Etudes Tutorials

Learn to Work in an Online Classroom at WLAC:

If you have never worked inside an online classroom at WLAC, please learn how to (a) equip your computer with the correct browser and (b) work inside our online classroom.

1. Go to www.myetudes.org. 2. In the left menu, click on Course Login Info. 3. Scroll down the screen to the tutorials. 4. View/read the tutorials, as appropriate.

Instructor & Class Information

Course: English 21, Section 8034

Semester: Spring 2016, February 8 - June 6, 2016

Instructor Name: Nuala Lincke-Ivic, Associate Professor

Instructor E-Mail: [email protected]

Class Hours & Location: Online

Office Location, Hours & Telephone: My office is in the General Classroom Building, in 210-D. My office hours are from 1:00 - 3:00 PM on Mondays and Wednesdays. My

telephone number is (310) 287-4544. The fastest way to reach me is by using Private Messages, and I do ask that you contact me only in Private Messages, not by my college email, as we need to keep all class business inside the online classroom.

Privacy Issue:

Please NEVER use a public forum like Questions or a discussion to write about private business that just involves the two of us; please use Private Messages. We use Questions to ask general questions about assignments; we use the discussions for class discussions about paper topics.

About This English 21 Class ... !

W E L C O M E

What is your aim in this class, as the teacher?

Actually, I have two aims. First, I want to help you to help yourself become academically successful--so much so that you "jump over" English 28 next semester and enroll in English 101, College Reading and Composition I-- which is the first transfer-level English course. Or ... I'll settle for preparing you well for English 28, Intermediate Reading and Composition, which is the next course in the English curriculum. My second aim is ... to help you to learn reading and writing strategies that can help you outside of the classroom, in real life--and for the rest of your life. (I dream BIG.)

How will this class help me to become academically and professionally successful?

In college, a student's academic success hinges on the ability to do two things: understand what he or she reads, and then write about what he or she reads. Therefore, in this English 21 class we will practice reading strategies that will help you to understand what you read so that you can write about what you read. Of course, we'll also focus on HOW to write about what you read. Of course, these skills will help you out there in the real world, too.

Now, let's go over what we'll read and write about in this class.

What are we going to be reading and writing about?

Our English usage textbook is THIS LITTLE BOOK About How to Write a College-Level Essay, and we will be doing many of the assignments in this textbook. It will not be available at the West Bookstore until the end of the fourth week of the semester. Purchase it then, please. (Every penny you spend to purchase this text will be donated to West Los Angeles College students who are experiencing financial hardship.) The other text we'll use in class is free online, and it is the groundbreaking novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, which was published in 1940. Its author--a Southern girl named Carson McCullers--was just 23 years old at the time.

We're also going to read some texts (writings) that relate to the topic of Jim Crow. We'll use these materials to write three essays--which we'll metamorphose through the magic of transitions into one lengthy essay-- about this general topic: How to See Outside of Your Skin Color. Our essay topics are:

Essay 1: What is racism (definition), and who can be racist and why? (cause & effect).

Essay 2: How can a person be educated not to be racist? (process analysis)

Essay 3: How is the U.S. doing today in terms of racial relations? (argumentative)

During the first few weeks of class and as class progresses, you'll learn all the specific details about these assignments and other assignments you will complete.

What will we be doing in each class session?

To learn what we'll be doing specifically in each class session, click on Syllabus in the left menu, and read our Syllabus from beginning to end.

If you have never worked inside an online classroom at West, please learn how to (a) equip your computer with the correct version of the correct browser and (b) use Etudes, our online software.

1. Go to www.myetudes.org. 2. In the left menu, click on Course Login Info. 3. Scroll down the screen to the tutorials. 4. View/read the tutorials, as appropriate.

Where can I reach you if I have questions or concerns about this class?

Click on Discussion and Private Messages inside our classroom (left menu), and Private Message me, or see me during my regularly scheduled office hours, which are 1:00 - 3:00 PM on Mondays and Wednesdays in GC 210 D.

Cheers,

N.

Nuala Lincke-Ivic, West Editor & Assoc. Professor English Department Language Arts West Los Angeles College

Required Textbook to Purchase at West Bookstore

TITLE: THIS LITTLE BOOK about How to Write a College-Level Essay

Author: Nuala Lincke-Ivic

Year: 2015

NOTES:

1. One hundred percent of the money you spend to purchase this textbook will be donated to the Associated Student Organization (ASO) of West Los Angeles College.

2. OUR TEXTBOOK WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE UNTIL THE END OF THE FOURTH WEEK OF THE SEMESTER, AT WHICH TIME WE WILL NEED IT. PLEASE PURCHASE IT BY THE END OF THE FOURTH WEEK OF THE SEMESTER.

Grading & Weekly Lesson Plans

1.

Online Journal for Carson McCuller’s 1940 novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter

Part One: Chapters 1-2 (10 points) Part One, Chapters 3-4 (10 points) Part One, Chapters 5–6 (10 points) Part Two, Chapter 1-2 (10 points) Part Two, Chapters 3–4 (10 points) Part Two, Chapter 5-6 (10 points) Part Two, Chapters 7–8 (10 points) Part Two, Chapters 9-10 (10 points) Part Two, Chapters 11-12 (10 points) Part Two, Chapters 13-15 (10 points) Part Three, Chapters 1–2 (10 points) Part Three, Chapters 3-4 (10 points)

2.

Essay 1: What is racism (definition), and who can be racist and why? (dominant mode: cause & effect).

Draft 1 – 10 points Draft 2 – 10 points Peer Evaluation for Draft 1 – 10 points Peer Evaluation for Draft 2 – 10 points

Essay 2: How can a person be educated not to be racist? (dominant mode: process analysis)

Draft 1 – 10 points Draft 2 – 10 points Peer Evaluation for Draft 1 – 10 points Peer Evaluation for Draft 2 – 10 points

Essay 3: How is the U.S. doing today in terms of racial relations? (dominant mode: argumentative) Draft 1: 50 points

3.

Portfolio: Essays 1, 2 and 3 knitted together via transitions into one lengthy essay: 50 points

4.

THIS LITTLE BOOK About How to Write a College Level Essay:

Chapter 1 work (10 points)

Chapter 2 work (10 points)

Chapter 3 work (10 points)

Chapter 7 work (10 points)

5.

Online Journals

There are 11 Online Journals, each focusing on a few chapters in Carson McCuller’s 1940 novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter. Specific dates and chapters are listed below in the Weekly Lesson Plans.

