The
end of the
Civil Rights Era
Political pundits in Washington generally concede
that Samuel Alito will be approved by the Senate as a Supreme Court
associate justice. At a time when the court has been so evenly divided
between conservatives and moderates, this will be a major victory
for the Republican conservatives.
Over the years, African Americans have depended upon Supreme Court
decisions to protect their civil rights. One of the most important
cases was Brown v. Board of Education which vitiated the concept
of “separate but equal,” which had sanctioned racial discrimination
since Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896. It took 58 years until
Brown in 1954 to change that principle.
In the decade or so after Brown there was considerable enthusiasm
in the country to resolve the race problem. Of course the diehard
bigots continued to hang tough, but Congress passed the Civil Rights
Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Also, many federal
programs contained affirmative action provisions to assure that
they are implemented without racial discrimination.
Now public policy has shifted. The University of Michigan barely
won the case against its law school’s affirmative action admission
policy in 2003. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote
in the 5-to-4 decision. Her opinion sounded the death knell for
such affirmative action cases. She said, “we expect that 25
years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be
necessary to further the interest approved today.”
With the approval of Alito to replace O’Connor, the 25-year
window will be closed.
During the last presidential election, black activists were deeply
concerned about losing because of President Bush’s ability
to replace a significant number of Supreme Court justices. Chief
Justice William Rehnquist and O’Connor are gone. John Paul
Stevens, who has been on the court since 1975, is 80 years old.
From the perspective of African Americans, Alito is not the best
choice for the court. He has even questioned the constitutionality
of “one man one vote” and has asserted that Congress lacks
the authority to ban machine guns. He has rarely, if ever, decided
in favor of individual’s asserting their civil rights.
African Americans must now develop strategies to prosper without
judicial support. It is either that or perish.
A
callous demand for heroism
When the murder rate in the black community climbs,
all the residents become victims. Fear and anxiety become rampant.
Often there is some awareness of who might be involved in criminal
activity, but threats from the criminals discourage citizens from
coming forward with evidence.
Public officials have had the temerity in recent weeks to criticize
community residents for not informing the police about the identity
of murderers. How dare the police and others insist that mere citizens
must step up and risk personal injury when the police are incapable
of providing protection to informants.
Proposed witness protection statutes are now in the House and the
Senate and may soon be approved. Among other measures, these bills
will expand the definition of intimidation and will provide for
personal protection or relocation of witnesses when necessary. And
what is of crucial importance, defendants accused of threats may
not be permitted to review the testimony of witnesses before the
grand jury. Nonetheless, a budget of $750,000 for the whole state
to finance witness protection is grossly inadequate.
It is nothing less than a campaign of harassment against the black
community for those outside to demand heroism before any reasonable
safeguards are in place.
|
Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher
Bay State Banner |
