February 06, 2014
By Jazelle Hunt
NNPA Washington Correspondent
WASHINGTON (NNPA) – In last week’s State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared, “…Our success should depend not on accident of birth, but the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dreams.”
The operative word was “should.” A recent study by a team of Harvard University and University of California-Berkeley researchers and others confirm that the birth lottery still rules the day.
The report states, “Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries. It also said two studies found, “Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. Areas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families.”
In other words, we have not reached the point where the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dream dictate our success.
“The Equality of Opportunity Project” is a two-part study that examines intergenerational mobility over time and over geography. The first paper studies the correlation between the incomes of today’s 30-somethings and their parents’ income between 1996 and 2012, and then compares the data across the country.
The second paper studies time trends by comparing the incomes of citizens born between 1971 and 1993, to the incomes of their parents. (For those born after 1986, the researchers compare their probability of attending college and their parents’ income).
“Intergenerational mobility varies substantially across areas. For example, a child born in the bottom fifth of the income distribution has a 7.8 percent chance of reaching the top fifth in the U.S. as a whole,” the report states. “But in some places, such as Salt Lake City and San Jose, the chance of moving from the bottom fifth to the top fifth is as high as 12.9 percent. In others, such as Charlotte and Indianapolis, it is as low as 4.4 percent.”
According to the data, five factors have the greatest influence on mobility: racial and income segregation; income inequality; primary school quality; social connections and community involvement; and family structure.
In areas with the most depressed mobility, these five factors coalesce to form a perfect storm. Income inequality spurs economic segregation; and since race and class are sometimes inextricable, racial segregation arises. Property taxes support schools, so the quality level of a primary school often reflects its neighborhood’s wealth (or lack thereof). Family structure refers to concentrations of single-parent households. Single-parent households tend to have less income than two-parent households, and also tend to have less time to be involved in community affairs.
To clarify, these factors only serve as indicators on a community level. In other words, an individual’s chance at mobility is not tied to his or her family circumstances, but rather to the overall circumstances of his/her hometown. In the case of many African American communities, it is the isolation from jobs, infrastructure, resources, and the influence of more affluent citizens that creates depressed mobility. Such communities stunt successful outcomes for its residents (of all races and incomes).
“These results suggest that it is the isolation of low-income families rather than the isolation of the rich that may be most detrimental for low income children’s prospects of moving up in the income distribution.” The paper states, “One explanation of this correlation is that the separation of the middle class from the poor reduces beneficial peer effects or funding for local public goods (e.g., schools) for children from low-income families. In contrast, the separation of the affluent from the middle class may not directly harm low income individuals.”
In some commuting zones (CZs), which are like metropolitan areas but also include surrounding rural areas, children born to parents in the bottom fifth income level have less than 3 percent chance of earning their way to the top fifth. This is significantly lower than the national mobility average, and the rates of other developed nations.
Among the 50 biggest CZs, Charlotte, Milwaukee, and Atlanta have the lowest mobility. San Jose, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., have the highest. Geographically, the Midwestern states beyond the Great Lakes have the highest mobility rates. (Racial segregation — one the strongest correlates of depressed mobility — is less of an issue in these states, where at least 95 percent of the population is White). The Southeast has particularly low mobility; 55 percent of all Blacks live in the South.
Senior researcher, Sarah Abraham noted, “As a family at the 25th income percentile, whether your child grew up in Salt Lake City or Charlotte makes a difference of over $8,000 on their expected income at age 30.”
For example, the average child reared in Charlotte in a 20th percentile household (making $26,000 per year) will end up in the 34th percentile (making $41,000 yearly) by the time he or she is 30. Of all the children born in the same circumstance, only 45 percent will earn their way beyond the 40th percentile ($48,000 yearly, or more).
Conversely (and to illustrate the difficulty of upward mobility in this CZ), the average child born in an 80th percentile household (making $109,000 per year) will fall to the 58th percentile (making $71,000 yearly) by 30. In this scenario, only 32 percent will be able to climb the one level above their parents, into the top 20th percentile.