Online Journal Directions are on the first screen. You must participate in each Online Journal by Wednesday at 11:59 PM and respond to at least one classmate’s journal by Friday at 11:59 PM.

6.

Class Discussions:

There are three class discussions relating to our three papers. Specific dates and times are listed below in the Weekly Lesson Plans. Make sure you read/view all required Syllabus Class Texts BEFORE we begin our discussion.

Discussion Directions are on the first screen. You must participate in each Class Discussion by Wednesday at 11:59 PM and respond to at least one classmate’s posting by Friday at 11:59 PM.

Online Journal & Class Discussion Rubric

To earn full points, a student …

1. Follows all directions.

2. Uses Verdana font in size 14, black type.

3. Demonstrates that he or she has read/studied/ pondered class texts.

4. Does not have distracting errors in posting: a spell/grammar check was run, and posting was proofread carefully, so there is no obviously awkward phrasing or other careless errors: word “I” is upper case; initial capital letters begin all sentences, proper nouns (names, titles) are capitalized, and there are no spelling errors.

Weekly Lesson Plans

Week Class Activities Due Week 1: Online Journal 1 in Class 2/8 – 12 Discussion: Answer your instructor’s questions on Presidents' the first screen about The Day: Feb 12 - Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Feb 15 Part One, Chapters 1-2. Respond to at least one classmate’s posting.

Chapter 1 work is open in Assignments, Tests and Surveys; it is due Week 2.

Week 2: Online Journal 2 in Class Chapter 1 2/15 – 19 Discussion: Answer your Due by instructor’s questions on 11:59 PM on Presidents' the first screen about The Sunday in Day: Feb 12 - Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Assignments, Feb 15 Part One, Chapters 3-4. Tests and Respond to at least one Surveys Last to drop classmate’s posting. without a “W”: Discussion 1: Paper 1, Wednesday, “What is racism?” This Feb 17 Paper 1 discussion takes place in Class Discussion, and directions are on the first screen. Text to read before discussion begins at beginning of the week: Syllabus Class Text: “What is racism?”

Chapter 2 work is open in Assignments, Tests and Surveys; it is due Week 3.

Week 3: Online Journal 3 in Class Chapter 2 2/22 – 26 Discussion: Answer your Due by instructor’s questions on 11:59 PM on the first screen about The Sunday in Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Assignments, Part One, Chapters 5-6. Tests and Respond to at least one Surveys classmate’s posting.

Discussion 1: Paper 1, “What is racism?” This Paper 1 discussion takes place in Class Discussion, and directions are on the first screen. Text to read before discussion begins at beginning of the week: Syllabus Class Text: “Strange Fruit”

Week 4: Online Journal 4 in Class Paper 1, 2/29 – 3/4 Discussion: Answer your Draft 1 due instructor’s questions on in Class the first screen about The Discussion Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, by Sunday in Part Two, Chapters 1-2. PAPER 1, Respond to at least one DRAFT 1 classmate’s posting. FORUM

PAPER 1, DRAFT 1 FORUM is open in Class Discussion.

Week 5: Online Journal 5 in Class Paper 1, 3/7 - 11 Discussion: Answer your Draft 1 instructor’s questions on evaluations the first screen about The due in Class Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Discussion Part Two, Chapters 3-4. by Sunday in Respond to at least one PAPER 1, classmate’s posting. DRAFT 1 FORUM Chapter 3 work is open in Assignments, Tests and Surveys; it is due Week 7.

Week 6: Online Journal 6 in Class 3/14 – 18 Discussion: Answer your instructor’s questions on Last day to the first screen about The drop with a Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, “W”: Part Two, Chapters 5-6. Thursday, Respond to at least one March 17 classmate’s posting.

PAPER 1, DRAFT 2 FORUM is open in Class Discussion.

Week 7: Online Journal 7 in Class Chapter 3 3/21 - 25 Discussion: Answer your work due in instructor’s questions on Assignments, the first screen about The Tests and Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Surveys by Part Two, Chapters 7-8. 11:59 PM on Respond to at least one Sunday. classmate’s posting. Paper 1, Chapter 3 work is open in Draft 2 due Assignments, Tests and in Class Surveys; it is due Week Discussion 11. by Sunday in PAPER 1, Chapter 7 work is open in DRAFT 2 Assignments, Tests and FORUM Surveys; it is due Finals Week.

Week 8: Online Journal 8 in Class Paper 1, 3/28 – 4/1 Discussion: Answer your Draft 2 instructor’s questions on evaluations Cesar Chavez the first screen about The due in Class Day: Mar 31 Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Discussion Part Two, Chapters 9-10. by Sunday in Respond to at least one PAPER 1, classmate’s posting. DRAFT 2 FORUM Week 9: 4/4 – 8 Spring Break: April 1 - April 8

Week 10: Online Journal 9 in Class 4/11 - 15 Discussion: Answer your instructor’s questions on the first screen about The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Part Two, Chapters 11- 12. Respond to at least one classmate’s posting.

PAPER 2, DRAFT 1 FORUM is open in Class Discussion.

Discussion 2: Paper 2, “How can a person be educated not to be racist?” This Paper 2 discussion takes place in Class Discussion, and directions are on the first screen. Syllabus Texts to read/view before discussion begins at beginning of the week: Bill Lowe and Jeanne Tobey; Perez v. Sharp, 1948; Loving v. West Virginia, 1967; Slavery.

Week 11: Online Journal 10 in Class Paper 2, 4/18 -22 Discussion: Answer your Draft 1 due instructor’s questions on in Class the first screen about The Discussion Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, by Sunday in Part Two, Chapters 13- PAPER 2, 15. Respond to at least DRAFT 1 one classmate’s posting. FORUM

Discussion 2: Paper 2, Chapter 3 “How can a person be work due in educated not to be Assignments, racist?” This Paper 2 Tests and discussion takes place in Surveys by Class Discussion, and 11:59 PM on directions are on the first Sunday. screen. Syllabus Texts to read/view before discussion begins at beginning of the week: Bill Lowe and Jeanne Tobey; Perez v. Sharp, 1948; Loving v. West Virginia, 1967; Slavery.

