LINK: http://www.newsmax.com/thewire/diane-humetewa-native-american-federal-judge/2014/05/15/id/571552/
Posted on Newsmax May 15:
Diane Humetewa made history this week as the first female Native
American federal judge after the U.S. Senate confirmed her appointment
Wednesday.
Humetewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe, was approved by the Senate in a 96-0 vote, The Associated Press reported.
She now fills one of the six current vacancies in the District Court of
Arizona. A former attorney general for the state of Arizona from 2007
to 2009, she was serving as a special advisor at Arizona State
University before her confirmation.
Humetewa's appointment was a victory for Native American activists who
had long pushed for American Indian representation in federal court,
particularly in places like Arizona, which has a high Native American population, according to the Indian Country Today Media Network.
"Let's hope Diane's confirmation is just the start of a slew of Native
American federal judges," Chris Stearns, who previously served as a
counsel to the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, told news
network. "There is still a massive lack of representation of Indian
judges in the federal courts."
As a special advisor at Arizona State, Humetewa helped university
president Michael Crow with Native American affairs and acted as an aide
in the university's Office of General Counsel, according to the school's website.
She also served as a professor of practice at Arizona State's Sandra Day
O'Connor College of Law. There, Humetewa worked to establish
relationships with the American Indian tribal governments and
prospective and current Native American students, according to the
university.
"[The National Congress of American Indians] greatly appreciates the
efforts of the president and Senate in achieving this historic
confirmation," the NCAI said in a statement.
"There are many qualified, talented people like Diane Humetewa in
Indian country who are able and willing to serve. We eagerly anticipate
many more nominations of Native people to the federal bench and other
offices."
"Judge Humetewa has dedicated time to serving the interests of Native
peoples. She has been the appellate court judge for the Hopi Tribe,
counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and special
advisor to the president on American Indian Affairs at Arizona State
University," the NCAI statement continued.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Guest column: Let's talk about Donald Sterling and race
LINK: http://www.jconline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/05/01/guest-column-talk-donald-sterling-race/8561353/
Posted on: Thursday, May 1.
It seems like we are talking a lot about race lately. Whether it is a U.S. Supreme Court decision, a showdown in an open prairie in Nevada with Cliven Bundy or the NBA playoffs, race has been the top topic of discussion.
While much of this talk has come in reaction to one event or another and not proactively, it’s a conversation that must continue. Unfortunately, that likely will not happen.
NBA commissioner Adam Silver’s decision to ban billionaire Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life seems to have caught the attention of the entire nation. Sterling was secretly taped by his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, making racially charged comments about her being photographed and bringing African-Americans to Clippers games.
I don’t want to get off the subject, but am I the only person who sees a problem with a long-time married man parading his girlfriend who’s old enough to be his granddaughter at Clippers games? That’s another story.
There were a lot of pats on the back Tuesday when Silver made his announcement, which included a $2.5 million fine and asking other NBA owners to force a sale of Sterling’s team. In one respect, there should be. A person with Sterling’s position and influence should have been wary, knowing that if those comments were ever made public, they would have been highly damaging to his ownership.
But Sterling’s past history of settling discrimination complaints in his real estate business should have long been a red flag. Sterling’s comments seem confusing when you square it with the fact that he hired Doc Rivers, a highly successful African-American coach, away from the Boston Celtics to coach his team this season. That, and the fact that most of players are black. That is until you hear the tape and his comments about how he “gives them” their careers.
Even the Los Angeles branch of the NAACP was prepared to give him its lifetime achievement award before the incident.
Racism comes in many forms and cannot be disguised by spotty acts of generosity. It was the point Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was trying to make in her dissent April 22 in the court’s 6-2 decision to uphold a voter-approved change to the Michigan Constitution that prevents public colleges from using race as a factor in admissions.
Justices ruled that while the case did not consider the constitutionality of affirmative action, the state’s initiative was consistent with the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Sotomayor wrote the court was naïve to think that the initiative provided equal protection for minorities.
“In my colleagues’ view, examining the racial impact of legislation only perpetuates racial discrimination,” Sotomayor wrote. “This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable. As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.”
So much of racial prejudice and discrimination happens silently and behind closed doors. The Donald Sterlings of the world know that if those views become public — as they did last week — the reaction could intense and irreversible. If it wasn’t for the tape, who would have ever believed Stiviano, even with Sterling’s past history?
