Students at Eastern Michigan U. protest ‘KKK’ and other racist graffiti
Staff members at Eastern Michigan University discovered racist graffiti on the side of a dormitory building Tuesday morning, campus newspaper The Eastern Echo reported.
“KKK” was spray painted in red, white and blue on the brick wall of dorm Julia Anne King Hall. Below the letters was the racial slur, “Leave N—–s.” University president James Smith said the school’s Department of Public Safety was investigating the incident.
“The University strongly condemns such a racist and thoughtless act, which runs completely counter to the values and welcoming environment of our highly diverse Eastern Michigan University community,” Smith said in a statement.
“Rest assured, we will investigate this criminal act to our fullest abilities and will advise our campus community on our progress,” he added.
At EMU, African-Americans made up 18 percent of all enrolled students in fall 2014, according to the latest federal data from the National Center for Educational Statistics. White students made up 66 percent.
By 9:40 a.m. today, school officials were on site to discuss plans to remove the hate speech, the Echo reported. The graffiti was shortly removed later that morning.
Several students, however, thought the university’s statement was insufficient.
After the wall had been cleared of the racist graffiti, senior Zack Badgerhouse told WEMU, the local NPR station, that he was staging a one-man silent protest at the site, because “African-American students are highly upset.”
He held a sign that read, “I need answers,” WEMU reported. By this afternoon, other EMU students had gathered at the scene of the incident as well, the Echo reported.
“What is the administration going to do about this?” Badgerhouse said. “It’s deeper than just taking it off the wall. I want answers and I want them now.”
Also this afternoon, several members of the Black Student Union joined EMU students on campus to protest the incident as well, shouting, “No Justice, No Peace.”
Protesters arrested inside Capitol as they demand Paul Ryan denounce GOP’s racism
WASHINGTON, DC — House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) was not available for a meeting on Tuesday morning when roughly two dozen millennials arrived at his U.S. Capitol office to demand that he denounce the racism rampant in the Republican Party. So they decided to sit outside.
Holding signs and singing in unison, the young people occupied the hall outside Ryan’s door to demand that the leader of the GOP officially denounce Donald Trump.
“As a Muslim, I’m sick and tired of the racism of the Republican Party,” said Waleed Shahid, a 25-year-old Muslim from Virginia as he stood directly outside Ryan’s door.
Ryan officially endorsed Trump in June, the same day that he promised to stand up to the Islamophobia in his party. Later that same week, he called Trump’s comments about a Mexican judge “racist,” but continued to backthe nominee.
“Paul Ryan and the Republican Party are responsible for Donald Trump’s racism,” Shahid said from the hallway of the Capitol. “Donald Trump is not an aberration. He is the result of 50 years of racist strategy to divide the American people… and young people will not stand for this.”
The protesters, all connected with the newly-formed millennial activist group All of US, cheered as they listened to others speak.
“Ain’t nobody gonna walk all over me,” they sang.
A Capitol police officer repeatedly interrupted the protesters, informing them that the demonstration was illegal. After the third interruption, less than ten minutes into the demonstration, more officers arrived to escort them out of the building. Eleven people — three men and eight women — were handcuffed and led into vans.
Others stood across the street, continuing to sing in support. “Paul Ryan, you’re racist. Your party’s all white faces,” they chanted. “Your time is up, you led to Trump, and now it’s time to face it.”
The Dakota Access Pipeline Fight Is A Chilling Mix Of Racism & Environmentalism
The Dakota Access Pipeline didn’t come out of nowhere. The pipeline project — which aims to transport crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois while passing through South Dakota and Iowa — became public in July 2014. Supporters of the pipeline argue in favor of its economic benefits, like job creation and energy independence. However, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe objected to the pipeline because it could affect the local water supply and damage sacred land. President Obama recently announced a temporary halt in pipeline construction, but that wasn’t a true victory. The fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline has not yet come to an end, and the federal government’s response to this issue reflects the historical treatment of Native American and indigenous people in the United States.
It’s important to look closely at what the Obama Administration actually saidin response to #NoDAPL protests. Shortly after a federal judge refused to grant the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe an injunction to stop construction on the pipeline, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army released a joint statement last week. “Construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time,” the statement read. “We request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.”
As anti-state violence organizer Kelly Hayes wrote, all this statement guarantees is further consideration of the issue. Additionally, this is really just a momentary delay, as Hayes points out. The federal government is creating the illusion of victory by asking Energy Transfer Partners — the company that owns the pipeline project — to voluntarily stop construction while everything is being discussed. The statement really only addresses a small portion of the pipeline, and construction on the rest of the pipeline has continued.
