more nuanced, and more interesting. This week we talk about the complexities in identities that are biracial or multiracial from the way they are interpreted in the US Census to the way they are experienced. Let’s get into it.

Key Terms

Race: Many constructions of race are associated with phenotypic traits and geographic ancestry. The concept of "race" as a classification system of humans based on visible physical characteristics emerged over the last five centuries, influenced by European colonialism. The concept has manifested in different forms based on social conditions of a particular group, often used to justify unequal treatment. These false notions of racial difference have become embedded in the beliefs and behaviours of society, especially in Western nations. Race is strongly linked to skin colour.

Ethnicity: A social construct that divides people into smaller social groups based on characteristics such as shared sense of group membership, values, behavioral patterns, language, political and economic interests, history and ancestral geographical base. It is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion, it is sometimes possible for individuals or groups to leave one ethnic group and become part of another. The social construct that ethnic groups share a similar gene pool has been contradicted within the scientific community as evidenced by data finding more genetic variation within ethnic groups compared to between ethnic groups. The only classifications for ethnicity on the US census is “Hispanic” or “Non-Hispanic”.

Nationality: A legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states.

Multiracial: Having two or more races.

Monoracial: Having one race.

Intersectionality: Intersectionality is a framework for conceptualizing a person, group of people, or social problem as affected by a number of discriminations and disadvantages. It takes into account people’s overlapping identities and experiences in order to understand the complexity of prejudices they face.

American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Minority: Sociologist Louis Wirth (1945) defined a minority group as “any group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination.” Note that being a numerical minority is not a characteristic of being a minority group; sometimes larger groups can be considered minority groups due to their lack of power. It is the lack of power that is the predominant characteristic of a minority, or subordinate group. For example, consider apartheid in South Africa, in which a numerical majority (the black inhabitants of the country) were exploited and oppressed by the white minority.

Person of Color: A person whose skin pigmentation is other than and especially darker than what is considered characteristic of people typically defined as white. A person who is of a race other than white or who is of mixed race

Marginalized: Marginalization is the act of relegating someone to an unimportant or powerless position, oppressing a person or a group, relegating them to the fringes of society.

Let’s Get Into It

From National Geographic's "The Changing Face of America"

In October 2013 I distinctly remember seeing the Nation Geographics cover image below with the words “The Changing Face of America.” In this issue, these faces are described as “disrupting our expectations” as we see hair that doesn’t align with our expectations on eye color or skin tone that seems mismatched with a certain shaped nose. This made a lasting impression on me because much like the faces in the photos I constantly have had my features questioned and scrutinized throughout my life. The bottom line is race is a social construct, it means nothing, but it means everything. It makes less and less sense as time passes and society becomes more integrated and cross culturalization becomes more common, yet we are still ruled by white supremacy. It’s a lot.

The US Census & Race

From National Geographic's "The Changing Face of America"

In 2015, Time Magazine wrote, “Half of all children in the U.S. will be nonwhite by 2020… and more than half the entire population by 2044.” Today, the US Census says America is 76% “White, alone” and 2.8% “Two or more races”. Getting accurate data when it comes to how Americans identify their race is tricky and often skewed. Let me share a little history to explain why.

Did you ever wonder why “Hispanic” was the only ethnicity on any census or on official US forms? In the 1930’s “Mexican” was listed as a race on the US Census while Mexican-Americans were often targeted and discriminated against, and Mexican-Americans didn’t want to check this box. Mexican-Americans and other Latinx groups like Puerto Ricans used their proximity to whiteness to challenge discrimination, claiming they too were fair enough to be considered “white” (remember race is mostly about how you look). In 1980, we see “Hispanic” pop up on the official US Census after various attempts at collecting this data. They asked people to categorize themselves as Puerto Rican or Cuban or Mexican, and that didn’t work well, barely anyone answered, but the, “Check here if you are Hispanic” question seemed to get the largest response. However, in a 2010 study, when when people were contacted who checked both “white” and “Hispanic” and asked if they considered themselves white, less than half of them identified that way. They just didn’t feel they fit into any other category.