What’s the best way to root out this entrenched racism that stubbornly lurks around the corner of many buildings and dark alleys? It starts with talking about it. It continues with efforts to bring people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds together and to stop being so skittish about the subject. If we miss yet another chance to bring race to the forefront, we’ll simply sit around the wait for the next Donald Sterling to pop out of the closet.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Guest column: Pull plug on Native American mascot names
LINK: http://www.marcoislandflorida.com/article/BY/20130925/OPINION03/309250003/Guest-column-Pull-plug-Native-American-mascot-names
The Washington Redskins. Kansas City Chiefs. Chicago Blackhawks. Atlanta Braves. Central Michigan Chippewas. Twin Lakes Indians.
What’s in a name of a sports team? What does it mean if that name is considered offensive or derogatory to the group, even when the sports team or school suggest the name was meant as an honor?
The issue around the use of Native American nicknames for sports teams has been around for a long time. Interest in the Washington Redskins changing its named picked up steam in May, when a group of congressmen as diverse of Republican Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Democrat Betty McCollum of Minnesota urged Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the name of the NFL team, which has been around since 1932.
Snyder, like past owners of the franchise, dismissed the recommendation, saying he would never change the name of the Washington Redskins. Never, ever. Period.
Of course, names such as these are meant to honor Native Americans for their strength, bravery and courage. Right? They are meant to recognize a location of Native American history or recognize their contributions. Yeah, that’s what they all say.
Yet, it seems strange that the honors and recognition never extend beyond the cheering crowds of the athletic teams or the mockery of Native American traditions in the name of sports.
Patrick Freeland, a Native American doctoral candidate studying at Purdue University, called the use of such names “outdated,” but people continue to hang on to them for a supposed sense of tradition. He said he believes it builds a false persona about Native Americans.
“The larger argument right now is that it builds an entire perception of people, like Native American, that is false. Not only that it’s false, but it’s glorified, bought, sold and heralded as something that is proper and praised. That’s an insult to native people and indigenous people in the U.S.”
Opponents of the Washington Redskins nickname continued to grow, including Peter King from Sports Illustrated, Christine Brennan from USA Today, and Salon.com, which is refusing the use the term Redskins and other Native American nicknames in its sports stories.
Granted, I never gave much thought about the subject until 1994, when I attended what was called the Unity Conference, the first joint convention of national minority journalists groups in Atlanta. During one forum, I met the late Native American activist Vernon Bellecourt.
His passionate speech about his stand against Chief Wahoo, the mascot of the Cleveland Indians, still moves me today. The way he described how native children are teased and taunted by images that are massed produced and glorified in sports pages, and the way Native Americans were portrayed in general as only these savage warriors to be feared, stopped me cold.
I wrote a column on the subject in 1997 when I was a reporter at the Toledo Blade, at the time Miami University changed its nickname from the Redskins to the RedHawks.
The great thing about America is our capacity to look at ourselves and right our own injustices. On some issues, we are little slow; on others, we may walk sideways or backwards at times. But eventually, we get it right.
In this case, that only happens with an honest, frank discussion about targeting one specific ethnic group for these names. Would we accept the Ragin’ Caucasians? The Runnin’ Negros? The Fightin’ Latinos? If not, why do we insist on keeping the Redskins and Indians?
When I hear some people say that the issue of Native American nicknames is not even matter worth discussing — which is the position Snyder has taken with the Washington Redskins — it tells me one thing: You don’t want the discussion because you know you are on the losing side of the issue.
My challenge — more of a dare — to those sports teams, colleges and high schools that use Native American nicknames is to invite someone such as Freeland or another Native American to speak to your masses. Purdue’s Native American Educational and Cultural Center would be an outstanding place to start.
“You almost have this perception among people that we’re just a symbol,” Freeland said. “You have to remind them that we are actually people. The majority of people have never met a Native American person in their life. The primary problem is they are unable to empathize with each other.”
Think about it. Would Robert Griffin III be any less of quarterback if his team wasn’t named the Redskins? Would Hank Aaron be any less of a Hall of Fame baseball player if the team he played for wasn’t named the Braves? Would Twin Lakes High School would any less of the outstanding institution it is for his children if its sports teams were not named the Indians?
If the answer to those questions is no, then why is it so hard to even have talk about its use of its use of Native American sports nickname?
Hughes is a member of the Greater Lafayette Commerce's Diversity Roundtable.
The Washington Redskins. Kansas City Chiefs. Chicago Blackhawks. Atlanta Braves. Central Michigan Chippewas. Twin Lakes Indians.
What’s in a name of a sports team? What does it mean if that name is considered offensive or derogatory to the group, even when the sports team or school suggest the name was meant as an honor?