For people raised in the 80th percentile in Charlotte, the mobility rate is two to three points lower than the national rate.
“The southeast generally has severe residential segregation across both income and races. You can also measure the average commute times in a place, and find that places where people have longer commutes have worse mobility. Southern cities generally exhibit sprawl,” Abraham explains.
In Newark, which has the ninth highest mobility among the country’s largest 50 CZs, the average child born into the 20th percentile will end up in the 43rd percentile (making $52,000 per year). Of all the children born in this same circumstance, 77 percent will grow up to earn more than their parents.
The paper concludes that “the fact that much of the spatial variation in children’s outcomes emerges before they enter the labor market suggests that the differences in mobility are driven by factors that affect children while they are growing up.”
The project makes it clear, however, that the key to improving upward mobility for all Americans – particularly those in the middle class – lies in creating diverse, well-planned, supportive communities.
“There are two broad conclusions from our research that we believe should be taken into consideration as guide future research and policies,” Abraham says. “First, our study shows the importance of early intervention, as the patterns of inequality emerge well before students enter the labor market, even as early as their teenage years…. Second, America does not have uniform mobility but rather significant amounts of spatial variation, and as such we might consider targeting limited funds at specific areas to alleviate persistent inequality.”
By George E. Curry
A “concerned” U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler is expected to rule next week on whether advertising she ordered major tobacco companies to purchase in order to correct their past false statements about the danger of smoking should be expanded to include Black media.
On Jan. 22, Judge Kessler held a hearing in Washington, D.C. in which she stated, “… I do have some real concerns and I want to put those concerns in the public record now so that everybody is clear about matters of substantial import.”
She continued, “Number one, I’m concerned about the issue that has arisen – and I have to say –arisen for the first time some seven years, I believe, if I’m counting right, seven years after Order Number 1015 was issued. And the issue is beliefs that in setting forth the newspapers in which the corrective statements have been placed, that we have ignored an extremely important segment of the population in general, and that we have ignored a segment of the population that was directly targeted by the Defendants in this case.”
Cloves C. Campbell, Jr., chairman of the NNPA, said he remains optimistic that his group will get a fair hearing in federal court.
“Judge Kessler has a reputation for being a fair-minded judge and we are hopeful that when all the facts are presented, she will see that the Black media should be central to any proposed settlement,” Campbell said.
A proposed agreement was reached June 9 between the U.S, Justice Department, the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund and the four major tobacco manufacturers – Altria, R. J. Reynolds, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA – that would place advertising in White and Hispanic newspapers and the three major TV networks. No advertising was planned for any Black print or broadcast media company.
Under the proposed agreement, the tobacco companies must purchase full-page Sunday ads in White- and Hispanic-owned newspapers and commercials on either ABC, CBS or NBC network four days a week for a year. Target Market News, which first disclosed the proposed settlement said industry sources place the value of the ad buy at $30 million to $45 million.
The U.S. Justice Department filed suit against the cigarette manufacturers on Sept. 22, 1999 charging that they had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act.
After the companies were found guilty, Judge Kessler wrote in her ruling that the case “is about an industry, and in particular these Defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss, and a profound burden on our national health care system. Defendants have known these facts for at least 50 years or more. Despite that knowledge, they have consistently, repeatedly, and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, to the Government, and to the public health community… In short, Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted.”
In her initial ruling against the tobacco industry in 2006, Judge Kessler provided a list of publications where “corrective statements” should be made. It is uncertain how or if she will amend her original list beyond the two newspapers that have since gone out of business.
The National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA) and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (NABOB), two trade associations whose members reach more than 95 percent of African Americans, filed an amicus curiae or friend of the court brief objecting to the proposed settlement.
“…The Defendants targeted the African America community with advertising campaigns which were delivered in part by their paid advertisements in African American print and electronic media,” the amicus brief states. “The proposed remedy does not list any media which specifically targets the African American community. To insure that the Corrective Statements reach the population that the Defendants targeted, the Court should require the parties to jointly select alternative newspapers that specifically target the African American community.”