When I was in college, I took a masters summer program at NYU called “The Cultural Imperative” where we went to Puerto Rico and learned about it’s colonization, economy, race relations and infrastructure. One of the most overwhelming issues is that over 70% of the population checked “white” on the census. They attributed this to many issues. One was a lack of culturally appropriate language — Latinos might say Mestizo, Indesito, Mulatto, Negro, Blanquito to differentiate between skin tones and characteristics. When race is diluted to only having the options of Black and white, especially in Latinx communities with ancestry comprised of European, Indigenous and African components, it’s often easier to check the box that says “white” than grapple with your family tree. We’ve also all been told and shown over and over that the lighter you are, the more privilege, power and security you have in America.

What Is Considered Mulitracial?

Whether biracial (two races) or multiracial (multiple races), the noteworthy element of these terms is first and foremost understanding what constitutes a race. Someone who is Korean and Chinese is most likely not biracial because both of their ethnicities can be categorized under the race “Asian.” But this can get far more complicated. What about someone who is Dominican and Argentinian? Both countries speak Spanish, though Dominicans are considered Hispanic and Argentinians are considered European. The real question is, what does this person look like? Are they dark skinned or fair? Do they have Indigenous features? Where were they born? What does the world see when they look at them without any context of their ancestry? This is why race can be complicated. The answer, based on the social construct of race, would be most closely tied to the color of their skin.

In and of itself, race is based on appearance alone. Bringing it back to my experience with race, my mom is Puerto Rican and my dad is Dominican. They are both from the Caribbean, speak similar dialects of Spanish and have similar ancestry — a mix of Spanish, Taino and African descendants. My dad is a little darker than me and my mom a little lighter. As a kid I grappled with this idea of what water fountain I would be allowed to drink from during segregation in the Jim Crow South as I learned about it in history class—was I light enough to call myself white or dark enough to be considered Black? As I got older my parents told me they always checked off “Black” on forms and I felt confused because we spoke Spanish at home so weren’t we just Hispanic? This is why I mentioned earlier that I am not multiracial, both of my parents are Black, so I am Black. A Black Latina. Labels can be exhausting, but as I said earlier, then can also be nuanced and useful.

I share my personal story around race and identity because race and identity is a personal thing. While we can scrutinize the key terms above and delve into history and genetics, unpacking specific geographical ties, identity is shaped from the outside in and the inside out.

Vox talked to 6 mixed-race people in this article and describes that while America is becoming more multiracial, we haven’t reached a “multiracial utopia free of racial strife”. “Multiracial people have long been targets of fear and confusion, from suspicions of mixed people “passing” as white under the Jim Crow system to accusations of not embracing one’s ‘race’ enough.”

The “What Are You” Question

Being asked “What are you?” does not feel good. Starting now, make a decision to stop asking people that question. I’ll drop some better options below, but before you even ask, check in with yourself:

• Why do I want to know this person’s race, ethnicity or nationality?

• Is this question useful or am I just being nosy (and rude) because I feel they are an “other”?

• Is it an appropriate time and setting to ask this question?

• Can I offer something about myself while asking something about them?

Once you’ve checked in with yourself, try:

• Being specific: “What is your ethnicity?” or “How do you racially identify?” or “What is your nationality?” — and know the difference between ethnicity, race and nationality!

• Offer information about why you’re asking: “I’m celebrating Lunar New Year with my husband. He’s Chinese. What’s your ethnicity?”

As we know better, we do better. Don’t make assumptions or feel entitled to someone else’s personal information. See ya next week!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

The Black Panther Party

“Black people need some peace. White people need some peace. And we are going to have to fight. We’re going to have to struggle. We’re going to have to struggle relentlessly to bring about some peace, because the people that we’re asking for peace, they are a bunch of megalomaniac warmongers, and they don’t even understand what peace means.”

— Fred Hampton

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 36 of this newsletter! This week’s topic is The Black Panther Party. Writing this newsletter was a clear reminder of why I began writing in the first place, because knowing our history matters, especially when the truth is constantly denied to us through the American public education system. The brief, yet impactful legacy of the BPP is both inspiring and devastating. The assassination of Chairman Fred Hampton has brought me to tears on more than one occasion. The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was founded in October 1966 in Oakland, California by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale and the first point of their Ten Point Platform and Program was “We want freedom.” In 1968, the FBI’s first director, J. Edgar Hoover called the Black Panthers, “One of the greatest threats to the nation’s internal security,” because they were angry, organized and defiant. COINTELPRO wanted the Black Panthers exterminated, disgraced and omitted from the history books — and largely succeeded. Today, we focus on the truth of their legacy. Let’s get into it.