The issue around the use of Native American nicknames for sports teams has been around for a long time. Interest in the Washington Redskins changing its named picked up steam in May, when a group of congressmen as diverse of Republican Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Democrat Betty McCollum of Minnesota urged Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the name of the NFL team, which has been around since 1932.
Snyder, like past owners of the franchise, dismissed the recommendation, saying he would never change the name of the Washington Redskins. Never, ever. Period.
Of course, names such as these are meant to honor Native Americans for their strength, bravery and courage. Right? They are meant to recognize a location of Native American history or recognize their contributions. Yeah, that’s what they all say.
Yet, it seems strange that the honors and recognition never extend beyond the cheering crowds of the athletic teams or the mockery of Native American traditions in the name of sports.
Patrick Freeland, a Native American doctoral candidate studying at Purdue University, called the use of such names “outdated,” but people continue to hang on to them for a supposed sense of tradition. He said he believes it builds a false persona about Native Americans.
“The larger argument right now is that it builds an entire perception of people, like Native American, that is false. Not only that it’s false, but it’s glorified, bought, sold and heralded as something that is proper and praised. That’s an insult to native people and indigenous people in the U.S.”
Opponents of the Washington Redskins nickname continued to grow, including Peter King from Sports Illustrated, Christine Brennan from USA Today, and Salon.com, which is refusing the use the term Redskins and other Native American nicknames in its sports stories.
Granted, I never gave much thought about the subject until 1994, when I attended what was called the Unity Conference, the first joint convention of national minority journalists groups in Atlanta. During one forum, I met the late Native American activist Vernon Bellecourt.
His passionate speech about his stand against Chief Wahoo, the mascot of the Cleveland Indians, still moves me today. The way he described how native children are teased and taunted by images that are massed produced and glorified in sports pages, and the way Native Americans were portrayed in general as only these savage warriors to be feared, stopped me cold.
I wrote a column on the subject in 1997 when I was a reporter at the Toledo Blade, at the time Miami University changed its nickname from the Redskins to the RedHawks.
The great thing about America is our capacity to look at ourselves and right our own injustices. On some issues, we are little slow; on others, we may walk sideways or backwards at times. But eventually, we get it right.
In this case, that only happens with an honest, frank discussion about targeting one specific ethnic group for these names. Would we accept the Ragin’ Caucasians? The Runnin’ Negros? The Fightin’ Latinos? If not, why do we insist on keeping the Redskins and Indians?
When I hear some people say that the issue of Native American nicknames is not even matter worth discussing — which is the position Snyder has taken with the Washington Redskins — it tells me one thing: You don’t want the discussion because you know you are on the losing side of the issue.
My challenge — more of a dare — to those sports teams, colleges and high schools that use Native American nicknames is to invite someone such as Freeland or another Native American to speak to your masses. Purdue’s Native American Educational and Cultural Center would be an outstanding place to start.
“You almost have this perception among people that we’re just a symbol,” Freeland said. “You have to remind them that we are actually people. The majority of people have never met a Native American person in their life. The primary problem is they are unable to empathize with each other.”
Think about it. Would Robert Griffin III be any less of quarterback if his team wasn’t named the Redskins? Would Hank Aaron be any less of a Hall of Fame baseball player if the team he played for wasn’t named the Braves? Would Twin Lakes High School would any less of the outstanding institution it is for his children if its sports teams were not named the Indians?
If the answer to those questions is no, then why is it so hard to even have talk about its use of its use of Native American sports nickname?
Hughes is a member of the Greater Lafayette Commerce's Diversity Roundtable.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Halsema, Carlson upstage leaders with twin aces at women's city golf championship
Published in the Lafayette Journal & Courier Sunday, July 13, 2013
LINK: http://www.jconline.com/article/20130713/SPORTS03/307130032/Halsema-Carlson-upstage-leaders-twin-aces-Women-s-City-golf-championships
By Clyde Hughes for the Journal & Courier
BATTLE GROUND — Lafayette Jeff junior golfers Lauren Halsema and Abigail Carlson would have had better odds winning the Hoosier Lotto, getting a royal flush with their first five cards in poker, or spotting a UFO than what they pulled off Saturday afternoon at the Greater Lafayette City Women’s Golf Tournament.
Halsema and Carlson, members of the same group, each made a hole-in-one on the 119-yard par-3 fourth hole at the Battle Ground Golf Course. While the champions of the past two seasons, Cyndi Lohmoeller and Ashley Wright, took a big lead after the first day, almost everyone talked about the near back-to-back holes-in-one.
Lohmoeller, the 2011 city champion, shot an even-par 72 in the first round, two shots ahead of defending champion Wright. Wright’s 74 was five shots better than the next two golfers, former McCutcheon star Bethany Hainje, who now plays at St. Joseph’s College, and Lafayette Jeff senior golfer Lindsey Burklow.
