Read our Executive Director’s two letters to the management at WABC TV regarding the bias of its African-American morning show “Here and Now”. 

February 24, 2013

Dear Dave Davis:

We wish to register our concern and continuing objection to what we regard as bias in covering race and black community issues on your revamped “LIKE IT IS” show, now titled HERE AND NOW. Indeed,we discern very little difference between the political and ideological diatribes that made LIKE IT IS so notable and objectionable (by way of biased coverage and racial rhetoric) and your current show, HERE AND NOW.

Today’s (Sunday, February 24, 2013) HERE AND NOW was another example of WABC-TV proselytizing in favor of skin color deification and so-called racial/cultural differences in a format supposedly about policies and community issues facing African Americans. HERE AND NOW repeatedly, it seems to us, through the actions of its producers and programmers, presents a one dimensional viewpoint–the stereotypical “black perspective” (which, I take, is the opinion of the producers) about controversial questions and public policy matters of particular interest to blacks. On today’s show, HERE AND NOW, once again, invited three panelists with the same point of view about historically black colleges. No consideration or invitation was extended to anyone with an opposing point of view–and no opposing point of view was offered. Rather, three “coordinators” of the New York City Omega Black College Tour were “interviewed” (actually cheered on) by your host, Ms. Sandra Bookman who, also, during the broadcast, encouraged viewer support for what she regarded as a worthy cause, by way of fund support for historically black colleges and the “important” work of the New York City Omega Black College Tour program. The guests also encouraged fund support–but that was to be expected; it was not my idea of legitimate public affairs programming for the host of the show--who represents management and WABC TV–to particpate in the fund raising drive on behalf of the Omega Black College Tour, thereby encouraging and steering black students to the historically black colleges and universities.

Whether there ought to be or whether black students should be encouraged to attend racially identifiable colleges–an important policy question for the 21st century–was an issue never posed much less considered in the programming decision to have three advocates of historically black colleges who on their own, and with the support of WABC TV’s Bookman, sought broad support for the idea of black colleges during the show. Your show and its producers, and the host of the show, simply presumed there is no other point of view within the black community or larger society worthy of consideration–such as whether black colleges are indeed outmoded and serve as relics of a discredited past in America, an era when colleges were organized around race and when blacks were excluded from the mainstream colleges and universities. Indeed, I do not recall Sandra Bookman even asking how many black students–a considerable minority of them–that the historically black colleges serve nowadays. The overwhelming majority of black students, one would never know from watching your show, avoid racially-identifiable historically black colleges–for their own and compelling reasons, especially in a society where we supposedly value diversity and interaction of students with persons from different economic and cultural backgrounds. Your Ms. Bookman–as is usual–tilted the conversation away from hard and sophisticated policy questions into proselytizing on behalf of societal, community and fund support for these racially-identifiable institutions of higher education.

It is shameful how this media bias shapes and perpetuates misconceptions about the so-called black community and misses the diversity of opinion within the black community; HERE AND NOW constantly presents a one-dimensional view and propagates race-consciousness as a value of and for blacks to emulate and propagate. WABC-TV’s role in siding with racial idiocy and ideology will not escape scrutiny much less criticism and dissent for much longer.

I do not get the sense that there is any adult supervision when it comes to the producing of HERE AND NOW–indeed, when it comes to race matters and race-oriented programming on your station. It appears that when it comes to exacting standards of objective journalism or even critical inquiry on important questions and issues, your station’s minority affairs programming–such as HERE AND NOW–reinforces stereotypes and misinformation about the black community in the guise of offering the “black perspective.”

I encourage your personal intervention to ensure broader representation on the show of all sides of controversial subjects such as this one; if the ordinary standards of journalism and critical inquiry do not apply to HERE AND NOW, and its host, I’d like to know why not, from you, the management of WABC TV. I do not regard it as relevant or satisfactory the disclaimer at the end of the show that the show may or may not reflect the views of WABC TV’s management. It seems to us that the show does indeed reflect a point of view–a bias, from the standpoint of programming decisions that exclude points of view dissimilar to the producers’ on such subjects as this–i.e. the efficacy or archaic nature of racially-identifiable colleges and universities in 21st century America.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Meyers
Executive Director

***

April 1, 2012

Dear Dave Davis:

I was disappointed and appalled, quite frankly, by the one-sided viewpoint of this week’s “Here & Now” (April 1) show.