Let’s Get Into It

Who Were The Black Panthers?

• Founded in 1966 in Oakland, California, the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (BPP) was the era’s most influential militant Black power organization.

• Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton founded the Black Panther Party for Self Defense with a slogan of “Power to the People.”

• They were inspired by Malcom X and drew on Marxist ideology. The Civil Rights Movement seemed aimed at the Jim Crow South to Seale and Newton, and they wanted to create a movement in the North and the West.

• While the Black Panthers were often portrayed as a gang, their leadership saw the organization as a political party whose goal was getting more African Americans elected to political office.

• They wore leather jackets, black berets and walked in lock step formations.

• They were a sophisticated political organization comprised of predominantly uneducated, young, poor, disenfranchised Black people who realized that through organization and discipline, they could use their talents and resources to make a real impact in their community.

• They had a radical political agenda compared to non-violence advocates like Martin Luther King Jr (least we forget King was hated, a target of the FBI, assassinated and murdered).

• While the Civil Rights Movement sought equality, the Black Power Movement assumed equality of person, and sought the opportunity to express that equality through pride.

• Women made up about half of the Panther membership and often held leadership roles.

• At its peak in 1968, the Black Panther Party had roughly 2,000 members.

• The party enrolled the most members and had the most influence in the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Area, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

• They worked with many non-Black folks and organizations, with Bobby Seale stating: “The biggest misconception is the FBI said that the Black Panthers hated all white folks. How could we hate white folks when we protested along with thousands of our white left radical and white liberal friends? We worked in coalition with each other, in coalition with the Asian community organizations and coalition with Native American community organizations, in coalition with Hispanic, Puerto Ricans and brown [people]. I had coalitions with 39 different organizational groups crossing all racial and organizational lines.”

The Ten Point Platform

1. We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.

2. We want full employment for our people.

3. We want an end to the robbery by the Capitalists of our Black Community.

4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings.

5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present day society.

6. We want all Black men to be exempt from military service.

7. We want an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black people.

8. We want freedom for all Black men held in federal, state, county and city prisons and jails.

9. We want all Black people when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace.

Why Were They Feared By White America?

• The New York Times wrote an article claiming responsibility for their portrayal of The Black Panther Party, stating: “The media, like most of white America, was deeply frightened by their aggressive and assertive style of protest,” Professor Rhodes said. “And they were offended by it.”

• The media called them “antiwhite” (though the Panthers frequently called on ALL Americans to fight for equality) and constantly focused on their guns and militant style.

• When discussing clashes with police, the media focused on the altercation, not the critique of police brutality — something Black America continues to deal with to this day. What went largely unreported was the fact that these conflicts stemmed not just from the Panthers, but also from the federal government.

• It was not until years later that the Senate’s Church Committee would show how pervasively the F.B.I. worked against the Panthers and how much it influenced press coverage. It encouraged urban police forces to confront Black Panthers; planted informants and agents provocateurs; and intimidated local community members who were sympathetic to the group. The Panther-police conflict that inevitably followed played directly into the narrative that had been established: that the party was a provocative, dangerous organization.

What Did The Black Panthers Do?

• Although created as a response to police brutality, the Black Panther Party quickly expanded to advocate for other social reforms:

  • Local chapters of the Panthers, often led by women, focused attention on community “survival programs.”

  • A free breakfast program for 20,000 children each day as well as a free food program for families and the elderly.

  • They sponsored schools, legal aid offices, clothing distribution, local transportation, and health clinics and sickle-cell testing centers.

  • They created Freedom Schools in nine cities including the noteworthy Oakland Community School.

• They practiced copwatching, observing and documenting police activity in Black communities. They often did this with loaded firearms because they advocated for armed self defense. The BPP rejected nonviolence as both a tactic and a philosophy, emphasizing instead the importance of physical survival to the continuing struggle for civil and human rights.

Prominent Members

• Huey P. Newton

• Bobby Seale

• Angela Davis

• Fred Hampton

• Stokely Carmichael/ Kwame Ture

• Elaine Brown

How Were They Destroyed?