Judge Kessler has scheduled another hearing for Feb. 18. Since the NNPA and NABOB went to court, the NAACP has also filed a supporting brief.
“To rectify the damage created by Defendant in their targeting of African American communities, this Court should require Defendants to use NABOB and NNPA member organizations to fulfill its remedial order. Black-owned print and visual media remain a primary method of receiving information for African Americans,” their amicus brief stated. “The NAACP fears that the current list of media sources will not effectively inform the black community of the Defendant’s illegal targeting and provide correct information in line with this court’s order.
“In fact, the Defendant corporations knew of the black print media’s reach when it used their advertising space to target African American communities. Leaving the NNPA and NABOB member publications out of the remedial order advertising list allows the Defendant to walk away from the community that it directly targeted African American communities. As a result, the Defendants will have directly disseminated misinformation to the African American community without the responsibility of returning to correct their errors.”
After NNPA and NABOB went to court, two cable giants filed briefs asking that they be included in the settlement deal.
FOX, which has been in operation since 1986, said it should be included, saying: “ FOX Network programming is broadcast over the airwaves to virtually any U.S. resident with a working antenna and a television, reaching 99.8% of the United States population, slightly more than ABC, CBS or NBC.”
In its amicus filing, Fox stated, “FOX enjoys particular popularity among younger audiences, having been the preferred network among teenagers 12-17 and men 18-34 for 12 consecutive years. It was also the top-rated network for 11 of the past 12 seasons among all adults under the age of 35.”
Viacom, Inc. – the parent company of BET, MTV, MTV2, VH1, Comedy Central – filed a brief challenging the idea that the three major networks reach a significant number of young people or African Americans.
“The Proposed Consent Order provides that Defendants shall cause Corrective Statements to be broadcast through 260 spots on CBS, ABC, or NBC between Monday and Thursday, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., over one year,” Viacom said in its brief. “This ignores the reality that much of the programming on those networks during those hours is not geared to reach youth and African American demographics. For example, the median age of viewers of CBS, ABC, and NBC is between 50 and 60 years old, and only 1%-2% of those networks’ primetime viewers are Black adults ages 18 to 34. Moreover, pursuant to the Proposed Consent Order, Defendants could purchase the lowest-cost airtime on the least-viewed shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC and further minimize the impact of the Corrective Statements on young adult and Black viewers.”
The amicus brief continued, “The Court should not countenance this approach. Defendants should be required to target the young adult and Black markets with their Corrective Statements, just as they targeted young people and young African Americans with their deceptive advertising and marketing campaigns.”
January 30, 2014
WASHINGTON (NNPA) – George Zimmerman. Paula Deen. And, more recently, Seattle Seahawks star defensive back Richard Sherman. Just the mention of their name ignites a passionate discussion about race.
The good news is that we’re talking about race. The bad news is that the discussions too often fall short of the mark, focusing on the latest incident, but not the underlying causes of racism. At least, that’s the conclusion of a new report by Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice and Innovation (formerly Applied Research Center). Race Forward seeks to build awareness, solutions and leadership for racial justice by generating transformative ideas, information and experiences.
As the introduction of the report explains, “‘Moving the Race Conversation Forward’ is a two-part report that first, describes some of the major impediments to productive racial discourse in the United States, and second, profiles and provides lessons from several recent interventions and initiatives that are breaking down significant barriers toward racial justice.”
In its analysis of nearly 1,200 race-related content from 14 print and television media outlets across the country, the report finds that just 32.7 percent were “systematically aware.” The report considers an article or TV segment systematically aware if it mentions or highlights policies and/or practices that lead to racial disparities; if it describes the root causes of disparities including the history and compounding effects of institutions; and/or describes or challenges the aforementioned.
According to their findings, only one-third of the sampled media mentioned the root causes of racial discrimination in their coverage of race-related news.
The least likely to do so were Fox News, The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, and USA Today. The most systematically aware were MSNBC The Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Media coverage on the economy and criminal justice topics had the highest proportion of systematically aware content.