Jeff’s all-state golfer, Samantha Hatter, had a tournament-low 24 putts and finished with an 80.
But it was her high school teammates, Halsema and Carlson, who caught everyone’s attention with their feat. A 2000 Golf Digest study calculated the odds of two members of the same grouping making a hole-in-one at the same hole at 17 million to one.
Halsema said her ball landed on the front portion of the hole, but the momentum of the shot kept it rolling toward the pin.
“I thought I hit it a little under, but it kept rolling and it went in,” said Halsema, still excited about the shot after playing 18 holes. “It was crazy. I felt amazing. I was just stunned for the next two holes. I was like, ‘did I really do that?’ ”
After Gretchen King hit her tee shot, Carlson said she saw her ball land 10 feet away from the hole and turned her back to grab her clubs.
“We were thinking, ‘How in the world are supposed to match up to (Halsema’s shot)?’ ” Carlson said. “I hit my shot and I didn’t think I made it there. I turned back around and asked, ‘Where did my ball go?’ They said it went in. I said, ‘No way.’ I didn’t believe them.”
Carlson said she thought her fellow golfers were pulling her leg until she walked up to the hole and saw her ball in the cup.
“We told our coach, but didn’t know if anyone else knew,” Carlson said.
It was the first hole-in-one for both golfers. Carlson finished with a round of 86, just one shot from making the championship flight. Halsema ended with a round of 119.
Lohmoeller and Wright were paired in the first group to tee off Saturday, establishing the standard for the other golfers early. Lohmoeller said her job at the Birck Boilermaker Golf Complex at Purdue came in handy as the day went on.
“I really want to thank Dave Ross for hiring me,” Lohmoeller said with a laugh. “Playing there, seeing how those younger golfers play and the professionalism they show, it may be wearing off on me a little bit. I was able to save No. 18 and not have a blow-up hole.”
Wright, just weeks past gall bladder surgery, said she was surprised by how well she played, but credited her husband and competing with Lohmoeller and Maggie Boaz as inspiration.
“It was a fun, inspiring group to play with,” Wright said. “My husband was my caddy, and he kept me going. I was getting tired at the end, but he was the one who kept telling me that I was doing great and I could do it.”
Hainje said she was more familiar with Coyote Crossing Golf Course, where the final round will be played Sunday.
“It’s going to be a whole new 18 holes tomorrow,” Hainje said. “Coyote Crossing is a course I’m somewhat comfortable with. I will forget about this round, even though it’s one I’m happy with.”
LINK: http://www.jconline.com/article/20130713/SPORTS03/307130032/Halsema-Carlson-upstage-leaders-twin-aces-Women-s-City-golf-championships
By Clyde Hughes for the Journal & Courier
BATTLE GROUND — Lafayette Jeff junior golfers Lauren Halsema and Abigail Carlson would have had better odds winning the Hoosier Lotto, getting a royal flush with their first five cards in poker, or spotting a UFO than what they pulled off Saturday afternoon at the Greater Lafayette City Women’s Golf Tournament.
Halsema and Carlson, members of the same group, each made a hole-in-one on the 119-yard par-3 fourth hole at the Battle Ground Golf Course. While the champions of the past two seasons, Cyndi Lohmoeller and Ashley Wright, took a big lead after the first day, almost everyone talked about the near back-to-back holes-in-one.
Lohmoeller, the 2011 city champion, shot an even-par 72 in the first round, two shots ahead of defending champion Wright. Wright’s 74 was five shots better than the next two golfers, former McCutcheon star Bethany Hainje, who now plays at St. Joseph’s College, and Lafayette Jeff senior golfer Lindsey Burklow.
Jeff’s all-state golfer, Samantha Hatter, had a tournament-low 24 putts and finished with an 80.
But it was her high school teammates, Halsema and Carlson, who caught everyone’s attention with their feat. A 2000 Golf Digest study calculated the odds of two members of the same grouping making a hole-in-one at the same hole at 17 million to one.
Halsema said her ball landed on the front portion of the hole, but the momentum of the shot kept it rolling toward the pin.
“I thought I hit it a little under, but it kept rolling and it went in,” said Halsema, still excited about the shot after playing 18 holes. “It was crazy. I felt amazing. I was just stunned for the next two holes. I was like, ‘did I really do that?’ ”
After Gretchen King hit her tee shot, Carlson said she saw her ball land 10 feet away from the hole and turned her back to grab her clubs.