• The Mulford Act of 1967 in California was a state-level initiative that prohibited the open carry of loaded firearms in public spaces as a direct response to the BPP. The Black Panther Party sparked fear among policymakers, who translated these anxieties into legislation designed to undermine this social activism. Because the BPP relied on strategies (like having firearms) that were not widely used by mainstream civil rights activists, the group faced new forms of legal repression. Policymakers successfully employed gun control legislation to undercut the BPP. By criminalizing the BPP’s use of weapons on California streets, the Mulford Act weakened the BPP and provided opportunities to show them breaking the law.

• In 1969, COINTELPRO (a branch of the FBI aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations) targeted the Panthers for elimination — shown in various documents.

• FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who deemed the Black Panther Party a threat to American security, launched a counterintelligence attack against the group, which included infiltrators and deadly raids. By the time the group was dismantled in the mid-1970s, 28 members were dead. 750 Panthers were imprisoned. Systematically, the local and federal authorities dismantled the organization.

• Read FBI director J. Edgar Hoover’s statement from May 15, 1969 calling “to neutralize the BPP and destroy what it stands for.’

Today, American children learn a false and warped history of The Black Panther Party. Teachers’ Curriculum Institute’s textbook History Alive! The United States Through Modern Times states: “Black Power groups formed that embraced militant strategies and the use of violence. Organizations such as the Black Panthers rejected all things white and talked of building a separate black nation.” Holt McDougal’s textbook The Americans reads: “Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded a political party known as the Black Panthers to fight police brutality in the ghetto.” This same textbook then says, “Public support for the Civil Rights Movement declined because some whites were frightened by the urban riots and the Black Panthers.”

While there is so much more to unpack about The Black Panther Party and the legacies of some of its most prominent members, I hope this newsletter clarified a lot of omitted history. In a time when critical race theory is under attack, it becomes crystal clear how much has been warped by the media — from news channels to text books — and how much more we need the truth.

See ya next week!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Stereotypes: 6

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 36 of this newsletter! It’s the sixth week of our Stereotypes series, and this week we focus on the Jewish community. I grew up in a predominantly white, catholic community, and while I had one or two classmates over the years who were Jewish, I never knew anything about Judaism until I went to college, where two of my roommates were Jewish along with many of my classmates. While I had not encountered many Jewish people in my childhood, I still had a lot of ideas about what they might be like—stereotypes—that I learned from television or pop culture or the things I would overhear classmates or teachers say. This is how stereotypes manifest in our subconscious, most often not based in our lived experiences, but on the caricatures we see in the media. Today, about 61% of American adults agree with at least one or more classic anti-Semitic canards, while 1 in 5 believe Jewish-Americans “still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.” Today, we will continue to unpack these stereotypes while understanding the history and background that’s created these caricatures of the Jewish community in America.

Key Terms

Jewish: Any person whose religion is Judaism. In the broader sense of the term, a Jew is any person belonging to the worldwide group that constitutes, through descent or conversion, a continuation of the ancient Jewish people, who were themselves descendants of the Hebrews of the Bible (Old Testament).

Anti-Semitism: Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. Nazi anti-Semitism culminated in the Holocaust.

Zionism: Zionism is a religious and political effort that brought thousands of Jews from around the world back to their ancient homeland in the Middle East and reestablished Israel as the central location for Jewish identity. While some critics call Zionism an aggressive and discriminatory ideology, the Zionist movement has successfully established a Jewish homeland in the nation of Israel.

“Jewface”: “Jewface” is a term that contemporary audiences are unlikely to recognize, aside from its obvious connection to the term “blackface.” It refers to the vaudeville mainstay of the stage Jew, a Yiddish-speaking, large-nosed, bearded caricature, often played by a non-Jewish actor, that sprang into popular circulation after large numbers of Eastern European Jews began immigrating to the United States in the 1880s. Although such a portrayal would provoke outrage from Jews and non-Jews alike in America today, reactions in the turn-of-the-century Jewish community were mixed. Read more about it and Eddy Portnoy, curator of the new exhibit “Jewface: Yiddish Dialect Songs of Tin Pan Alley” at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.

Let’s Get Into It

As with every group we have discussed so far, no one group is a monolith. All people have complex backgrounds, beliefs and feelings. But what we are dissecting today are un-truths that you may subconsciously be believing. These archetypes in all communities are offensive because they reduce real people to characters. Let’s dive in and describe some of the most believed stereotypes of the Jewish community in America.