Week 12: Online Journal 11 in Class Paper 2, 4/25 - 29 Discussion: Answer your Draft 1 instructor’s questions on evaluations the first screen about The due in Class Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, Discussion Part Three: Chapters 1-2. by Sunday in Respond to at least one PAPER 2, classmate’s posting. DRAFT 1 FORUM PAPER 2, DRAFT 2 FORUM is open in Class Chapter 7 Discussion. work due in Assignments, Tests and Surveys by 11:59 PM on Sunday. Week 13: Online Journal 12 in Class Paper 2, 5/2 – 6 Discussion: Answer your Draft 2 due instructor’s questions on in Class the first screen about The Discussion Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, by Sunday in Part Three: Chapters 3-4. PAPER 2, Respond to at least one DRAFT 1 classmate’s posting. FORUM

Week 14: Discussion 3: Paper 3, Paper 2, 5/9 – 13 “How is the U.S. doing Draft 2 today in terms of racial evaluations relations?” This Paper 3 due in Class discussion takes place in Discussion Class Discussion, and by Sunday in directions are on the first PAPER 2, screen. Syllabus Texts to DRAFT 1 read/view before FORUM

discussion begins at Chapter 7 beginning of the week: “I work due in Have a Dream” speech; Assignments, L.A. Homicide Blog (you’ll Tests and need to Google it to read Surveys by the latest blog); “Young 11:59 PM on black men killed by US Sunday. police at highest rate in year of 1,134 deaths”; NACCP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet.

Week 15: Discussion 3: Paper 3, Optional: 5/16 – 22 “How is the U.S. doing EXTRA today in terms of racial CREDIT relations?” This Paper 3 STUDENT discussion takes place in EVALUATION Class Discussion, and FORUM for directions are on the first Paper 3, screen. Syllabus Texts to Draft 1 (5 read/view before Points) in Class discussion begins at Discussion— beginning of the week: “I due by Have a Dream” speech; 11:59 PM on L.A. Homicide Blog (you’ll Sunday. need to Google it to read Post your the latest blog); “Young Paper 3, black men killed by US Draft 1, and police at highest rate in give two year of 1,134 deaths”; classmates NACCP Criminal Justice feedback on Fact Sheet. their Paper 3, Draft 1 by 11:59 PM on Sunday. Week 16 Work on Portfolio: Papers 5/23 – 27 1, 2 and 3 knitted together via transitions into one lengthy paper with an introduction and conclusion. Directions are in PORTFOLIO FORUM in Class Discussion. FINALS Work on Portfolio: Papers Chapter 7 WEEK 1, 2 and 3 knitted work due in 5/30 – 6/6 together via transitions Assignments, into one lengthy paper Tests and Memorial with an introduction and Surveys by Day: May 30 conclusion. Directions 11:59 PM on are in PORTFOLIO FORUM 5/30. in Class Discussion. Portfolio due in PORTFOLIO FORUM by 11:59 PM on 6/6.

Classroom Environment

In this classroom, all students must work together with me to create a safe, pleasant and productive learning environment. Please see http://www.wlac.edu/studentlife/index.html for WLAC policies about creating this kind of environment. This URL contains other useful information for students. Please click on it, and read the information.

Changes to Syllabus

I may make changes to the Syllabus, if they seem appropriate and/or necessary. If I do, then I'll announce the changes on the home page, on the right side of the screen, under "Announcements," and write the changes on the whiteboard in class. It is your responsibility to become aware of these changes.

Learning Disabilities

If you have a learning disability (LD), then you learn things differently than most students do-and you usually learn at a different speed. In other words, you "process" information differently. For this reason, you might need more time to complete an assignment. An LD is not a shameful thing-LOTS of intelligent people have LD's. You are notstupid if you have an LD! Let me know immediately if you have an LD-or think that you might, okay? We'll need to make sure that DSP&S documents your LD; if it's not documented, then I will not be able to give you additional time to complete assignments.

Location Student Services Building (SSB 320)

Telephone

(310) 287-4450

Department Email [email protected]

Hours Monday-Thursday: 8:30 a.m. 4:30p.m. Friday: 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Saturday: CLOSED

Class Text: "I Have a Dream Speech" by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King, Jr. I Have A Dream Speech - YouTube

▶ 5:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDWWy4CMhE Aug 28, 2013 - Uploaded by Ilya Gokadze Martin Luther King, Jr., (January 15, 1929-April 4, 1968) was born Michael Luther King, Jr., but later had his ...

I Have a Dream - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children. It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. *We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only."* We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!3

* = text within asterisks absent from the above audio but verified as originally delivered

1 Amos 5:24 (rendered precisely in The American Standard Version of the Holy Bible)

2 Isaiah 40:4-5 (King James Version of the Holy Bible). Quotation marks are excluded from part of this moment in the text because King's rendering of Isaiah 40:4 does not precisely follow the KJV version from which he quotes (e.g., "hill" and "mountain" are reversed in the KJV). King's rendering of Isaiah 40:5, however, is precisely quoted from the KJV.

3 At: http://www.negrospirituals.com/news-song/free_at_last_from.htm

Also in this database: Martin Luther King, Jr: A Time to Break Silence

Audio Source: Linked directly to: http://www.archive.org/details/MLKDream

External Link: http://www.thekingcenter.org/

U.S. Copyright Status: Text and Audio = Restricted, seek permission. Image = Uncertain.

Copyright inquiries and permission requests may be directed to:

Estate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Intellectual Properties Management One Freedom Plaza 449 Auburn Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30312 Fax: 404-526-8969

Class Text: Loving v. West Virginia, 1967

Report on Loving Case 1967 - YouTube

▶ 4:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaHhZ4IbVYY Jul 28, 2009 - Uploaded by sgtrius Mildred Jeter was born in 1939. She was of African and Rappahannock (Native American) descent. Richard ...

LIFE Civil Rights Richard and Mildred Loving: Reluctant Civil Rights Heroes

 Lily Rothman @lilyrothman

Feb. 13, 2012

Richard and Mildred Loving never asked to be heroes of the Civil Rights movement. But when the state of Virginia deemed their interracial marriage illegal, the couple fought back. And won.

© Estate of Grey Villet

1 of 10

In March 1966, LIFE magazine published a feature under the quietly chilling headline, “The Crime of Being Married.” Illustrated with photographs by Grey Villet, the article told the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, a married interracial couple battling Virginia’s anti- miscegenation statutes. Villet’s warm, intimate pictures revealed a close-knit family, including children and grandparents, living their lives in opposition to a patently unjust law — but also captured eloquent moments that suggested just how heavily the Loving’s defiance of that law weighed on the very private couple.