It had been my sincere hope that the transition from “Like It Is”–which was itself notorious for biased “reporting” and coverage of news events impacting the African American community–to “Here & Now” would result in a more balanced, professional, and rational news talk and cultural affairs program. That did not happen; indeed, there seems (judging by this and prior weeks’ shows) to have been a programming decision for the new show to be the echo chamber of race activists (mostly hotheads) with their “no justice-no peace” agenda and strident racial rhetoric. In this connection, this week’s “Here & Now” was an affront to common sense, good judgment, and journalistic standards.

Despite the disclaimer at the end of the show, following the credits, that opinions expressed on the “Here & now” show are those of the individuals and not of WABC or its management–it is clear enough that the opinion of WABC is indeed being expressed on these African American-oriented news and cultural events through decision making about guests and talkers on the show. All the talking heads on this week’s show had a singular point of view on the Trayvon Martin killing–that he was racially-profiled”, and his death is a consequence of America still being a “racist” country that favors and lets go “white men” with guns who kill black youths. In fact, two of the guests used the emotionally charged accusation–without any evidence– that George Zimmerman had “murdered” Trayvon Martin.

The guest line up included a single law enforcement expert–Noel Leader, a spokesman for and co-founder of 100 Blacks In Law Enforcement Who Care;” Daniel Maree, the organizer of the self-described “Million Hoodie March, in solidarity with Trayvon Martin’s outfit; and two African American women, the founder of B-WARE (BLACK WOMEN AGAINST RACISM EMPOWERED, and a mother of three African American children, one of whom, her 15-year-old son, Wykeem, was also a guest on the “Here & Now” show. The spokesman for 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement questioned and assailed the Sanford, Florida police investigation and assailed the failure to arrest George Zimmerman as not good policing; the other guests–all blacks–included the mother, who asserted that Trayvon Martin was “murdered.” That’s the word she used without any challenge from your host, Sandra Bookman. Indeed, the role of the two African American women on the program was, it was abundantly clear, to express concern for the safety of their African American sons and other African American males who are “racially profiled” by cops and civilians–indeed, one of them, Dr. Ali of B-WARE, was positing strategies for black males’ survival in our “racist” culture, a culture that, according to her, makes them “different” from other youths.

All the talking heads, it seemed to me, blamed white racism for Trayvon Martin’s death–for his “murder”, and faulted “racial profiling” and stereotyping as the proximate cause of Trayvon Martin’s killing. When the African American mother of the 15-year-old guest, charged “murder”, Sandra Bookman did not flinch much less interject that that is a “fact” not in evidence. Neither did Sandra Bookman challenge the woman’s comparison of Trayvon Martin’s death to the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till in 1955 Mississippi. Moreover, Sandra Bookman’s interview of the black teen on the show was extraordinary bad form for a journalist; she in effect put words in the boy’s mouth. The show isn’t a court of law but leading the witness in such a flagrantly biased way should be a no-no for journalists.

Such racial rhetoric as “murder” and the need to “capture” George Zimmerman–as if he is on the run from the law, and has escaped the authorities, went unchallenged by your Ms. Bookman. The fact is no criminal charges have been brought against him as yet by state authorities. Why would anyone therefore be advocating Zimmerman’s “capture”? And one of the talking heads on this week’sHere & Now also advocated, aimlessly, a “boycott” of companies–companies unconnected with the tragedy and not responsible for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Again, Sandra Bookman just let her prate on without challenge or any serious questioning.

We were also troubled by the biased news clip that introduced the show’s topic–which showed an ABC News Legal Analyst concluding that the videotape of the handcuffed George Zimmerman being brought into the Sanford, Florida police station contradicted, in his opinion, Zimmerman’s claims of injuries to his face and head and undermined as well the Zimmerman version of self-defense. From start to finish WABC seemed to be pushing a point of view; WABC seemed to have an agenda to inflame, rather than to inform.

What was evident to me and I suppose to other viewers was that all of the talking heads on the show had firm opinions about what happened on February 26 without themselves having been there–without themselves having been eye witnesses; all of them nevertheless have rushed to judgment and are accusing someone of criminal culpability–indeed of “murder” even before the state’s independent investigation has been completed and before the grand jury has even been convened. I do not regard this as responsible journalism; nor is it especially responsible of WABC not to invite guests to discuss the importance of the rule of law, the importance of due process–which takes time–and the need to lower the racial rhetoric and escalating demands which now include calls for unfocused boycotts of innocent third parties.