The Greedy, Wealthy Moneylender: One of the most prominent and persistent stereotypes about Jews is that they are greedy and avaricious. They are seen both as relentless in the pursuit of wealth while also as stingy misers. They are imagined to exert control over the world’s financial systems, but are also accused of regularly cheating friends and neighbors. The stereotype of Jewish greed dates back to the Middle Ages. Jews typically had restrictions placed on their economic activity. Sometimes the only option available to earn a living in such circumstances was through high-interest crediting and while Christians were prohibited from moneylending, they often recruited Jews to do this work. This made it easy for leaders to position Jews as a scapegoat and the cause of the common people’s financial woes. Characters like Shylock in The Merchant of Venice reflect this attitude towards Jews being greedy and immoral. Eventually this stereotype worked its way into modern vernacular: “To Jew someone down” became a common expression meaning to bargain for a lower price.

The Jewish Mother: The Jewish Mother is depicted as a “middle-aged woman with a nasal New York accent, who either sweats over a steaming pot of matzah balls while screaming at her kids from across the house. Or, in an updated version, she sits poolside in Florida, jangling her diamonds and guilt-tripping her grown children into calling her more often. She is sacrificing yet demanding, manipulative and tyrannical, devoted and ever-present. She loves her children fiercely, but man, does she nag.” Her predecessor, the Yiddishe Mama, carried little of the negative cultural weight of the Jewish Mother and was celebrated at the turn of the 20th century. The Yiddishe Mama was a sentimentalized figure, a good mother and homemaker, known for her strength and creativity, entrepreneurialism and hard work, domestic miracles and moral force. The Yiddishe Mama reminded Jews of the Old World and was synonymous with nostalgia and longing. But while the Yiddishe Mama and her selfless child-rearing contributed to the success and upward mobility of the American Jewish family, the Jewish mother stereotype became warped as many American Jews rose economically and socially — she was now represented as entitled and overbearing, showy and loud, she became the scapegoat for anxieties around Jewish assimilation and by mid-century, the Jewish mother was primarily identified by negative characteristics, tinged with self-hatred and misogyny.

The JAP (Jewish American Princess): The archetype was forged in the mid-1950s, in concert with the Jewish-American middle-class ascent. The JAP is neither Jewish nor American alone. She makes herself known where these identities collide. As a philosophy, JAP style prioritizes grooming, trepidatious trendiness, and comfort. In any given season, the look is drawn from mainstream fashion trends. “She buys in multiples (almost hysterically in multiples),” wrote Julie Baumgold in a 1971 New York magazine op-ed. “She has safe tastes, choosing an item like shorts when it is peaking.” JAP style is less concerned with capital-F fashion than it is with simply fitting in. JAP is rarely used outside the Jewish world, it is far too acute to be relevant in places where people don’t know many actual Jews. While the Jewish Mother stereotype was designed to absorb the stigmas of the old world, the JAP was designed to absorb the stigmas of the new world. “The JAP was a woman who had overshot the mark, piling on the trappings of the stable middle class like so many diamond tennis bracelets.”

The Jewish Community in Today’s Media

• The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which tracks incidents of anti-Jewish violence and bias, says they saw a 75% increase in anti-Semitism reports to the agency's 25 regional offices after the most recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can read my previous newsletter on the conflict here.

• While depictions of Jewish people in the media have improved — with shows like “Unorthodox,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and “Shtisel” all focusing their attention on Jewish characters making their way through the world, often through a positive lens — there are still displays of these stereotypes shown.

I’ve heard my Jewish friends say they often feel excluded from conversations about discrimination and prejudice in America. That antisemitism is often seen as something separate from the discrimination other marginalized folks encounter. The history of Jews being stigmatized, stripped of their rights, forced into ghettos as early as 1516 Venice, banished from cities and towns, murdered and ostracized is overwhelming. While Jewish Americans make the highest income of all religious groups in America, these stereotypes of greed and avarice are simply not true, and make it easy to ignore the historical discrimination of Jewish people around the world. As with all of these newsletters, take some time to reflect on any implicit biases you may be harboring and continue to learn more.