The LIFE article and Villet’s images, read and viewed today, assume a poignancy and power perhaps unimagined by the magazine’s readers in 1966. The couple, after all, was awaiting an appeal on a court ruling that had, in effect, banished them from their hometown. At the time, the Lovings were adamant (in their own unassuming way) that they had no interest in being cast as Civil Rights heroes. All they wanted was to live their lives and raise their children in peace.

But decades later, we know what the people in Villet’s published photographs — a frowning Richard Loving; Mildred Loving, her eyes downcast — might have hoped and prayed for, but could never ultimately count on: namely, that a year later, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unanimously decided the case of Loving v. Virginia, ruling against the state and finding all anti-miscegenation laws across the country unconstitutional.

Here, LIFE.com presents a gallery of Grey Villet’s photos of the Lovings, along with sections of the article (below) that appeared in the March 18, 1966, issue of LIFE:

Both Lovings were born and raised in the isolated hill country around Caroline County, north of Richmond, where there has always been an easy-going tolerance on the race question. It stirred little fuss when the couple culminated a long and agonized courtship by traveling to Washington, D.C., to get married in 1958. But five weeks later the county sheriff routed them out of bed at 2 a.m. and took them off to jail. A local judge handed down a year’s sentence but suspended it if they agreed to leave the state immediately and stay away for 25 years.

Badly frightened and unaware of their right of appeal, the Lovings lived five years of hand-to- mouth exile in Washington. Even so, they were re-arrested when they returned for a visit to Mildred’s family. Released on bail, they wrote a letter to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, asking for help. This led the American Civil Liberties Union to take an interest in their case. The Lovings decided to take up permanent residence in Virginia and fight. Now their case will return to federal court — where Loving v. Virginia may well become the next big landmark in civil rights.

Richard and Mildred Loving realize that their fight will affect the lives of many other people if they win; there are probably a half million mixed marriages in the U.S. at present. But the Lovings do not look upon themselves as champions of civil rights.

“[We] are not doing it just because somebody had to do it and we wanted to be the ones,” says Richard. “We are doing it for us — because we want to live here.”

Loving v. Virginia

388 U.S. 1

Loving v. Virginia (No. 395)

Argued: April 10, 1967

Decided: June 12, 1967

206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78, reversed.

 Syllabus  Opinion, Warren  Concurrence, Stewart

Syllabus

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.

[p2]

TOP

Opinion

WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

After their convictions, the Lovings took up residence in the District of Columbia. On November 6, 1963, they filed a motion in the state trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the ground that the statutes which they had violated were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion not having been decided by October 28, 1964, the Lovings instituted a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia requesting that a three-judge court be convened to declare the Virginia anti-miscegenation statutes unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing their convictions. On January 22, 1965, the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. On February 11, 1965, the three-judge District Court continued the case to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the highest state court.

The Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after [p4] modifying the sentence, affirmed the convictions. [n2] The Lovings appealed this decision, and we noted probable jurisdiction on December 12, 1966, 385 U.S. 986.

The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 258 of the Virginia Code:

Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

Section 259, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are § 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, [n3] and §§ 20-54 and 1-14 which, [p5] respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. [n4] The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes. [p6]

Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. [n5] Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery, and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. [n6] The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [n7] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that [p7] the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [n8] certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, [n9] and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage. [n10]

I

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1965 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E.2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id. at 90, 87 S.E.2d at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages.

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [p9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.

The State argues that statements in the Thirty-ninth Congress about the time of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that the Framers did not intend the Amendment to make unconstitutional state miscegenation laws. Many of the statements alluded to by the State concern the debates over the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which President Johnson vetoed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, enacted over his veto. While these statements have some relevance to the intention of Congress in submitting the Fourteenth Amendment, it must be understood that they pertained to the passage of specific statutes, and not to the broader, organic purpose of a constitutional amendment. As for the various statements directly concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, we have said in connection with a related problem that, although these historical sources "cast some light" they are not sufficient to resolve the problem;

[a]t best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments, and wished them to have the most limited effect.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 489 (1954). See also Strauder [p10] v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 310 (1880). We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964).

The State finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same. However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 188. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 71 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 307-308 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 334-335 (1880); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). [p11]

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.

McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 198 (STEWART, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring).

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered. [p13] 1.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2.

206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78 (1966). 3.

Section 257 of the Virginia Code provides:

Marriages void without decree. -- All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.

Va.Code Ann. § 20-57 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 4.

Section 20-54 of the Virginia Code provides:

Intermarriage prohibited; meaning of term "white persons." -- It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this chapter, the term "white person" shall apply only to such person as has no trace whatever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this chapter.

Va.Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.).

The exception for persons with less than one-sixteenth "of the blood of the American Indian" is apparently accounted for, in the words of a tract issued by the Registrar of the State Bureau of Vital Statistics, by "the desire of all to recognize as an integral and honored part of the white race the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocathontas. . . ." Plecker, The New Family and Race Improvement, 17 Va.Health Bull., Extra No. 12, at 25-26 (New Family Series No. 5, 1925), cited in Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia's Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va.L.Rev. 1189, 1202, n. 93 (1966).

Section 1-14 of the Virginia Code provides:

Colored persons and Indians defined. -- Every person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person, and every person not a colored person having one fourth or more of American Indian blood shall be deemed an American Indian; except that members of Indian tribes existing in this Commonwealth having one fourth or more of Indian blood and less than one sixteenth of Negro blood shall be deemed tribal Indians.

Va.Code Ann. § 1-14 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 5.

After the initiation of this litigation, Maryland repealed its prohibitions against interracial marriage, Md.Laws 1967, c. 6, leaving Virginia and 15 other States with statutes outlawing interracial marriage: Alabama, Ala.Const., Art. 4, § 102, Ala.Code, Tit. 14, § 360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 55-104 (1947); Delaware, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 13, § 101 (1953); Florida, Fla.Const., Art. 16, § 24, Fla.Stat. § 741.11 (1965); Georgia, Ga.Code Ann. § 53-106 (1961); Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 402.020 (Supp. 1966); Louisiana, La.Rev.Stat. § 14:79 (1950); Mississippi, Miss.Const., Art. 14, § 263, Miss.Code Ann. § 459 (1956); Missouri, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 451.020 (Supp. 1966); North Carolina, N.C.Const., Art. XIV, § 8, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-181 (1953); Oklahoma, Okla.Stat., Tit. 43, § 12 (Supp. 1965); South Carolina, S.C.Const., Art. 3, § 33, S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn.Const., Art. 11, § 14, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-402 (1955); Texas, Tex.Pen.Code, Art. 492 (1952); West Virginia, W.Va.Code Ann. § 4697 (1961).