“We were thinking, ‘How in the world are supposed to match up to (Halsema’s shot)?’ ” Carlson said. “I hit my shot and I didn’t think I made it there. I turned back around and asked, ‘Where did my ball go?’ They said it went in. I said, ‘No way.’ I didn’t believe them.”
Carlson said she thought her fellow golfers were pulling her leg until she walked up to the hole and saw her ball in the cup.
“We told our coach, but didn’t know if anyone else knew,” Carlson said.
It was the first hole-in-one for both golfers. Carlson finished with a round of 86, just one shot from making the championship flight. Halsema ended with a round of 119.
Lohmoeller and Wright were paired in the first group to tee off Saturday, establishing the standard for the other golfers early. Lohmoeller said her job at the Birck Boilermaker Golf Complex at Purdue came in handy as the day went on.
“I really want to thank Dave Ross for hiring me,” Lohmoeller said with a laugh. “Playing there, seeing how those younger golfers play and the professionalism they show, it may be wearing off on me a little bit. I was able to save No. 18 and not have a blow-up hole.”
Wright, just weeks past gall bladder surgery, said she was surprised by how well she played, but credited her husband and competing with Lohmoeller and Maggie Boaz as inspiration.
“It was a fun, inspiring group to play with,” Wright said. “My husband was my caddy, and he kept me going. I was getting tired at the end, but he was the one who kept telling me that I was doing great and I could do it.”
Hainje said she was more familiar with Coyote Crossing Golf Course, where the final round will be played Sunday.
“It’s going to be a whole new 18 holes tomorrow,” Hainje said. “Coyote Crossing is a course I’m somewhat comfortable with. I will forget about this round, even though it’s one I’m happy with.”
Guest column: What you'll do if you care for Trayvon Martin
Published Saturday, July 20, 2013 in Lafayette Journal & Courier
LINK: http://www.jconline.com/article/20130720/OPINION03/307200005/Guest-column-What-you-ll-do-you-care-Trayvon-Martin
By Clyde Hughes
I will be right up front. I was profoundly disappointed when a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter in the death of Trayvon Martin last week.
It would be all too easy to endlessly relitigate the case. I found the result stunning, but hardly unexpected.
The challenge for everyone, regardless how you feel about the verdict, is: Where do we go from here?
The truth of the matter is that Zimmerman’s fate was decided in the Florida legislature long before he fired that shot into Martin’s chest, because “stand your ground” laws protected him. Doesn’t anyone find it strange that even though the defense did not claim the law, it still was mentioned in deliberations, according to one juror?
In fact, Zimmerman’s fate was decided during jury selection, with a group that could not connect with a witness such as Rachel Jeantel, Martin’s friend, even though her testimony was critical — vital, actually — in the prosecution’s case.
People are angry over the verdict. I saw a graphic on CNN Tuesday that listed 100 Trayvon Martin rallies scheduled that day alone. “Stand your ground” laws are flawed pieces of legislation that give a person with a weapon the ultimate power against anyone they deem as threatening to them. The law, though, misses the most basic question — when is a person reasonably in fear of their life?
Feeling in fear of your life is such a subjective phrase that it seems incredible that it ended up in serious legislation from which the guilt or innocence of a person can be determined. But six jurors in the George Zimmerman trial were left with that ambiguous determination.
In the end, with the absence of a way to define reasonable fear of life, the six jurors gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to walk free. This happened even with no evidence introduced beyond Zimmerman’s own words that Martin started the fight. Nothing.
But if all of these rallies, protests and boycotts do nothing to dismantle, or at the very least dramatically improve, such laws, all these calls for justice for Martin will end up falling empty, flat and hollow.
Don’t get me wrong. There is plenty to be angry about. Even Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara concedes that the justice system is skewered against most African-American males and deserves a serious national conversation. Why can’t this be that time?
Why can’t these 100 rallies focus on fundamentally cleaning up “stand your ground” laws by not allowing people who pursue a suspect and then use self-defense as a claim? Why not change jury selections that would allow change of venues on either social or class grounds to ensure an actual and true jury of peers?
Radical, you may think. I find it radical that a teenager coming home with candy and a drink can be profiled, confronted and killed before he reached his front door, and the person who pulled the trigger walks away without even a parking ticket.
But if all the energy and angst over the Zimmerman verdict does not turn into conversation and action, the next Trayvon Martin shooting will happen sooner than you think, and everyone will be back in the same position.
It is important to engage law enforcement, engage public officials and engage community leaders today and without delay. If you think “stand your ground” laws have nothing to do with politics, you are foolishly wrong.
