Voice your opinion

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about there being more to unite than to divide Black and White New Orleanians. This announcement comes in the form of a poll of Orleans voters as the city approaches the mayoral race of 2010.

What has some New Orleanians cheering as the results of this poll are discussed is that Whites and Blacks were identical or very close when it comes to the importance they placed on the issues of crime, education and economic development.

We did not need a poll to tell us that Black people care about the same important issues that everyone else cares about. We did not need a poll to show us that Black people want to live in safe neighborhoods, want quality educational opportunities for their children or desire the opportunity to advance economically. And that’s just one small part of what is wrong with this we’re “more alike than different” propaganda.

If we are so alike, so united—why is the national unemployment rate for Blacks nearly double that of Whites? Why do only 55 percent of Black students graduate from high school compared to 78 percent of White students? If we are really all in this together, could someone please explain why one in four African Americans live in poverty compared to one in 12 Whites? If we are so much the same, why are Black Americans, who barely make up 13 percent of the country’s population, half of the prison population?

Though these are national figures, they are echoed at state and local levels, especially in urban areas. So as this mayoral election of 2010 approaches, any candidate—Black or White—who fails to realize and speak to those enormous disparities and disproportionate representations as it relates to African Americans with a plan to directly combat those issues for Black New Orleanians, will do himself and this city a disservice.

That’s what we think. What cha say? Are Blacks and Whites in New Orleans or in America really more alike than we are different just because we all want the same things? 

Latching on to a statement made by Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor and working it for all its worth, conservatives appear primed to force a battle over President Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Sotomayor, 54, is a federal judge who grew up in Bronx housing projects and attended Princeton and Yale. If confirmed, Sotomayor would replace outgoing justice, David Souter, on the Supreme Court and become the first Hispanic woman to serve. But it seems that this milestone will not happen without some controversy.

The latest—opponents are pointing to a speech Sotomayor made nearly eight years ago at UC Berkley.

First here’s some context.

In a speech at Berkley, Sotomayor referenced a saying of then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion in a case.

Now, here’s sentence Sotomayor’s exact sentence:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said.  

To us at The Tribune, it seems that Sotomayor was simply saying that as a Latina woman in American, she believes that she would bring a different perspective—that who she is and that her experiences that not many White men or woman share with her influences her views. We don’t see that as bad or racist. In fact, it is just plain true, a part of this human condition we are all afflicted with. Her appointment, we think, might bring to the nation’s highest court a fresh perspective it sorely needs.  

Yet, this is what conservatives the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are pointing to call Sotomayor racist. And we also think that if this is all Newt and Rush and other Republican bullies can come up with the block Sotomayor—one statement made eight years ago and taken out of context—then their fight will soon fade. 

We want to know what cha say? Were Sonia Sotomayor’s comments racists or just a harmless statement now taken out of context?

The state Legislature is now considering a new law that could result in the proliferation of charter schools to the increased detriment of local public systems. Let’s set the record straight now. The Tribune is not anti-charter school. Many are good and they work and that’s fine. But they cannot and will not educate all of our children. And so while we are not against charters, we are simply staunch advocates of shoring up, rebuilding and redefining the local public school systems so that every and any child can be guaranteed a quality education in their communities.

That said—there are specific areas of this bill that troubles us.

Presently, the law prohibits a charter school from being supported by or affiliated with any religion or religious organization or institution. The proposed law deletes this rule, making charter schools one step closer to parochial schools. The law must be kept the way it is. There is nothing right now that stops a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Catholic from making application to create a charter school. They cannot, however, be allowed to make the application as a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or even a Catholic organization, but as an educational organizational. If religious groups are allowed to open charter schools under the auspices of their religion what is to stop them from giving preference to students who share their faith. Or what of the students that don’t share their faith and might feel uncomfortable enrolling?

The new law would also require the state and local public school boards to also “provide for an independent evaluation of the charter proposal by a third party with educational, organizational legal and financial expertise.” In laymen’s term, “provide for” means to pay for. The law does not set a cap on how much these third-party evaluations can cost, nor does it designate an alternate funding source for those fees so that local school systems don’t have to foot the bill. A system, like Orleans which is home to 46 of the 66 charter schools in the state, could easily find itself inundated with charter applications and the undue burden of paying astronomical fees for a consultant to green light charter schools that would then siphon more money from the public district. Why not make the charter school applicant pay for the independent review conducted by a consultant chosen by the local board?

The law will also force public school systems to relinquish some facilities, furniture and equipment—at no cost—to a type 2 conversion charter school. In other words, if a private group comes in, makes an application to turn an existing public school into a charter school and is approved, then can all of the physical resources, including books, previously owned by the local public system. Why not allow the local systems to sale the facilities and equipment to the charter at a fair market rate with the qualification that the proceeds are funneled to back the local system’s curriculum and instruction budgets. It would hardly make up the money the local system loses as a result of students leaving public schools for charter schools, but it would help.

Charter schools are not as open enrollment as they purport to be with current provisions that allow them to give preference to the siblings of previously enrolled students. The proposed law removes the requirement that schools must wait until the second year of operation to exercise this right and authorizes the charter school to give preference to siblings submitting their enrollment applications for the first time. So a new applicant that does not apply along with a brother or sister or that does not have a sibling at the school would not stand an equal chance. Legacies in charter schools! These are charter schools, not Harvard. In fact, the current provisions that give preference to siblings should be scratched. If these schools are truly open enrollment, then every child should be given an equal opportunity to enter.

Those are our issues with this proposal, but Tribune wants you to be informed. That’s why a current copy of the legislation can be found by clicking here. Read it for yourself and then let us know what cha say? Should the state legislature pass SB 146, making it easier for charter schools to form in the state of Louisiana?

Archbishop Alfred Hughes has decided to boycott Xavier University commencement exercises Saturday because commencement speaker Donna Brazile supports abortion rights. 

To be sure, as a veteran Democratic leader, strategist and political advisor, Brazile likely supports many rungs on the Democrat platform, including abortion rights; and still the Kenner, LA  native describes herself as a  “a life-long devoted Catholic.” Perhaps, it’s a personal paradox; but if Ms. Brazile has worked it out with her conscience and the God she serves, that’s good enough for us and should satisfy the archbishop as well.

And, we think it’s safe to say that Roe v. Wade is not set to be the topic of her commencement speech to students. A woman with her experience and insight has so much more to share. 

Here at The Tribune, we are equally as certain that Hughes’s decision is absurd. Xavier University is a Catholic educational institution, yes. But last we checked, it was still an educational institution—the one place where diverging opinions should be able to meet and be discussed without fear of retribution or alienation if the goal is to produce future leaders, free thinkers and productive citizens.  

And why now is this an issue? Three years ago, a relatively low-profile, pro-abortion rights U.S. senator from Illinois spoke to Xavier students at commencement without a whimper or whine from Catholic leadership that we can recall.

Now that the formerly low-profile U.S. senator is President Obama, has the archbishop decided that he must do everything possible to admonish any step that does not align with the Catholic church or right-wing conservative views?

If Archbishop Hughes had any real esteem for the service and dedication of Xavier University, its administration, faculty, staff and, most of all, its students, he would save his political statements for the voting booth, and give both XU and Donna Brazile the respect they deserve by attending this great institution’s commencement service.

The wonderful thing, of course, is that with or without Hughes’s presence students will graduate from Xavier University on Saturday and they will hear from Donna Brazile. America is grand. Still, we want to know, what cha say? Is the archbishop right to boycott Xavier University’s commencement because of its  speaker or is his decision a disservice and an unfair slight?