Over the past 15 years, 14 States have repealed laws outlawing interracial marriages: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

The first state court to recognize that miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause was the Supreme Court of California. Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948). 6.

For a historical discussion of Virginia's miscegenation statutes, see Wadlington, supra, n. 4. 7.

Va.Code Ann. § 20-54 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 8.

Va.Code Ann. § 20-53 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 9.

Va.Code Ann. § 20-50 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 10.

Va.Code Ann. § 254 (1960 Repl. Vol.). 11.

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

TOP

Concurrence

STEWART, J., Concurring Opinion MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion). Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

Class Text: "Strange Fruit"

Search Toggle search

Skip to Main Content

Music News The Strange Story Of The Man Behind 'Strange Fruit'

Updated September 6, 20123:37 PM ET Published September 5, 20123:24 AM ET

Elizabeth Blair

Listen Now

Abel Meeropol watches as his sons, Robert and Michael, play with a train set.

Courtesy of Robert and Michael Meeropol

One of Billie Holiday's most iconic songs is "Strange Fruit," a haunting protest against the inhumanity of racism. Many people know that the man who wrote the song was inspired by a photograph of a lynching. But they might not realize that he's also tied to another watershed moment in America's history.

The man behind "Strange Fruit" is New York City's Abel Meeropol, and he really has two stories. They both begin at Dewitt Clinton High School, a public high school in the Bronx that has an astonishing number of famous people in its alumni. James Baldwin went there. So did Countee Cullen, Richard Rodgers, Burt Lancaster, Stan Lee, Neil Simon, Richard Avedon and Ralph Lauren.

Meeropol graduated from Dewitt Clinton in 1921; he went on to teach English there for 17 years. He was also a poet and a social activist, says Gerard Pelisson, who wrote a book about the school.

Take Five: A Jazz Sampler

Evolution Of A Song: 'Strange Fruit'

In the late 1930s, Pellison says, Meeropol "was very disturbed at the continuation of racism in America, and seeing a photograph of a lynching sort of put him over the edge."

Meeropol once said the photograph "haunted" him "for days." So he wrote a poem about it, which was then printed in a teachers union publication. An amateur composer, Meeropol also set his words to music. He played it for a New York club owner — who ultimately gave it to Billie Holiday.

When Holiday decided to sing "Strange Fruit," the song reached millions of people. While the lyrics never mention lynching, the metaphor is painfully clear:

Southern trees bear a strange fruit, Blood on the leaves and blood at the root, Black body swinging in the Southern breeze, Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant South, The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth, Scent of magnolia sweet and fresh, And the sudden smell of burning flesh!

Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck, For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck, For the sun to rot, for a tree to drop, Here is a strange and bitter crop.

In 1999, Time magazine named "Strange Fruit" the "song of the century." The Library of Congress put it in the National Recording Registry. It's been recorded dozens of times. Herbie Hancock and Marcus Miller did an instrumental version, with Miller evoking the poem on his mournful bass clarinet.

Miller says he was surprised to learn the song was written by a white Jewish guy from the Bronx. "Strange Fruit," he says, took extraordinary courage both for Meeropol to write and for Holiday to sing.

"The '60s hadn't happened yet," he says. "Things like that weren't talked about. They certainly weren't sung about."

Dead Stop

Looking For Lady Day's Resting Place? Detour Ahead

New York lawmakers didn't like "Strange Fruit." In 1940, Meeropol was called to testify before a committee investigating communism in public schools. They wanted to know whether the American Communist Party had paid him to write the song. They had not — but, like many New York teachers in his day, Meeropol was a Communist.

Journalist David Margolick, who wrote Strange Fruit: The Biography of a Song, says, "There are a million reasons to disparage communism now. But American Communism, one point it had in its favor was that it was concerned about civil rights very early."

Meeropol left his teaching job at Dewitt Clinton in 1945. He eventually quit the Communist Party.

And that's where the second part of Meeropol's story begins. The link is the pseudonym he used when writing poetry and music: Lewis Allan.

"Abel Meeropol's pen name 'Lewis Allan' were the names of their children who were stillborn, who never lived," says his son, Robert Meeropol. He and his older brother, Michael, were raised by Abel and his wife, Anne Meeropol, after the boys' parents — Ethel and Julius Rosenberg — were executed for espionage in 1953.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death for conspiring to give atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The Rosenbergs had also been Communists. i

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are taken to prison after being found guilty of nuclear espionage. They were subsequently executed.

Keystone/Getty Images

The couple's trial and execution made national headlines, and there was also something of a salacious element, given that the Rosenbergs were a married couple. News accounts described it as "the first husband and wife to die in the electric chair."

At the time, the Rosenberg sons, Robert and Michael, were 6 and 10, respectively. News photographs of the boys show them dressed in suits visiting their parents in prison.

"They're these little boys and they're wearing these caps, and they look so young and so vulnerable. It's really a very poignant image," says Margolick.

Robert Meeropol says that in the months following his parents' execution, it was unclear who would take care of him and his brother. It was the height of McCarthyism. Even family members were fearful of being in any way associated with the Rosenbergs or Communism.

Then, at a Christmas party at the home of W.E.B. Du Bois, the boys were introduced to Abel and Anne Meeropol. A few weeks later, they were living with them.

"One of the most remarkable things was how quickly we adapted," Robert says. "First of all, Abel, what I remember about him as a 6-year-old was that he was a real jokester. He liked to tell silly jokes and play word games, and he would put on these comedy shows that would leave me rolling."

There is something else about Abel Meeropol that seems to connect the man who wrote "Strange Fruit" to the man who created a loving family out of a national scandal. "He was incredibly softhearted," Robert says.

i

Anne Meeropol plays a song on guitar for her sons, Robert and Michael.

Courtesy of Robert and Michael Meeropol

For example, there was an old Japanese maple tree in their backyard, which sent out many new seedlings every year.

"I was the official lawnmower," Robert says, "and I was going to mow over them, and he said, 'Oh, no, you can't kill the seedlings!' I said, 'What are you going to do with them, Dad? There are dozens of them.'

"Well, he dug them up and put them in coffee cans and lined them up along the side of the house. And there were hundreds of them. But he couldn't bring himself to just kill them. It was just something he couldn't do."