We all want to know what happened in Sanford, Florida that fateful night. And we all want justice to be served; but justice does not entail either a rush to judgment or a demand for the “capture” of a person not under arrest or charged with any crime; and it doesn’t allow much less embrace the outrageous comparison of Trayvon Martin’s tragic killing with the intentional and brutal murder of Emmett Till. Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy, was abducted by two white men who took offense at Emmett Till’s whistling at a white woman in 1955 Mississippi; they smashed Emmett Till’s face;, gouged out one of his eyes; and one of his assailants put a bullet into his skull. That was 1955, not 2012.

I think WABC owes its viewers better–a more professional, sophisticated, and balanced presentation and broadcast–than what you gave us on this week’s “Here & Now.”

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael Meyers
Executive Director

Read our Executive Director’s two letters to the management at WABC TV regarding the bias of its African-American morning show “Here and Now”. 

February 24, 2013

Dear Dave Davis:

We wish to register our concern and continuing objection to what we regard as bias in covering race and black community issues on your revamped “LIKE IT IS” show, now titled HERE AND NOW. Indeed,we discern very little difference between the political and ideological diatribes that made LIKE IT IS so notable and objectionable (by way of biased coverage and racial rhetoric) and your current show, HERE AND NOW.

Today’s (Sunday, February 24, 2013) HERE AND NOW was another example of WABC-TV proselytizing in favor of skin color deification and so-called racial/cultural differences in a format supposedly about policies and community issues facing African Americans. HERE AND NOW repeatedly, it seems to us, through the actions of its producers and programmers, presents a one dimensional viewpoint–the stereotypical “black perspective” (which, I take, is the opinion of the producers) about controversial questions and public policy matters of particular interest to blacks. On today’s show, HERE AND NOW, once again, invited three panelists with the same point of view about historically black colleges. No consideration or invitation was extended to anyone with an opposing point of view–and no opposing point of view was offered. Rather, three “coordinators” of the New York City Omega Black College Tour were “interviewed” (actually cheered on) by your host, Ms. Sandra Bookman who, also, during the broadcast, encouraged viewer support for what she regarded as a worthy cause, by way of fund support for historically black colleges and the “important” work of the New York City Omega Black College Tour program. The guests also encouraged fund support–but that was to be expected; it was not my idea of legitimate public affairs programming for the host of the show--who represents management and WABC TV–to particpate in the fund raising drive on behalf of the Omega Black College Tour, thereby encouraging and steering black students to the historically black colleges and universities.

Whether there ought to be or whether black students should be encouraged to attend racially identifiable colleges–an important policy question for the 21st century–was an issue never posed much less considered in the programming decision to have three advocates of historically black colleges who on their own, and with the support of WABC TV’s Bookman, sought broad support for the idea of black colleges during the show. Your show and its producers, and the host of the show, simply presumed there is no other point of view within the black community or larger society worthy of consideration–such as whether black colleges are indeed outmoded and serve as relics of a discredited past in America, an era when colleges were organized around race and when blacks were excluded from the mainstream colleges and universities. Indeed, I do not recall Sandra Bookman even asking how many black students–a considerable minority of them–that the historically black colleges serve nowadays. The overwhelming majority of black students, one would never know from watching your show, avoid racially-identifiable historically black colleges–for their own and compelling reasons, especially in a society where we supposedly value diversity and interaction of students with persons from different economic and cultural backgrounds. Your Ms. Bookman–as is usual–tilted the conversation away from hard and sophisticated policy questions into proselytizing on behalf of societal, community and fund support for these racially-identifiable institutions of higher education.

It is shameful how this media bias shapes and perpetuates misconceptions about the so-called black community and misses the diversity of opinion within the black community; HERE AND NOW constantly presents a one-dimensional view and propagates race-consciousness as a value of and for blacks to emulate and propagate. WABC-TV’s role in siding with racial idiocy and ideology will not escape scrutiny much less criticism and dissent for much longer.