If you really care about Trayvon Martin, you will not miss the next time you have a chance to cast a vote. You will not miss the next time to become involved when such laws are up for consideration in localities and state legislatures.
The bottom line is if you really care about the verdict in this case, your actions will not end with a rally, but begin with taking action to bring about change.
Hughes is a member of the Greater Lafayette Commerce’s Diversity Roundtable.
LINK: http://www.jconline.com/article/20130720/OPINION03/307200005/Guest-column-What-you-ll-do-you-care-Trayvon-Martin
By Clyde Hughes
I will be right up front. I was profoundly disappointed when a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder and manslaughter in the death of Trayvon Martin last week.
It would be all too easy to endlessly relitigate the case. I found the result stunning, but hardly unexpected.
The challenge for everyone, regardless how you feel about the verdict, is: Where do we go from here?
The truth of the matter is that Zimmerman’s fate was decided in the Florida legislature long before he fired that shot into Martin’s chest, because “stand your ground” laws protected him. Doesn’t anyone find it strange that even though the defense did not claim the law, it still was mentioned in deliberations, according to one juror?
In fact, Zimmerman’s fate was decided during jury selection, with a group that could not connect with a witness such as Rachel Jeantel, Martin’s friend, even though her testimony was critical — vital, actually — in the prosecution’s case.
People are angry over the verdict. I saw a graphic on CNN Tuesday that listed 100 Trayvon Martin rallies scheduled that day alone. “Stand your ground” laws are flawed pieces of legislation that give a person with a weapon the ultimate power against anyone they deem as threatening to them. The law, though, misses the most basic question — when is a person reasonably in fear of their life?
Feeling in fear of your life is such a subjective phrase that it seems incredible that it ended up in serious legislation from which the guilt or innocence of a person can be determined. But six jurors in the George Zimmerman trial were left with that ambiguous determination.
In the end, with the absence of a way to define reasonable fear of life, the six jurors gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and allowed him to walk free. This happened even with no evidence introduced beyond Zimmerman’s own words that Martin started the fight. Nothing.
But if all of these rallies, protests and boycotts do nothing to dismantle, or at the very least dramatically improve, such laws, all these calls for justice for Martin will end up falling empty, flat and hollow.
Don’t get me wrong. There is plenty to be angry about. Even Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara concedes that the justice system is skewered against most African-American males and deserves a serious national conversation. Why can’t this be that time?
Why can’t these 100 rallies focus on fundamentally cleaning up “stand your ground” laws by not allowing people who pursue a suspect and then use self-defense as a claim? Why not change jury selections that would allow change of venues on either social or class grounds to ensure an actual and true jury of peers?
Radical, you may think. I find it radical that a teenager coming home with candy and a drink can be profiled, confronted and killed before he reached his front door, and the person who pulled the trigger walks away without even a parking ticket.
But if all the energy and angst over the Zimmerman verdict does not turn into conversation and action, the next Trayvon Martin shooting will happen sooner than you think, and everyone will be back in the same position.
It is important to engage law enforcement, engage public officials and engage community leaders today and without delay. If you think “stand your ground” laws have nothing to do with politics, you are foolishly wrong.
If you really care about Trayvon Martin, you will not miss the next time you have a chance to cast a vote. You will not miss the next time to become involved when such laws are up for consideration in localities and state legislatures.
The bottom line is if you really care about the verdict in this case, your actions will not end with a rally, but begin with taking action to bring about change.
Hughes is a member of the Greater Lafayette Commerce’s Diversity Roundtable.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Guest column: Suddenly, Trayvon Martin's friend is put on trial
Published
in Lafayette Journal & Courier, Wednesday, July 3, 2013
By Clyde Hughes
Ladies
and gentlemen of the jury, I realize that George Zimmerman is on trial for the
death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin this week, but I would like to give a
defense to the last person besides Zimmerman to hear Martin’s voice — his
teenage friend, Rachel Jeantel.
I
did not realize Jeantel would need defending until I saw and heard mainstream
and social media accounts of her testimony last week. Jeantel, described as a
friend or girlfriend of Martin, was on the phone with him when Zimmerman confronted
the teen last year.
A fight ensued and Zimmerman pulled out a weapon, shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense is at stake with Jeantel’s testimony. She claimed Martin tried to run and hide from Zimmerman but the neighborhood watch volunteer pursued him, leading to the confrontation. That would seriously undercut Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
Don West, a defense attorney in Florida, did pretty much what we would expect defense attorneys to do — pull every trick out of his hat to make a star witness look bad so he can save his client’s life. Facing off against a reluctant teenager with few skills to handle an aggressive (and at times demeaning) interrogation, it is of little surprise that Jeantel would lash out the way she did during the first day of testimony.