Abel Meeropol died in 1986. His sons, Robert and Michael, both became college professors. They're also both involved in social issues. Robert founded the Rosenberg Fund for Children. And he says that even after all these years, he still finds himself unable to kill things in his own garden.

Billie Holiday - Strange Fruit - YouTube

▶ 2:34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs Nov 25, 2006 - Uploaded by MonsieurBaudelaire Billy Holiday, Lady Sings the Blues - Duration: 7:30. ... Mix - Billie Holiday - Strange FruitYouTube ...

Class Text: Bill Lowe and Jeanne Tobey Couples look back on when interracial love defied laws

By Matt O'BrienContra Costa Times Posted: 05/17/2009 01:41:11 PM PDT | Updated: 7 years ago Click photo to enlarge

In 1948, Jeanne Lowe couldn't marry the man she loved. California wouldn't let her. She was...

OAKLAND — It was the kind of kiss that could change the world.

More than 60 years later, sitting on a couch in her Hercules home, her eyes still sparkle when she thinks about it.

"With that kiss, we both knew, 'Oh boy, this is big.' I knew that my whole life was going to change because I knew I was in love with him."

Jeanne Tobey was white. Bill Lowe was black. Getting married was illegal.

So in May 1948, the couple defied California's ban on interracial marriage by leaving the state.

Boarding a train at the West Oakland station, they headed north through Oregon and across the Columbia River to Vancouver, Wash., where a friend had helped arrange a visit to the county clerk's office. They avoided the stares.

"The justice of the peace was just as nice as he could be," said Jeanne Lowe, who turned 80 this year. "He didn't say a word."

Apart from a shared passion for social justice causes, there was little that set apart the Lowes from other young couples of their generation.

They met at a club gathering in Oakland's Redwood Regional Park in 1947 and became fast friends. Bill Lowe, who had served as a submarine repairman during World War II, would pick up his new girlfriend for dates in his 1937 Chevy coupe.

He grew up as a foster child in a predominantly African-American neighborhood of South Berkeley. She grew up on an all-white street in East Oakland. Her parents and grandparents were devoted to communist and progressive causes, including racial equality, but were still stunned to learn that Jeanne Tobey's sweetheart was a black man.

Advertisement

"My parents didn't consider themselves prejudiced, but they had an only child who was stepping into the unknown," she said.

The first time Bill Lowe proposed, Jeanne Tobey declined. Two weekends later, while alone and cleaning her family's house, she broke down in tears. She had changed her mind.

Mixed marriages had been banned in California for almost as long as it was a state, so the couple could not have expected that before the year was over, a landmark court ruling would have allowed them to marry in Oakland. Washington, at the time, was the closest place to go. New Mexico was the second.

And unlike many other states, California would not prosecute the returning newlyweds under anti-miscegenation laws that governed what race could mix with another — just as long as they got married someplace else.

Feeling unwelcome, and far from their comfortable East Bay network of family and friends, the Lowes did not linger in the Pacific Northwest. They spent less than a day there, taking a sleeping car back to Oakland.

At a wedding celebration back home, Bill's family, who hosted, was welcoming. Hers was polite. Their gifts were those of modest households living in a difficult time: An alarm clock and handmade ashtrays, a blanket from her parents, a used toaster. In October 1948, six months after the Lowes obtained their Washington marriage license, the California Supreme Court in a divisive 4-3 ruling became the first in the 20th century to strike down a state ban on interracial marriage.

Los Angeles couple Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis had filed the suit. They were devout Catholics who met on a workplace assembly line. Davis was black and Perez, from a Spanish-speaking family of Mexican descent, was regarded by state law as white. The county clerk refused to give them a marriage license when they went to pick one up in 1947.

What happened next, in some ways, was a fluke, say scholars who have studied the decision. The couple stumbled into the hands of an acquaintance, lawyer Dan Marshall, who vigorously sued Los Angeles County, first casting the claim as one based on freedom of religion because the Catholic Church supported their desire to marry.

And Marshall, in turn, stumbled into the hands of Roger Traynor, a supreme court judge whose majority opinion in the case went beyond arguments for religious freedom. He discredited the old eugenic tracts underlying the state's rigid race classifications, rejected long-held claims that the mixing of races was bad for the public welfare and declared "the right to marry (was) as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring." Prejudice, he wrote, could not be used to infringe on such an important right.

"He was willing to change the law in response to social conditions," said Rachel Moran, a law professor at UC Berkeley. "California was becoming the great state, the powerhouse it would become after World War II. The need to be responsive to change was really considerable."

The opinion was stunning, scholars said. And once it was over, the newlywed couple forever disappeared from public light.

"Neither of them wanted to be a leader or highly prominent activist," Moran said. "They just wanted to marry and live like everybody else. They really didn't see themselves as political people. It might be that they didn't want to be standard-bearers for a movement."

No social movements propelled most of California's interracial marriage pioneers, at least not directly. Miscegenation was a politically and socially volatile issue, and most civil rights organizations were focused on dismantling laws segregating public places, Moran said.

"The civil rights organizations that normally would have made those headlines tactically decided to remain quiet," said Dara Orenstein, who researched the case as a graduate student at Yale University. "The California Legislature didn't vacate the statute until 10 years later. That says a lot. No one really touched it. The court was ahead of its time."

The opinion did pave the way for longtime unions like that of Rosina and Leon Watson, who in 1950, after a long courtship, were married in the Fruitvale district of Oakland at St. Elizabeth's Catholic Church.

"I remember them coming out of the church," said Jeanne Lowe, who befriended the Watsons and a few other interracial couples through the left-wing political group American Youth for Democracy. "They were so happy."

On a recent afternoon, Leon, 81, was listening to a zydeco CD in their cozy East Oakland bungalow while Rosina, 80, knitted. They have lived in the same house since 1959, raising three children there.

"He was tall, for one," said Rosina Watson, recalling what attracted her to her husband. "The boyfriend I had before was short. And he was a good dancer and I liked to dance."

Growing up in a Spanish-speaking family that had lived in New Mexico for generations, Rosina Watson said her father was initially furious that she was dating a black man from Mississippi. He later came to accept it, she said.

Although more tolerant than other places, not all of California was ready to accept the state's newly sanctioned interracial couples.

The Lowes were pulled over several times by Oakland police who suspected Bill Lowe might be a pimp and his wife a prostitute. When Jeanne Lowe went to job interviews, her husband would sometimes, instinctively, drop her off two blocks away so she could make a better first impression. The Watsons watched as whites suddenly moved from their 77th Avenue neighborhood after the couple moved in, and were later snubbed while house-hunting in the white suburb of San Leandro.