I do not get the sense that there is any adult supervision when it comes to the producing of HERE AND NOW–indeed, when it comes to race matters and race-oriented programming on your station. It appears that when it comes to exacting standards of objective journalism or even critical inquiry on important questions and issues, your station’s minority affairs programming–such as HERE AND NOW–reinforces stereotypes and misinformation about the black community in the guise of offering the “black perspective.”

I encourage your personal intervention to ensure broader representation on the show of all sides of controversial subjects such as this one; if the ordinary standards of journalism and critical inquiry do not apply to HERE AND NOW, and its host, I’d like to know why not, from you, the management of WABC TV. I do not regard it as relevant or satisfactory the disclaimer at the end of the show that the show may or may not reflect the views of WABC TV’s management. It seems to us that the show does indeed reflect a point of view–a bias, from the standpoint of programming decisions that exclude points of view dissimilar to the producers’ on such subjects as this–i.e. the efficacy or archaic nature of racially-identifiable colleges and universities in 21st century America.

***

April 1, 2012

Dear Dave Davis:

I was disappointed and appalled, quite frankly, by the one-sided viewpoint of this week’s “Here & Now” (April 1) show.

It had been my sincere hope that the transition from “Like It Is”–which was itself notorious for biased “reporting” and coverage of news events impacting the African American community–to “Here & Now” would result in a more balanced, professional, and rational news talk and cultural affairs program. That did not happen; indeed, there seems (judging by this and prior weeks’ shows) to have been a programming decision for the new show to be the echo chamber of race activists (mostly hotheads) with their “no justice-no peace” agenda and strident racial rhetoric. In this connection, this week’s “Here & Now” was an affront to common sense, good judgment, and journalistic standards.

Despite the disclaimer at the end of the show, following the credits, that opinions expressed on the “Here & now” show are those of the individuals and not of WABC or its management–it is clear enough that the opinion of WABC is indeed being expressed on these African American-oriented news and cultural events through decision making about guests and talkers on the show. All the talking heads on this week’s show had a singular point of view on the Trayvon Martin killing–that he was racially-profiled”, and his death is a consequence of America still being a “racist” country that favors and lets go “white men” with guns who kill black youths. In fact, two of the guests used the emotionally charged accusation–without any evidence– that George Zimmerman had “murdered” Trayvon Martin.

The guest line up included a single law enforcement expert–Noel Leader, a spokesman for and co-founder of 100 Blacks In Law Enforcement Who Care;” Daniel Maree, the organizer of the self-described “Million Hoodie March, in solidarity with Trayvon Martin’s outfit; and two African American women, the founder of B-WARE (BLACK WOMEN AGAINST RACISM EMPOWERED, and a mother of three African American children, one of whom, her 15-year-old son, Wykeem, was also a guest on the “Here & Now” show. The spokesman for 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement questioned and assailed the Sanford, Florida police investigation and assailed the failure to arrest George Zimmerman as not good policing; the other guests–all blacks–included the mother, who asserted that Trayvon Martin was “murdered.” That’s the word she used without any challenge from your host, Sandra Bookman. Indeed, the role of the two African American women on the program was, it was abundantly clear, to express concern for the safety of their African American sons and other African American males who are “racially profiled” by cops and civilians–indeed, one of them, Dr. Ali of B-WARE, was positing strategies for black males’ survival in our “racist” culture, a culture that, according to her, makes them “different” from other youths.

All the talking heads, it seemed to me, blamed white racism for Trayvon Martin’s death–for his “murder”, and faulted “racial profiling” and stereotyping as the proximate cause of Trayvon Martin’s killing. When the African American mother of the 15-year-old guest, charged “murder”, Sandra Bookman did not flinch much less interject that that is a “fact” not in evidence. Neither did Sandra Bookman challenge the woman’s comparison of Trayvon Martin’s death to the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till in 1955 Mississippi. Moreover, Sandra Bookman’s interview of the black teen on the show was extraordinary bad form for a journalist; she in effect put words in the boy’s mouth. The show isn’t a court of law but leading the witness in such a flagrantly biased way should be a no-no for journalists.