At the same time, the report finds that coverage of policies, reforms, and racial organizing efforts that actually challenged systemic-level racism was less than 4 percent of all race and racism coverage at each of the outlets.
“There’s a disproportionate level of attention given to incidents like Paula Deen last year,” says Dominique Apollon, research director at Race Forward, and one of the report’s authors. “We get stuck on questions like ‘Who’s racist?’ ‘Did Paula Deen mean to be racist?’ ‘Does she have Black friends, what do her Black customers think?’ We get stuck talking about [that] rather than focusing on the policies and practices that cause racism and disparities in this country.”
Part one of the report also highlighted seven pervasive, harmful pitfalls in the general discourse on racism (in media and otherwise): Individualizing racism; falsely equating incomparable acts; diverting from race, disregarding it in favor of another social construct such as class or gender; portraying government as overreaching; prioritizing intent over impact; condemning through coded language; and silencing history.
These pitfalls and the hollow analysis of racism creates the phenomenon in which the conversation centers on individual overt racist acts, yet neglects to acknowledge or fully examine the impact of institutional racism (which exists within a system, such as the criminal justice system), and structural racism (which exists across institutions and permeates all of society).
Part two of the report attempts to move the race conversation forward by highlighting recent interventions and initiatives that challenge the narrow national conversation on racism. For example, multi-racial civil rights organization, Advancement Project, campaigned against the “Schoolhouse-to-Jailhouse” pipeline, helping reverse the impact of zero-tolerance policies. Other featured initiatives include the film Fruitvale Station and the Migration is Beautiful art series, which recognizes the humanity of the nation’s migrant workers.
Both parts of the report offer recommendations for including systemic awareness in analyses, and improving the conversation around racism overall. Part one offers suggestions for individuals and media professionals: Expanding one’s understanding of racism; focusing on actions and impacts instead of attitudes and intentions; examining race within conversations on class, gender, sexuality, etc.; and featuring the humanity and leadership of people of color.
Part two’s recommendations are for those in the trenches of anti-racist activism. These include the importance of framing issues properly (Fruitvale Station, for example, reclaims Oscar Grant’s story by focusing on his humanity); connecting individual experiences to systematic problems; and alerting media outlets and professions to their racial bias blind spots. Apollon asserts that these recommendations are not just for activists or media professionals, but also for anyone who sees racism in media or in their daily lives.
The report also points out the near-absence of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in discussions of racism and race. Collectively, these groups (not including multiracial Americans) are 5.6 percent of the population, according to 2010 Census data. Yet only 2.36 percent of all the content studied covered these communities.
A video produced by Jay Smooth, activist and Race Forward video and multimedia producer, accompanies the report. In it, Smooth explains the report and its takeaway points. In its first two days, the video garnered more than 39,000 Youtube views. Apollon hopes it continues to reach as many people as possible, and sparks accurate conversations around race.
“It’s important to push back against all the ‘post-racial’ and ‘colorblindness’ rhetoric we hear. Because being silent about it is not going to eliminate the challenges we face,” he says. “Insert race into conversations about class, gender, sexuality. Engage with us and each other about our definition of racism and the deficiencies in our racial discourse.”
SACRAMENTO, Calif.— Morris “Morrie” Turner, the creator of the “Wee Pals” comic strip and the first African American cartoonist to be syndicated nationally, has died. He was 90.
Family spokesman David Bellard says the Oakland, Calif.-born Turner died peacefully at a hospital in Sacramento, Calif., on Saturday.
Turner developed the humorous, ethnically diverse comic strip about a group of buddies, “Wee Pals,” in 1965 at the urging of his mentor, Charles Schulz. Schulz created the widely popular Peanuts comic strip.
Turner’s strip was also known for its “Soul Corner” that often recognized historical black figures.
In 2003, Turner was recognized by the National Cartoonist Society for his work.
Bellard said Turner was surrounded by family members when he passed away. Services are pending.
WASHINGTON (NNPA) – With a largely uncooperative, highly-partisan Congress headed into a mid-term election, President Obama declared in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night that he will have ‘a year of action’ by expanding economic opportunity through executive orders and other action that do not require legislative approval.