Next week, I’m talking about the real history of the Black Panther Party and I am EXCITED about this one. See ya there!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

The 4th of July

“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. ”

— Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 35 of this newsletter! Today we are talking about The 4th of July. We’ve learned from elementary school through adulthood that this is a holiday meant to celebrate liberty and freedom, but who did the Founding Fathers seek to celebrate when they signed the Declaration of Independence? Whose freedom was secured when 41 out of the 56 men who signed that document owned slaves? Let’s get into it.

Let’s Get Into It

The 4th of July commemorates the passage of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.

• From 1776 to the present day, July 4th has been celebrated as the “birth of American independence”.

• Important Dates to Remember:

  • The end of slavery: January 31, 1865 (The 13th Amendment)

  • The right to vote for women: August 26, 1920 (The 19th Amendment)

  • The right to vote for non-white Americans: May 26, 1965 (Voting Rights Act of 1965)

  • The end of Jim Crow South: 1960s

  • The legalization of same-sex marriage: June 26, 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges)

• In 1776, who’s independence was being celebrated?

  • Not enslaved Americans (86 years until the end of slavery).

  • Not women (144 years until women will have the right to vote).

  • Not people of color (189 years until the Voting Rights Act).

  • Not Black Americans (about 189 years until the end of Jim Crow Laws).

  • Not gay or queer Americans (239 years until same sex marriage).

  • And still today we wait for so much more equality for the majority of Americans — POC, Indigenous, Black, Queer, Trans* Americans and so many others.

• In 1852 (13 years before the end of slavery), Fredrick Douglas delivered one of his most famous speeches, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” Watch his descendants recite some of his most poignant lines.

As you barbecue and ignite fireworks this 4th of July, remember that many still wait for the promise of liberty and justice. That freedom has yet to be granted to all.

Pride Month

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 34 of this newsletter! Today we are focusing on LGBTQ+ Pride Month, which is celebrated in June throughout the United States. Black queer and trans* women have always been at the forefront of LGBTQ+ activism, and we remember the large role they played during The Stonewall Riots of 1969, commemorated every Pride. Let’s review some key terminology, check out a brief history of gay rights in America, and then close with some additional resources and activists to continue to learn from. Let’s get into it.

Key Terms

Gender: Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men, such as norms, roles, and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed.

Sex: “Sex” tends to relate to biological differences. For instance, male and female genitalia, both internal and external and the levels and types of hormones present in male and female bodies.

Sexual Orientation: An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people.

Gender Identity: One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.

Pronouns: Pronouns are words that refer to either the people talking (like you or I) or someone or something that is being talked about (like she, they, and this). Gender pronouns (like he or them) specifically refer to people that you are talking about. Examples: she/her, he/him, they/them, ze/hir.

Queer: An umbrella term to describe individuals who don’t identify as straight and/or cisgender.

Trans*: An umbrella term covering a range of identities that transgress socially-defined gender norms. Trans with an asterisk is often used in written forms (not spoken) to indicate that you are referring to the larger group nature of the term, and specifically including non-binary identities, as well as transgender men (transmen) and transgender women (transwomen).

Gender Non Conforming: A gender descriptor that indicates a non-traditional gender expression or identity. A gender identity label that indicates a person who identifies outside of the gender binary.

Cisgender: A gender description for when someone’s sex assigned at birth and gender identity correspond to their gender identity.  

Non Binary: Noting or relating to a person with a gender identity or sexual orientation that does not fit into the male/female or heterosexual/gay divisions.

Let’s Get Into It

A Brief History

• In 1779, Thomas Jefferson proposes Virginia law to make sodomy punishable by mutilation rather than death. Bill 64 stated: “if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.”

• The Harlem Renaissance was from 1917 to 1935. Historians have stated that the renaissance was “as gay as it was black.” Some of the lesbian, gay or bisexual people of this movement included writers and poets such as Langston Hughes, Countee Cullen and Zora Neale Hurston; Professor Alain Locke; music critic and photographer Carl Van Vechten, and entertainers Ma Rainey, Bessie Smith, Ethel Waters and Gladys Bentley.

• In 1924, Henry Gerber, a German immigrant, founded in Chicago the Society for Human Rights, the first documented gay rights organization in the United States. Soon after its founding, the society disbands due to political pressure and frequent police raids.