Such racial rhetoric as “murder” and the need to “capture” George Zimmerman–as if he is on the run from the law, and has escaped the authorities, went unchallenged by your Ms. Bookman. The fact is no criminal charges have been brought against him as yet by state authorities. Why would anyone therefore be advocating Zimmerman’s “capture”? And one of the talking heads on this week’sHere & Now also advocated, aimlessly, a “boycott” of companies–companies unconnected with the tragedy and not responsible for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Again, Sandra Bookman just let her prate on without challenge or any serious questioning.

We were also troubled by the biased news clip that introduced the show’s topic–which showed an ABC News Legal Analyst concluding that the videotape of the handcuffed George Zimmerman being brought into the Sanford, Florida police station contradicted, in his opinion, Zimmerman’s claims of injuries to his face and head and undermined as well the Zimmerman version of self-defense. From start to finish WABC seemed to be pushing a point of view; WABC seemed to have an agenda to inflame, rather than to inform.

What was evident to me and I suppose to other viewers was that all of the talking heads on the show had firm opinions about what happened on February 26 without themselves having been there–without themselves having been eye witnesses; all of them nevertheless have rushed to judgment and are accusing someone of criminal culpability–indeed of “murder” even before the state’s independent investigation has been completed and before the grand jury has even been convened. I do not regard this as responsible journalism; nor is it especially responsible of WABC not to invite guests to discuss the importance of the rule of law, the importance of due process–which takes time–and the need to lower the racial rhetoric and escalating demands which now include calls for unfocused boycotts of innocent third parties.

We all want to know what happened in Sanford, Florida that fateful night. And we all want justice to be served; but justice does not entail either a rush to judgment or a demand for the “capture” of a person not under arrest or charged with any crime; and it doesn’t allow much less embrace the outrageous comparison of Trayvon Martin’s tragic killing with the intentional and brutal murder of Emmett Till. Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy, was abducted by two white men who took offense at Emmett Till’s whistling at a white woman in 1955 Mississippi; they smashed Emmett Till’s face;, gouged out one of his eyes; and one of his assailants put a bullet into his skull. That was 1955, not 2012.

I think WABC owes its viewers better–a more professional, sophisticated, and balanced presentation and broadcast–than what you gave us on this week’s “Here & Now.”

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael Meyers
Executive Director
New York Civil Rights Coalition

March 19, 2013

New York, New York. The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Education Department–even before sharing its decision with the complainant–rushed out its clearance of what its exiting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights deemed “supportive programs” for African American male students at urban universities. In letters released toThe Chronicle of Higher Education, the OCR late last year “cleared” support programs for African American males on urban campuses, including “Black Male Initiative”programming at the City University of New York (CUNY) which the new York Civil Rights Coalition accused, back in 2006, of race and sex-based discrimination. The OCR says it has closed its investigations of the CUNY Black Male Initiative programs on the grounds that OCR accepts CUNY’s assurances that the programs are “open” to others and are not exclusively for African American male students.

We are appealing the ruling as a misstatement of law and a return to the discredited ‘separate but equal’ doctrine in higher education.

The New York Civil Rights Coalition’s executive director, Michael Meyers, blasted the OCR decision as “disingenuous, Orwellian double talk”.

The New York Civil Rights Coalition’s Michael Meyers’ statement follows:

“I have never known the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education to issue a decision on a complaint without sharing its findings and conclusions with the complainant. But there is little in its decision that is based on established standards, much less the rue of law in conjunction with Supreme Court precedents. The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education has established a new race-based classification outside of the justification of affirmative action to give a green light to programs for African American male students that it calls “supportive programs.” In so doing, the Office for Civil Rights ignores the considerable evidence that the City University of New York (CUNY) set up for the exclusive ‘benefit’ of African American males special (i.e. separate) classes and programs; its special class for African American males at Medgar Evers College, for instance, was exclusively for black males only, and it was taught by a black male–the college’s African American male president.  Not even black women students were included.  Indeed, black female students were told the special class was for African American males. 