My guess is West hoped for as much to make his job of discrediting her in front of the jury easier. He was dealing with a scared teenager who knew while taking the stand that she would have to account for a couple of fibs she told unrelated to her conversation with Martin and knew she would be on the hot seat.
What surprised me was the unrelenting criticism from the Fourth Estate and social media of Jeantel, which came across much of the time as elitist, disconnected and completely out of the touch with the challenges Jeantel faced on the stand beyond simply answering attorneys’ questions.
CNN’s Jake Tapper opened his June 27 show, “The Lead,” with this statement describing Jeantel’s testimony: “Have you ever seen a witness make, ‘Yes, sir,’ sound so much like, ‘Go to hell?’ ” That’s when I knew many of my fellow journalists were off the mark and maybe even lacked the ability to understand Jeantel’s struggles.
There is a culture gap in this country — a canyon-wide, in some instances. And it was put on brutal display during Jeantel’s two-day cross examination by West. I continued to watch Tapper, to see if he would address the world of Jeantel — inner-city Miami, tough streets, rough language and a real fear for authority figures — compared to West, who demanded that she respond like a Harvard-educated scholar.
I got nothing. Not even an attempt to explain why Jeantel had her defenses up the second she took the witness stand. Tapper didn’t even try. He let his “yes, sir, sounds like go to hell” statement stand without explanation. But in his defense, many journalists and experts failed miserably as well.
Now, there was plenty to dissect in Jeantel’s testimony, from the fibs she told about attending Martin’s funeral to her exclusion of Martin screaming, “Get off me,” in previous statements before the trial. Yet, failing to call out West for his outright attempt to embarrass Jeantel by getting her to read a letter written in cursive when he knew she couldn’t read it was yet another low point for the media.
This does not include what amounts to vicious attacks on Jeantel by “social media goons” who compared her with pictures of Jabba the Hut from “Star Wars,” and worse. Longtime African-American journalist and creator of Backbonewomen.com Sherri Williams called Jeantel’s treatment “a social media stoning.”
“She was called fat, ignorant, sassy, ugly and manly,” Williams said. “Jeantel was called everything except what she is, a witness in one of the most significant criminal trials in recent history — a young woman who heard her friend fight for his life.”
How could we expect anyone from Jeantel’s world to trust anyone from your world, my world? How could we expect them to reach out to us in a time of need? How can we expect them to seek us out in a time when justice needs them to?
There were good and bad things you can say about Jeantel’s testimony. At times it was powerful and riveting. At other times, it was clumsy and inconsistent. It’s pretty much what I would have expected out of a nervous teenager in the foreign environment of a courtroom in a high-stakes, nationally televised murder trial. Too bad we were too busy criticizing her looks, voice volume and attitude to notice.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Westfield, Carmel boys golf qualify for state tournament; Zionsville falls two shots short
Published in Indianapolis Star Saturday, June 8, 2013
LINK: http://cmsstage.indystar.com/article/20130607/SPORTS02/306070093/Westfield-Carmel-boys-golf-qualify-state-tournament-Zionsville-falls-two-shots-short
By Clyde Hughes
Star Correspondent
BATTLE GROUND, IND. — Trailing four teams at the turn Friday at the Lafayette Regional, Carmel boys golf
coach Chad Carr knew his team was in serious trouble.
But the sixth-ranked Greyhounds improved by four strokes on the back nine at the Battle Ground Golf Course to finish in the all-important third spot, nipping Zionsville by two shots to advance to next week’s state tournament.
Valparaiso won the Regional with a 10-over-par 298, followed by Westfield (300) and Carmel (302). Zionsville’s season concluded with a 304.
“It’s a big weight off my shoulders,” Carr said. “Now we can go into state with a clean slate and compete evenly with everyone else.”
Jake Brown, the Greyhounds’ No. 2 golfer, shot a 72 to help Carmel secure third place.
“I didn’t want to go to state as an individual,” Brown said. “I didn’t play well in sectionals but my team picked me up. I hoped that I would be able to pick them up today. State is going to be fun.”
The tournament was a major disappointment for No. 14 Zionsville, which was tied for the lead with Valparaiso after the first nine holes, only to see things fall apart over the back nine. The Eagles shot a 149 on the front nine, but shot 155 down the stretch. Adam Wood’s 2-under 70 captured individual medalist honors, but it wasn’t enough for the team to extend its season.