Texas Textbook ‘Dripping With Racism’ Opposed at Hearing, Awaits Vote
Just as the U.S. is about to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, the Texas’ elected education board is facing whether to send to its schoolchildren a Mexican American studies textbook that has been called “dripping with racism” and has been found by a state committee to have many mistakes.
The Texas State Board of Education gave the textbook a full hearing, putting it through the same process as other state textbooks, a process that lacks any earlier filter for a problematic book. The board held the hearing on the book on Tuesday, taking public comment including that of Mexican American studies scholars, legislators and a couple of young people. About 100 people signed up to speak and the book drew a busload of protestors to Austin.
The book, Mexican American Heritage, published by Momentum Instruction, was found to have 68 factual errors and 73 interpretive and omission errors by an ad hoc committee of scholars assembled by board member Ruben Cortez Jr.
The book says that “stereotypically” Mexicans were viewed as lazy, that “drinking on the job could be a problem” and that Chicanos “opposed Western civilization and wanted to destroy this society.”
The country’s celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month begins Thursday.
Texas’ Hispanic population is the second largest in the nation at 10.4 million, about 19 percent of the entire nation’s Latino population. According to Pew Research Center, 87.5 percent of the state’s Latino population is of Mexican descent.
Ruben Cortez Jr., a board member who has spearheaded efforts to keep the textbook from moving forward, said after Tuesday’s hearing that he expects a supermajority of board members to reject the textbook in the vote scheduled for Nov. 18.
“Imagine Donald Trump or David Duke writing a book about African American studies, that’s what Cynthia Dunbar has done on Mexican American studies,” Cortez said. Dunbar heads the publishing company that produced the textbook and is a former member of the state’s education board. The book, he said is “dripping with racism.”
The struggle against racism is not over
OUR ARDUOUS STRUGGLE AGAINST RACISM:
WHILE THE rest of the world discusses the sociology of Racism and its limitations. Ours is a lived and deeply entrenched reality. Just like the colonial yolk, we will probably be the last country to unshackle ourselves from this scourge. Racism in South Africa will not simply disappear because we all wish it to it will have to be consciously un-learnt.
After years of living in a society where racism is legal and normal, it is quite possible that it is an unconscious condition that infects all of us in one way or another.
Perhaps we missed the opportunity to dedicate a chapter in our Constitution to this matter it is an undeniable right that every citizen be treated with no racial prejudice.
The struggle against racism has been a long, protracted and arduous journey that still remains unfulfilled. From the time of the arrival of colonialists on our shores to this very date we still, in different measures, have to contend with the ugly revival and re-appearance and resurgence of this monstrous beast in the national scene in South Africa.
In this brief article I seek to show how, over many years, the ANC has waged a tireless struggle, through protests, campaigns, petitions and representations with the sole aim of overthrowing a racist system with its elaborate illegitimate laws and promulgations. At the heart of the minority regime were a litany of laws that were rooted in the Nazi’s Herrenvolk belief of the superiority of white race over Africans.
Man who fought racism with tea gets plenty of praise, pots of tea in return
After overhearing two women having a fairly ignorant conversation about Indigenous people at his local coffee shop in Perth, Australia, Jarred Wall decided to buy the pair a pot of tea. The kind note he left them has since spread across the boundless plains of the internet, with Wall being praised for his dignified handling of the incident.
Wall appeared on Australian panel show The Project Monday night, recounting the exchange and the spoke of the overwhelming reception from the public.
Wall told the panel that after an interview on NITV, he went to a nearby cafe where a random young couple sent a pot of tea to his table with a note reading “there should be more people like you #EnglishBreakfastTea”.
How to deal with gender discrimination as an organisation
Although we inhibit the 21st century of ‘equal opportunities’ for men and women, this is clearly just an ideal on a paper. The ugly truth is that there is a blatant, unspoken policy of gender-discrimination that plagues most workplaces, be it one part of a corporate jungle or one following the laidback principles of a newly established startup.
The cue for ‘gender discrimination’ may be prohibited under Article 15 of our Constitution, but there is no real enforcement behind the clause. This discrimination extends to both men and women, although the majority of cases reported regarding gender discrimination have been filed by women. Women may be occupying top-notch positions of all kinds of professions today, but more often than not, you will hear them confessing that they are not made to feel as welcome as their male counterparts, or are termed off as ‘too bossy’ for issuing orders to her male co-workers.