“The Black Male Initiative at the City University of New York on its face–and in every way it’s been organized, advertised, promoted, and how it’s been administered–has been exclusively for the supposed “benefit” of black males. CUNY, in setting up the separate programming, had argued that the “young black male” is different and has “special needs.” So, they can’t have it both ways–except with the paternalistic Office for Civil Rights. Now, with a green light from the federal government, CUNY can merely claim that such programs are “open” without any evidence that they have included black women or students, male or female, other than black men. The Black Male Initiative has the government announcing to every other person and to all young women in highereducation–regardless of their color and similar circumstances as black men–that they need not apply. Moreover, the Feds have accepted the mere assurance from CUNY officials that these programs are “open” without regard to race or sex. Imagine what the feds’ ruling would have been if CUNY had announced and organized a “White Men’s Initiative.” Would the Office for Civil Rights have accepted verbal assurances from the college officials that programs for white men were “open” to others than white males? The absurdity of the race and gender-based classification would have drawn the ire and disapproval of the Office for Civil Rights had this not been a program for the supposed “benefit” of African American males–the stereotype about whom is such that they are uniquely “disadvantaged” and in need of “special support” because of their skin color and gender. Thus, on the nomenclature alone, and the substance of its flagrant abuse of process of ignoring Supreme Court precedents that disfavor race-based classifications, the OCR is engaged in an exercise of Orwellian double talk and double standards of civil rights law enforcement.

OCR has willfully ignored Supreme Court precedents to approve discriminatory race-based and gender-based classifications, in the guise of approving “support”programs for African American males. This is a disconnect from genuine affirmative action efforts–where racial classifications, if they are to be upheld–must be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling governmental purpose–and even then, be integrative in purpose and effect. This instant OCR decision, however, ignores that jurisprudence and turns inside out Title VI law in order to achieve the result it sought–i.e. the federal government sanctioning and reviving the doctrine of separate but equal in higher education, on the pretext that the segregation– by race and sex–is to be regarded as a supposed “benefit” to African American males. This constitutes a significant and unforgivable breach of equal opportunity law and an inversion of the rhetoric about race as a badge of inferiority and stereotype. It is the biggest breach of trust and of principled civil rights enforcement to memory in the history of Title VI and Title IX enforcement by the federal government.

The upshot of OCR’s errant nonsense is that in its view racial separatism and official segregation–and racial classifications–can lead to positive rather than negative results if it is either sought by or is cast by the segregating governmental entity as “for the benefit” of the previous victims of racial exclusion and segregation. In other words, to paraphrase my mentor, Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, OCR thinks the character of racism and of discrimination and exclusion based on race–and on the basis of race and gender, “in support” of African American males–would depend on the attitude the black males and their university benefactors and enablers have toward the segregative programs and conditions. On the contrary, when Title VI and Title IX were adopted by the Congress it would have been the consensus of the nation that racism would have gained its greatest triumph had its supporters back then been able to persuade blacks that segregation was both acceptable and desirable, and that the justification for this separatism was color alone.This arrangement with segregation, and with sex and race-based stereotypes, is what OCR has approved–it has, in knee-jerk, paternalistic fashion, adopted a “separate but equal” view of civil rights law enforcement; in OCR’s warped view of equal opportunity and racial neutrality, as long as blacks themselves say they want the segregation–and there are no whites or others of a different skin color to formally challenge that segregation–the federal government sees nothing wrong with racial classifications and discriminatory programs arranged and funded by the government. This is an appalling betrayal of the public policy mandate of Brown v. Board of Educationand of our federal laws that seek to end segregation and discrimination based on skin color–and in this case, discrimination based on the group’s skin color and sex.”

The following Letter to the editor by Michael Meyers appeared in the Wall Street Journal, you can read the letter online on the Wall Street Journal’s Website.

To the Editor:

Preeminent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams’s (Letters, Sept. 27) defense of President Obama’s free speech and right to condemn the “anti-Muslim” film, “Innocence of Muslims,” as not being a government effort at censorship ignores the import of the White House’s request of YouTube/Google to “review” whether the 14-minute trailer of the film violated YouTube’s “terms of use.” Why else would the White House have done this if it didn’t want the film banished from YouTube? Subsequently, Google blocked the short film’s availability on YouTube in Libya and Egypt and other nations with heavy Muslim populations.

Deeply concerning to the guardians of American freedom was the specter of the filmmaker being questioned by the feds as to whether his posting the film on YouTube constituted a violation of the conditions of his probation (on check fraud charges), which had prohibited him from using computers and the Internet. Moreover, free-speech advocates were alarmed by the phone call that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made to an American pastor urging the pastor (known for his own anti-Muslim views) to withdraw his support for the film.