“We know in a tournament like this, every stroke counts,” Zionsville coach Steve Simmons said. “We knew it would come down to a shot here and shot there. I'm disappointed but with four of five holes to go we were the owners of our destiny and the tournament and we just let it go. That happens.”
Simmons said missed birdie chances on the final holes sealed the Eagles' fate. He said No. 5 was a killer as well.
“We played that hole five-over as a team,” Simmons said. “We had played so well up to that point. It was just a straight forward, easy hole but for some reason with really struggled on it.”
No. 4-ranked Westfield built on its sectional win, falling just two shots short of the regional title. Freshman Thomas Lewis, the Shamrocks’ No. 3 golfer, shot a 72 to lead Westfield.
“I felt a little pressure but it started to feel good once I began hitting the ball better on the back nine,” Lewis said. “It takes everyone playing well to win here. We knew that if we even had one guy not play well, we would be going home.”
Westfield coach Jon Hoover said Lewis, sophomore Keith Ponsler (74) and senior Colton Smith (75) gave the Shamrocks the lift it needed to challenge for the title.
“I’ve played in tournaments before and I don’t think I could be in these kids’ shoes,” Hoover said. “We saw the scores at the turn and there were five teams within four shots of each other so the pressure was just tremendous. If you can handle that kind of pressure, I have tremendous respect for you.”
Valparaiso captured the sectional title behind Kyle Meihofer’s 71.
“The thing about state is that we have to do it all over again, so there’s no vacation,” Valpo coach Wayne Lichtenberger said. “There was some outstanding competition here and we had a state ranked team go home today. The slate will be clean next week.”
LINK: http://cmsstage.indystar.com/article/20130607/SPORTS02/306070093/Westfield-Carmel-boys-golf-qualify-state-tournament-Zionsville-falls-two-shots-short
By Clyde Hughes
Star Correspondent
BATTLE GROUND, IND. — Trailing four teams at the turn Friday at the Lafayette Regional, Carmel boys golf
coach Chad Carr knew his team was in serious trouble.But the sixth-ranked Greyhounds improved by four strokes on the back nine at the Battle Ground Golf Course
to finish in the all-important third spot, nipping Zionsville by two shots to advance to next week’s state tournament.Valparaiso won the Regional with a 10-over-par 298, followed by Westfield (300) and Carmel (302). Zionsville’s season concluded with a 304.
“It’s a big weight off my shoulders,” Carr said. “Now we can go into state with a clean slate and compete
evenly with everyone else.”Jake Brown, the Greyhounds’ No. 2 golfer, shot a 72 to help Carmel secure third place.
“I didn’t want to go to state as an individual,” Brown said. “I didn’t play well in sectionals but my team picked me up. I hoped that I would be able to pick them up today. State is going to be fun.”
The tournament was a major disappointment for No. 14 Zionsville, which was tied for the lead with Valparaiso after the first nine holes, only to see things fall apart over the back nine. The Eagles shot a 149 on the front nine, but shot 155 down the stretch. Adam Wood’s 2-under 70 captured individual medalist honors, but it wasn’t enough for the team to extend its season.
“We know in a tournament like this, every stroke counts,” Zionsville coach Steve Simmons said. “We knew it would come down to a shot here and shot there. I'm disappointed but with four of five holes to go we were the owners of our destiny and the tournament and we just let it go. That happens.”
Simmons said missed birdie chances on the final holes sealed the Eagles' fate. He said No. 5 was a killer as well.
“We played that hole five-over as a team,” Simmons said. “We had played so well up to that point. It was just a straight forward, easy
hole but for some reason with really struggled on it.”No. 4-ranked Westfield built on its sectional win, falling just two shots short of the regional title. Freshman Thomas Lewis, the Shamrocks’ No. 3 golfer, shot a 72 to lead Westfield.
“I felt a little pressure but it started to feel good once I began hitting the ball better on the back nine,” Lewis said. “It takes everyone playing well to win here. We knew that if we even had one guy not play well, we would be going home.”
Westfield coach Jon Hoover said Lewis, sophomore Keith Ponsler (74) and senior Colton Smith (75) gave the Shamrocks the lift it needed to challenge for the title.
“I’ve played in tournaments before and I don’t think I could be in these kids’ shoes,” Hoover said. “We saw the scores at the turn and there were five teams within four shots of each other so the pressure was just tremendous. If you can handle that kind of pressure, I have tremendous respect for you.”
Valparaiso captured the sectional title behind Kyle Meihofer’s 71.
“The thing about state is that we have to do it all over again, so there’s no vacation,” Valpo coach Wayne Lichtenberger said. “There was some outstanding competition here and we had a state ranked team go home today. The slate will be clean next week.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)