Today, the number of interracial couples who can remember such experiences from that era is dwindling. Bill Lowe died in 1995, as have friends from their circle of East Bay interracial couples who married just before and after 1948. Andrea Perez died in 2000.

Orenstein spoke with Sylvester Davis in 2003, in the last interview he was known to have given. A private man, Orenstein said he cut off the discussions because he loved his wife deeply, missed her, and it pained him to talk so much about the case.

Memories of the Perez case were suddenly revived last May when the California Supreme Court overturned the state's same-sex marriage ban, using the Perez decision as a key precedent. Voters later overrode much of that decision with November's Proposition 8 by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The state's midcentury interracial marriage pioneers, including Jeanne Lowe and the Watsons, have been largely absent from the debate, though they do have opinions about it.

Leon Watson said he "couldn't care less" who married whom, and, playfully conversing with his wife, wondered why the Catholic Church that went out on a limb to marry them couldn't marry same-sex couples. Jeanne Lowe, who has three children, one of them a lesbian, said she feels that adults have the right to marry whomever they choose. Lowe said she was also moved by the election of President Barack Obama, who is younger than her three children but, like them, was born to a white woman and a black man at a time when such unions were less common — and still banned in many states.

"My oldest daughter called at the time (his win) was announced. She couldn't speak," Jeanne Lowe said. "It was a feeling that this was my son. That's how it felt. "... It was a feeling that can't be described."

She wished, she said, that her husband was alive to see it.

"We worked so hard to create a community where we were accepted, where my children would be accepted," she said.

Reach Matt O'Brien at 925-977-8463 or [email protected].

SOME MARRIAGE LAW MILESTONES IN CALIFORNIA AND THE U.S. 1661: Maryland enacts the first anti-miscegenation law in what would later become the United States

1850: Soon after California becomes a state, legislators follow other states by banning marriage between whites and "negroes or mulattoes"

1880: California Legislature adds "Mongolians" into the ban in an effort to exclude Asians from marrying whites

1933: California Legislature adds "members of the Malay race" into the ban, rejecting years of advocacy by Filipino leaders seeking equal marriage rights

1947: Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis try getting married in Los Angeles. County clerk refuses because she is white and he is black. Later, a lawyer, Dan Marshall, will help the Catholic couple sue to marry on the basis of religious liberty.

1948: In Perez v. Sharp, California Supreme Court sides with Los Angeles couple in a 4- 3 ruling. Justice Roger Traynor, author of the majority opinion, goes beyond freedom of religion argument in calling marriage of the person of one's choice a "fundamental right."

1967: In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, unanimously declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional nationwide.

1977: California Legislature enacts law that rules marriage must be between "a man and a woman." In 2000, a voter-approved initiative strengthens the ban on same-sex marriage.

2008: Drawing on the Perez v. Sharp case, California Supreme Court rules 4-3 in May that same-sex marriage should also be a fundamental right. In November, voter- approved Proposition 8 overrides the court by eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Class Text: Perez v. Sharp, 1948

LEFT: Leon Watson and Rosina Rodriquez were married at St. Elizabeth Church in Oakland on March 18, 1950.

Franciscan Father Roderick Postada officiated. RIGHT: The Watsons renewed their marriage vows on their 50th wedding anniversary. They will celebrate their 60th anniversary at Oakland’s St. Benedict Church on March 14.

Couple who broke color barrier wed 60 years

By Sharon Abercrombie Staff writer

Leon Watson loved Rosina Rodriguez and wanted to marry her. He shyly proposed marriage by making a recording of his voice at a local Oakland market, professing that he couldn’t live without her. The year was 1949.

1947 suit by Catholic couple ended California’s ban on interracial marriage

By Sharon Abercrombie Staff writer

In October 1948, the California Supreme Court, in Perez v. Sharp, overturned the state ban on interracial marriage by a majority of 4 to 3. Justice Roger Traynor, in his majority opinion of support, cited the Catholic Church’s support of marriage as an exercise of religious freedom. Justice Traynor wrote that, in fact, interracial marriage went beyond religion, saying marriage to the person of one’s choice is a “fundamental right.”

The California Supreme Court decided in favor of interracial marriage after a Los Angeles Catholic couple, Andrea Perez of Mexican descent and her African American fiancé, Sylvester Davis, tried to get married in Los Angeles County, but were refused a marriage license by the county clerk.

The couple took their case to attorney Dan Marshall, who helped them sue in order to marry on the basis of religious liberty. In 1947, Marshall filed their suit against Los Angeles County, based on the claim that their right to marry was part of the nation’s guarantee of freedom of religion because the Catholic Church supported their desire to marry.

In his opinion Traynor cited the couple’s lawsuit argument “that the prohibition to marry prohibits the free exercise of their religion and denies to them the right to participate fully in the sacraments of that religion.”

He rejected claims that racial mixing was bad for the public welfare and declared the right to marry was “as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring.”

In its decision, California’s Supreme Court thus joined New Mexico and the state of Washington in championing the right of interracial couples to marry. New Mexico had changed its law in 1866 and Washington in 1868.

It wasn’t until 1967, in the Loving vs. Virginia decision, that the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren Had this young couple (he was 21, she was 20) met two years earlier and fallen in love, marriage would have been impossible unanimously declared anti- in California. Watson is African American and Rodriguez is miscegenation laws Hispanic. Until 1948, interracial marriage was against the law in unconstitutional California. nationwide. At the time of the decision, restrictions on But their budding romance was blessed by the October 1948 interracial marriage were decision of the state’s Supreme Court, striking down the ban on still being enforced by 20 interracial marriage. states.

Wedding bells rang for the couple on March 18, 1950, in St. Elizabeth Church in Oakland’s Fruitvale District. Their ceremony was a religiously groundbreaking event. Leon Watson and Rosina Rodriguez were one of the first interracial couples to get married in a Catholic church in the East Bay.

Franciscan Father Roderick Postada was the officiating priest. “We were married at one of the side altars because Leon wasn’t Catholic then,” recalled Rosina Watson.

Even before their 1950 wedding, Watson and Rodriguez were groundbreakers, espousing social justice and racial causes both locally and nationally.

Watson, a native of Mississippi, moved to Oakland after graduating from high school in 1946 to live with a relative and seek a better life away from the deeply hateful and dangerous prejudice of the Deep South.