Gender discrimination comes in various forms. It isn’t merely synonymous with a blasphemous cry against the opposite gender. It could be a subtle sexist joke passed at a female boss ‘being way out of her league’ or a male co-worker being mocked for ‘dressing like a girl’ by wearing tight pants or a colour that’s ‘universally’ associated with the female race. It could be by a female worker receiving half or one-third of the salary that is being paid to her male-counterpart, even if chances are that she holds more degrees and work experience to her name.
As a company, it is your responsibility to guarantee that the workspace is a discrimination-free zone, where work is administered based on merit and not biased towards any gender. Here’s how to deal with gender discrimination as an organisation to propagate gender-equality in your work-place.
Ending anti-Muslim racism requires more than changing the language
Canada will stop using the term Islamic State and instead use Daesh, but eliminating anti-Muslim racism here requires much more than adopting a new lexicon.
The Canadian government’s recent announcement that it will no longer call Daesh the “Islamic State” has been celebrated as a bold stand against Islamophobia, and a notable departure from Stephen Harper’s fear-mongering about “Islamicism.”
“The group is neither Islamic nor a state, and so will be referred to as Daesh (its Arabic acronym),” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale explained in this year’s edition of the Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada — the first produced under the new Liberal government.
Names are important, and the misrepresentation of Islam as an inherently violent ideology is more deeply entrenched every time the name “Islamic State” is applied to an organization infamous for its atrocities. But anti-Muslim racism did not begin with the phrase “Islamic State,” and it will not end with the decision to use “Daesh” instead.
The ubiquitous references to the “Islamic State” are so pernicious only because of broader narratives persistently conflating Islam and terrorism. Otherwise, there would be little need for Goodale to clarify that a group comprising approximately 0.00006 per cent of the world’s Muslim population, and condemned by large groups of leading Muslim scholars, cannot reasonably be described as “Islamic.” (As most people would presumably appreciate, even without government instruction, that ex-president George Bush’s appeal to biblical prophecy to rationalize the disastrous war in Iraq does not define Christian orthodoxy.)
These broader narratives problematically equating “terrorism” with “violence committed by Muslims” are reinforced by the government’s 2016 assessment of the “terrorist threat,” which focuses entirely on perils posed by individuals and organizations ostensibly inspired by Islam.
New campaign to tackle racism and discrimination in football
On the day Kick It Out is showcasing its ‘Call Full Time On Hate’ initiative, the organisation is calling for a unified effort from football to eradicate prejudice and hate from the game.
This is only possible with the full backing of the football authorities and affiliated organisations, including sponsors and partners, to intensify their activities to tackle prejudice and hatred and to place football at the forefront of promoting good community cohesion, by developing and supporting vital initiatives at grassroots level across the country.
Kick It Out, football’s equality and inclusion organisation, has today (6 September) released its 2015/16 reporting statistics, which reveal an increase in discrimination incidents. Discrimination reports to Kick It Out have risen year-on-year since the organisation first started collating statistics in 2012/13.
In addition, The FA has released its own stats in the latest version of English Football’s Inclusion & Anti-Discrimination Action Plan, released last month which collates how each of the leading bodies in the game, including Kick It Out, are tackling the issue of discrimination. Greg Clarke will be speaking at today’s event, his first appearance in his new role as FA chairman.
Professional football continues to demonstrate a strong commitment to work towards the elimination of unacceptable discrimination and abuse.
When did discrimination become okay?
The current news stories about Pastor Anderson coming to South Africa for his soul winning, has had a very deep impact on me. It has brought up questions about our society, which I previously did not have.
I guess that I have been lucky in my life, I never really had to deal with discrimination all that much. I could honestly not say what it is like.
I could not help, but to notice how many people still deeply discriminate against other people. And I struggle to understand why? On the basis of religion? Is that the only reason?
I see people reading comments, and agreeing with them. But not liking them, because it is in support of an unpopular issue. An issue that has seen thousands die.
Believing in aliens has become more popular then this issue, even though this issue has been with us since biblical times. You would think that by now we would have figured something out.
I see educated people saying that this form of discrimination is not acceptable, yet I don’t see much being done to protect those who are discriminated against.
If I am not mistaken, South Africa was the first country to incorporate it being illegal to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, gender, age, religious beliefs and sexual orientation into their constitution. Making it the highest law in the land. Why is it then enforced so selectively?