Such pressures from government officials on private citizens and on communications companies is much more than our government officials expressing their own viewpoint or separating the government of the U.S. from the hateful message of a despicable, ignorant and disputatious film.

Michael Meyers

President

N.Y. Civil Rights Coalition

New York

August 16, 2012

Dear Secretary Duncan:

We took seriously your March 2010 statement that the United States Department of Education under your leadership was “going to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement.” But, as my enclosed Huffington Post column points out, your department’s Office for Civil Rights has never found a minority-centric program that is federally-funded and that stereotypes and oftentimes segregates non-whites, and discriminates against whites, it’s disapproved of. Indeed, OCR’s Title VI and Title IX enforcement, over at least the past decade, has been riddled with paternalism and exceptions for such initiatives as a single-sex public school in East Harlem which opened in 1996 (before the changes in Title IX regulations); the City University of New York’s “Black Male Initiative;” and the City of New York’s recent “Young Men’s Initiative” for black and Hispanic males only.

The City University of New York’s Black Male Initiative is one of many similar race and sex-specific (allegedly interventionist) programs underway nationwide at federally-supported colleges and universities, intended to provide black males qua black males with special assistance and separate programming. Not one of these race and gender-specific collegiate efforts—to our knowledge—has been challenged much less KO’d by OCR, even though not one of these programs has met the specific criteria and exacting requirements as either a remedial or affirmative action program, aimed at offsetting and overcoming purposeful or pervasive discrimination based on race and/or gender by the particular institutions of higher education.

When the first all-girls public school in New York City if not the nation since the enactment of Title IX—the Young Women’s Leadership Academy—opened in 1996 (the school was placed in East Harlem), we, along with the National Organization for Women—New York City chapter, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, lodged a timely complaint with the Department of Education’s OCR. The law in 1996 clearly disallowed a singular single-sex public school—but that did not matter to the school’s founders and supporters. Indeed, in 1997, the Office for Civil Rights informed us, and also informed the New York City Board of Education, that the all-girls public school appeared to violate the law. Rather than order the school to be opened to boys, and renamed, as complainants urged (What boy, we argued, would seek to attend a public school which would give him a diploma as evidence that he had graduated from the “Young Women’s Leadership Academy”?) OCR told the Board of Education “that a remedy was possible.” (See The New York Times, September 18, 1997).

OCR’s idea of a “remedy” did not entail opening the school to boys, boys who live in the same distressed community as the girls. Its “remedy” was not to come to any conclusion, not to make a final determination. In fact, OCR stalled, fretted, and delayed enforcement of the law.

OCR then set out to allow (as opposed to approve) the first single-sex public school in New York City since the enactment of Title IX to remain intact, and to remain discriminatory by not taking any action. This inaction on OCR’s part was in the context of every public official in New York City supporting the school—and when officials in the highest echelons of the federal government—declared their open support for single-sex public schools. Former United States Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Michael Williams went so far as to announce his support for all-male, African American public schools, notwithstanding his responsibilities to enforce Title VI and Title IX.

OCR never decided our 1996 complaint. Instead, under the leadership of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gerald Reynolds the Department of Education sought and got amendments to Title IX, amendments that in its opinion allow in some circumstances single-sex public schools and single-sex programming at federally-supported educational institutions. As your records will indicate, we filed our objections to those proposed amendments to Title IX, by my letter of July 3, 2002 co-signed by (following my signature) Matthea Marquart, the then president of NOW-NYC; Donna Lieberman and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU; Anne Conners, the former president of NOW-NYC; and Norman Siegel, the former executive director of the NYCLU. In our letter we cautioned about educational harms to children of single-sex public elementary and secondary schools and classes:

“When the government blocks a child’s enrollment at a public school solely on the basis of gender, such state action is injurious to the children of both sexes, because it communicates to the children and to the society at large that the state believes that there are intrinsic differences between boys and girls requiring separate and unequal treatment. Stated simply, such separation and disparate treatment reinforces offensive and debilitating stereotypes about boys and girls.”

Recent studies have underscored and confirmed our warnings about the educational harms of government schools ratifying sex stereotypes—especially in the context of race, when governmental educational officials place such schools in inner-city (minority) neighborhoods.