• In 1950, a Senate report titled "Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government" is distributed to members of Congress. The report states since “homosexuality is a mental illness, homosexuals constitute security risks" to the nation because "those who engage in overt acts of perversion lack the emotional stability of normal persons." More than 4,380 gay men and women had been discharged from the military and around 500 fired from their jobs with the government.

• In April of 1952 the American Psychiatric Association lists “homosexuality” as a sociopathic personality disturbance. That same year Christine Jorgensen became one of the most famous transgender people when she underwent gender affirming surgery and went on to a successful career in show business.

• On April 27, 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Executive Order 10450, banning gay people from working for the federal government or any of its private contractors.

• On January 1, 1962 Illinois repeals its sodomy laws, becoming the first U.S. state to decriminalize homosexuality.

• On April 21, 1966 Members of the Mattachine Society stage a "sip-in" at the Julius Bar in Greenwich Village, where the New York Liquor Authority prohibits serving gay patrons in bars on the basis that homosexuals are "disorderly." The New York City Commission on Human Rights declares that homosexuals have the right to be served.

• A few years later, in 1969 were The Stonewall Riots. The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar in Greenwich Village in New York City. In response to an unprovoked police raid on an early Saturday morning, over 400 people, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight people protested their treatment and pushed the police away from the area. Some level of rioting continued over the next six nights, which closed the Stonewall Inn. The Stonewall Riots became a pivotal, defining moment for gay rights. Key people at the riots who went on to tell their stories were: Sylvia Rivera, Martha P. Johnson, Dick Leitsch, Seymore Pine and Craig Rodwell.

• In 1970, at the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, New York City community members marched through local streets in commemoration of the event. Named the Christopher Street Liberation Day, the march is now considered the country’s first gay pride parade.

• In 1977, the New York Supreme Court ruled that transgender woman Renée Richards could play at the United States Open tennis tournament as a woman.

• On November 8, 1977 Harvey Milk wins a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is responsible for introducing a gay rights ordinance protecting gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs. Milk asked Gilbert Baker, an artist and gay rights activist, to create an emblem that represents the movement and would be seen as a symbol of pride. Baker designed and stitched together the first rainbow flag, which he unveiled at a pride parade in 1978.

• In 1981, The New York Times prints the first story of a rare pneumonia and skin cancer found in 41 gay men in New York and California. The CDC initially refers to the disease as GRID, Gay Related Immune Deficiency Disorder. When the symptoms are found outside the gay community, Bruce Voeller, biologist and founder of the National Gay Task Force, successfully lobbies to change the name of the disease to AIDS.

• In 1992, Bill Clinton, during his campaign to become president, promised he would lift the ban against gays in the military. But after failing to garner enough support for such an open policy, President Clinton in 1993 passed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, which allowed gay men and women to serve in the military as long as they kept their sexuality a secret. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was officially repealed on September 20, 2011.

• September 21, 1996, President Clinton signs the Defense of Marriage Act into law. The law defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from out of state.

• In 2004, Massachusetts becomes the first state to legalize gay marriage. The court finds the prohibition of gay marriage unconstitutional because it denies dignity and equality of all individuals.

• On November 4, 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, making same-sex marriage in California illegal.

• In 2009, The Matthew Shepard Act is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on October 28th. The measure expands the 1969 U.S. Federal Hate Crime Law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

• On June 26, 2015, with a 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

• In 2016, the U.S. military lifted its ban on transgender people serving openly, a month after Eric Fanning became secretary of the Army and the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch. In March 2018, Donald Trump announced a new transgender policy for the military that again banned most transgender people from military service. On January 25, 2021—his sixth day in office—President Biden signed an executive order overturning this ban.

• In 2021, Florida, South Dakota, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Montana and Alabama have enacted anti-trans sports bans. Under the law, public secondary school and college sports teams are required to be designated based on "biological sex," thus prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on women's athletic teams.

• Today, universal workplace anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ Americans is still lacking. Gay rights proponents must also content with an increasing number of “religious liberty” state laws, which allow business to deny service to LGBTQ+ individuals due to religious beliefs, as well as “bathroom laws” that prevent trans* individuals from using public bathrooms that don’t correspond to their assigned sex at birth.