“I’m eager to work with all of you,” Obama said in a speech that lasted a little longer than an hour. “But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”
Repeating many of the themes he sounded in his State of the Union speech a year ago – and having seen congressional inaction on most of them – a frustrated Barack Obama promised to be more aggressive in using the power of the presidency.
In glowing review of his first five years in office, Obama said, “Here are the results of your efforts: The lowest unemployment rate in over five years. A rebounding housing market. A manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. More oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years. Our deficits – cut by more than half. And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.”
He continued, “…The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress. For several years now, this town has been consumed by a rancorous argument over the proper size of the federal government. It’s an important debate – one that dates back to our very founding. But when that debate prevents us from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy – when our differences shut down government or threaten the full faith and credit of the United States – then we are not doing right by the American people.”
A major theme of the president’s speech was providing expanded opportunity for all Americans – an opportunity to get a job, to earn fair wages, to get an education and to have access to affordable health care.
“Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by – let alone get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.”
Unlike past State of the Union speeches, Obama did not call for higher tax rates on high-income earners. He also toned down his rhetoric on income inequality from a month ago when he called it “the defining challenge of our time” and referred to a “dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility.”
A recent report by Oxfam, a London based organization that seeks to eradicate poverty, found that the wealth of 1 percent of the richest people in the world ($110 trillion) is 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, collected data that shows the top fifth of the U.S. population receives 66 percent of tax-expenditure benefits, the middle 60 percent of the population receives slightly more than 31 percent and the bottom fifth receives just 2.8 percent of tax-expenditure benefits. The top 1 percent of the population alone receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits.
According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 60 percent of Americans believe the “economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy.” And even larger margin – 65 percent – believe the gap between the rich and everyone else has increased over the past 10 years.
But instead of getting into what his Republican critics like to call a class war, the president framed the issue Tuesday night through the lens of a lack of progress for working-class Americans.
“Let’s make this a year of action,” President Obama said. “That’s what most Americans want – for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations. And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all – the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.”
In an action on Tuesday, President Obama issued an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers from $7.25 an hour to $10.10.
To raise the minimum wage beyond federal contractors, as Obama has been urging for more than a year, he will need the support of Congress. He will also need cooperation from the House and Senate to act on other issues such as immigration, extending unemployment benefits, tax reform and expanding pre-K education.
Although White House officials are predicting some progress on farm legislation and immigration, they recognize that partisan politics traditionally grow even more partisan in a mid-term election, especially during a president’s second term. Consequently, the administration is advancing a series of modest initiatives, including:
Directing the Treasury Department to create a starter retirement savings account, called “myRA”; Hosting a White House summit on working families; Having Vice President Joe Biden lead a review of the federal job training system; Streamlining federal regulations covering construction of manufacturing factories that rely on natural gas and Convening a group of CEOs to solicit their ideas on how best to get unemployed workers back into the job market.
On CNN Tuesday night, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized President Obama for taking so long to use the authority he has to issue executive orders, which are presidential directives that interpret the constitution and federal laws without needing the approval of Congress.
According to the National Archives and The American Presidency Project, President Obama has issued 168 executive orders. His 147 during his first term was the fewest by a president in more than 100 years. By contrast, in their first terms, Ronald Reagan issued 213, Bill Clinton 200 and George W. Bush 173.
Obama defenders say many of his executive orders have been far reaching, delaying enforcement of certain sections of the Affordable Care Act, federal recognition of same-sex marriages and delaying deportation of some illegal immigrants.
At a White House briefing with a small group of reporters Tuesday afternoon, a senior administration official responded to critics who contend that President Obama would be more effective if he socialized more with House Republicans. But that’s been impossible with the Tea Party wing of the GOP, the official said.
“They said he should schmooze a little bit more, if he would just go play golf with them,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They don’t want to be seen playing golf with him. They don’t want to be seen having dinner with him. They don’t want to work with the president and they’ve told us that every way they know how.”
Page 4 of 47