Now, at the direction of President Obama—with your open support and endorsement—the United States Department of Education is establishing a black section at DOE. It is doing so in the guise of implementing a White House Initiative to promote “educational excellence for African American” students. This initiative, according to the President’s Executive Order, is to “complement” his previous directive to enhance historically black colleges and universities rather than transforming the HBCUs into non-racially-identifiable institutions of higher learning. To say the least, and the obvious, we saw coming this separatist approach to the education of minority group children.

When this ethnic separatism is reinforced or done at the behest and with the blessing of governmental officials—we are witnessing the functional repeal of the Brown v. Board of Education mandate for the desegregation of our public schools. The President and you are moving in tandem, it seems to us, toward fostering racial identity, reinforcing racial separatism, and pursuing a separate and unequal enforcement of our civil rights laws. Having separate desks or separate doors at the United States Department of Education for Blacks—and for Asians—and for Hispanics—is a deliberate course toward ethnic polarization and for making insupportable and toxic racial and ethnic distinctions and classifications in educational policy and programming.

In stark and plain language, let me say that we do not consider your track record in terms of either supporting or blazing a disreputable separatist track at Education as at all consonant with your promise to “reinvigorate civil rights enforcement.”

It is next to impossible to understand much less accept OCR’s lax and differential enforcement of the civil rights laws especially when OCR violates its own guidelines for making timely decisions, for starting and completing investigations of recipients of federal funding alleged to be making race-based decisions in their programs. OCR should be alert enough to investigate on its own programs that brag they are making racial classifications and stereotyping and excluding from equal participation persons on the basis of skin color and/or gender. But when citizens and prominent civil rights organizations file with OCR complaints of discrimination based on race and/or sex it is unconscionable that OCR would intentionally or unintentionally, wittingly or unwittingly sidestep and delay action on the complaints.

We are frustrated when OCR rather than deciding complaints on the basis of legal standards it initiates efforts to change the standards and the regulations so as to favor and appease politically-wired entities and powerful and wealthy individuals, such as those who insisted on an all-girls school in East Harlem and the politicians and elected officials who brought pressure on OCR not to find the school in violation of federal civil rights laws. It is not possible for there to be confidence in the rule of law among the citizenry in the circumstances when government plays favorites, based on race or political correctness or when it acts paternalistically and under the conditions of forever shifting, unprincipled administrative decision making at OCR.

In summary:

· * We brought our complaint against the Young Women’s Leadership Academy of East Harlem in 1996; that complaint, after some 16 years, was never decided by OCR.

· * On July 27, 2006, OCR acknowledged and gave a Complaint Number (02-06-2123) to our allegations that the City University of New York and several of its colleges were operating its “Black Male Initiative” in ways that stereotyped, separated and provided to black males only (including running a separate class for black men at Medgar Evers College, taught by the black male president of Medgar Evers College) and also discriminated against whites and other non-blacks, and discriminated against all female (although similarly qualified and at risk) students at CUNY who could not enroll or participate and benefit from the special services, academic and financial, provided black male students. OCR did not take any action on that urgent complaint. It continues to assert that it is investigating. Some six years later, OCR has still not decided that complaint of discrimination.

* Earlier this year, we asked OCR to probe Mayor Bloomberg’s and the City of New York’s “Young Men’s Initiative” (YMI). YMI, according to Mayor Bloomberg and the literature and public information about the City’s “Young Men’s Initiative” is for black and Hispanic young males only—providing black and Hispanic males—but no women, and no whites or Asians—with financial and educational and scholarship support and career counseling and other ancillary educational and compensatory special services. Despite this discriminatory purpose—and resolve of the City of New York (a recipient of federal funding) to specially and differentially treat black and Hispanic males—labeling them as “at risk” because of their race and sex—neither the United States Justice Department nor the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education is at all interested in probing this race-based and gender-specific discrimination.

I invite your response.

Given your past assurances and promise of vigorous civil rights enforcement, I am baffled by this stultifying record of inaction on OCR’s part, and puzzled as well by your own unflagging support of governmental efforts that stereotype, stigmatize and separate our citizenry and students on the flimsy basis of their skin color and/or gender, policies and practices which effectively polarize our society and create separate doors and offices at Education, the very department that is supposed to stand for equal opportunity, equal access, and equal law enforcement.

I look forward to receiving your response.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Michael Meyers

Michael Meyers
Executive Director

Cc: Assistant Secretary Russlynn Ali