Pride Month

• Pride month commemorates The Stonewall Riots in June of 1969. It is an entire month dedicated to the uplifting of LGBTQ+ voices, celebration of LGBTQ+ culture and the support of LGBTQ+ rights.

• In the rainbow pride flag, each color has a meaning. Red is symbolic of life, orange is symbolic of spirit, yellow is sunshine, green is nature, blue represents harmony and purple is spirit. In 2021, the flag has was altered in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter protests, including black to represent diversity, brown to represent inclusivity and light blue and pink, the colors of the trans pride flag, along with t purple circle to represent the intersex community.

• Pride was made possible through the sacrifices of Black queer and trans women like Marsha P. Johnson who paved the way and continue to be the most vulnerable, most targeted, and most at risk in the community.

Resources

• Subscribe To The 'Them" Newsletter

• ACLU Petition For The Equality Act

• Alok - Gender Non-Conforming Activist

• 10 Black Trans* Activists You Should Know

The best Pride Month is an intersectional Pride Month. That means whether someone is “out” or not, queer, gay, non-binary, intersex, gender non-conforming, or any other identity, Pride is still for them. Happy Pride to all of my queer siblings, see ya next time!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae

Juneteenth

Hi Friends!
Welcome to Issue 33 of this newsletter! Today we are focusing on Juneteenth, which just became national holiday this week. Juneteenth is an incredibly meaningful moment because enslaved people longed for freedom for generations, and Juneteenth represents that liberation. While many Black Americans have celebrated Juneteenth for their entire lifetime, there are definitely those that learned about this holiday later in life because it isn’t discussed in most curriculums and was not a national holiday. For most white Americans, Juneteenth is brand new. In this newsletter, I’ll discuss the history of Juneteenth, and encourage you to watch the clip below. I also want to encourage you to celebrate this holiday appropriately. This holiday may not be for you, and that’s okay. While it was so easy to pass it through senate and get Juneteenth approved on a national scale, it continues to be difficult for Black people to get their basic freedoms guaranteed. This Juneteenth is a great time to consider how you, as an ally, can help to achieve that. Let’s get into it!

Let’s Get Into It

A Brief History

• Juneteenth marks the day when federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas in 1865 to take control and ensure that all enslaved people be freed.

• The Emancipation Proclamation was signed, after a very bloody civil war, in 1862 (over two years prior), making chattel slavery illegal, but the United States was still in a vulnerable position, with the south having succeeded, and President Lincoln’s policies had to be enforced through federal soldiers.

• General Order No.3 lead to 4 million newly freed Black Americans and they found themselves a very hostile, racist society.

“The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor.” - General Order No.3

• The military stepped in to ensure Black Americans received food, medical care and were protected from violence. When they left the south, it was a signal to southerners that the Federal Government would not protect the rights of Black people. Black folks were lynched and brutalized with impunity. There is still no anti-lynching law in America today.

• There has always been constant, random, racist violence inflicted on Black people in this country and it continues today.

• Juneteenth honors the end of slavery while also acknowledging that Black Americans continue to be marginalized and disenfranchised

• This year, the senate unanimously passed a bill making Juneteenth a national holiday.

Juneteenth

• As an ally to the Black community, Juneteenth should be a moment of reflection, contemplation, un-learning and reevaluating. Only 156 years ago troops marched into Texas. Still today, Black Americans are policed, villainized, disenfranchised and subjected to violence. Still today, schools around our nation are banned from teaching critical race theory. Still today, police benefit from qualified immunity, the same police who began as slave catchers. And today, jails will be closed on Juneteenth to celebrate its first year as a national holiday, as an overwhelming number of Black bodies sit in cages. So if this Juneteenth you have the day off of work, use it to amplify this message, to learn this history, to reflect on how a system that exploits Black humans has built your America.

• As for my Black siblings this Juneteenth, you know what to do. Whatever you want. Whether that means kicking back at a family BBQ or taking a nap. It might mean showing up for a full day of work like you always do—since we know Black workers make up the largest percentage of front-line workers in America and will most likely not receive a day off on this national holiday. Feel however you want to feel, and do whatever you need to do this Juneteenth.

Next week, we wrap up June chatting about Pride Month and then circle back to our series on Stereotypes. I’ll see you there!

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, we are the change we seek” — With love and light, Taylor Rae