Rodriguez came to Oakland in 1948 from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to stay with her sister, Ruth, who was active in the local chapters of Women for Peace and the Civil Rights Congress. She quickly introduced Rosina to both groups.

Rosina soon met her future husband at the Civil Rights Congress, a progressive activist group which was pressing for the hiring of black bus drivers in the Oakland transit system and Greyhound. They succeeded in their efforts.

There were blacks, whites, Hispanics, and other nationalities all united for the same causes, said Rosina Watson. They organized pot luck dinners and dances at one another’s homes. “We were in our own world,” she said. Only rarely did members venture outside these protected venues to go to movies, remembers Leon. He and Rosina did, however, see a few shows in Alameda because, theoretically, “mixed people could go to movies.” But they soon gave it up. “We’d get funny stares,” he said.

“We were more comfortable being in our organizations, socializing there,” his wife added.

Another interracial couple in the Civil Rights Congress became two of their best friends and supportive allies. Bill Lowe, a black man, and Jeanne Tobey, a white woman, had married six months before the Supreme Court decision. They had eloped to Vancouver, Washington, spending less than a day there before taking a sleeping car back to Oakland.

Fortunately, although California then forbade interracial marriages, the state would not prosecute returning newlyweds under anti-miscegenation laws, as long as they got married in Washington or New Mexico, where interracial marriages were already legal.

Of her own marriage proposal, Rosina said she was initially “taken back by it.” She agonized briefly, worrying about “the long stretch.” But she soon stopped fretting, realizing “that we were surrounded by so much love and understanding that the outside world did not matter. Leon and I saw how happy Bill and Jeanne were, so we said, ‘why not?’”

Rosina’s father, however, was not pleased. He agreed to give his daughter away, “but I think he really came from Santa Fe to talk me out of it,” Rosina said. His plan didn’t work.

After the wedding, the couple lived under the radar, so to speak, renting their first few apartments from close friends in the Civil Rights Congress. When they finally decided to buy their own home on 77th Avenue in Oakland, they began to see prejudice in action. Whites moved out of the neighborhood.

During the next few decades, the couple continued their racial justice work, petitioning door to door and contacting their representatives on behalf of the defense of Angela Davis and the conviction of Emmett Till’s murderers.

Davis, a feminist professor, was tried and acquitted of suspected involvement in the Soledad Brothers August 1970 abduction and murder of a Marin County judge. Emmett Till was a 14- year-old lad murdered by whites in Mississippi in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The main suspects were acquitted but later admitted to the murder.

As the Watsons grew busy with their young family, they drifted away from their social justice activities. But they continue to be there in spirit. “We’re for love,” Leon says. The couple remain in the 77th Avenue home where they raised their three children, Jose, Jorge, and Lucia. Jose lives in Oakland, Jose in Brentwood and Lucia in Hercules. The couple has several grandchildren.

Leon worked for the Naval Air Station as a clerk typist during World War II, later moving on to employment at an Oakland company that made refrigerator units. After a two year stint in the Marine Corps in 1954, he returned to work at his old job. He also worked for a time at the IRS.

In 2003 he retired from his position as a patient services technician at Oakland’s Highland Hospital. Rosina held a series of positions as a typist, later going on to become a Spanish language translator for social workers at Children’s Protective Services of Alameda County.

The Watson children grew up on stories of their parents’ youth and activist years. Rosina remembers one of their family visits to Mississippi. “When our children first visited there as teenagers, Jose had an eerie feeling when we passed so many magnolia trees. He could envision black men hanging from them because their father had told them that in older days, blacks were hanged from them and the smell from the magnolia tree blossoms would hide the stench of decaying bodies.”

Leon and Rosina Watson remain active parishioners of St. Benedict Parish in Oakland. He is a lector and a Knight of St. Peter Claver. On March 14, they will mark their 60th wedding anniversary with a celebrative lunch at St. Benedict Parish Hall, following the 11 a.m. Mass.

Andrea Perez and her husband Sylvester Davis in 1990:

Anti-Defamation League: "What Is Racism?"

What Is Racism? Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another.

Racism has existed throughout human history. It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another -- or the belief that another person is less than human -- because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes.

During the past 500-1000 years, racism on the part of Western powers toward non-Westerners has had a far more significant impact on history than any other form of racism (such as racism among Western groups or

among Easterners, such as Asians, Africans, and others). Racial Separatism The most notorious example of racism by the West has been slavery, particularly the enslavement of Africans in the New World (slavery itself dates back thousands of years). This enslavement was accomplished because of the racist belief that Black Africans were less fully human than white Europeans and their descendants.

This belief was not "automatic": that is, Africans were not originally considered inferior. When Portuguese sailors first explored Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries, they came upon empires and cities as advanced as their own, and they considered Africans to be serious rivals. Over time, though, as African civilizations failed to match the technological advances of Europe, and the major European powers began to plunder the continent and forcibly remove its inhabitants to work as slave laborers in new colonies across the Atlantic, Africans came to be seen as a deficient "species," as "savages." To an important extent, this view was necessary to justify the slave trade at a time when Western culture had begun to promote individual rights and human equality. The willingness of some Africans to sell other Africans to European slave traders also led to claims of savagery, based on the false belief that the "dark people" were all kinsmen, all part of one society - as opposed to many different, sometimes warring nations.

One important feature of racism, especially toward Blacks and immigrant groups, is clear in attitudes regarding slaves and slavery. Jews are usually seen by anti-Semites as subhuman but also superhuman: devilishly cunning, skilled, and powerful. Blacks and others are seen by racists as merely subhuman, more like beasts than men. If the focus of anti-Semitism is evil, the focus of racism is inferiority -- directed toward those who have sometimes been considered to lack even the ability to be evil (though in the 20th century, especially, victims of racism are often considered morally degraded).

In the second half of the 19th century, Darwinism, the decline of Christian belief, and growing immigration were all perceived by many white Westerners as a threat to their cultural control. European and, to a lesser degree, American scientists and philosophers devised a false racial "science" to "prove" the supremacy of non-Jewish whites. While the Nazi annihilation of Jews discredited most of these supposedly scientific efforts to elevate one race over another, small numbers of scientists and social scientists have continued throughout the 20th century to argue the inborn shortcomings of certain races, especially Blacks. At the same time, some public figures in the American Black community have championed the supremacy of their own race and the inferiority of whites - using nearly the identical language of white racists.

All of these arguments are based on a false understanding of race; in fact, contemporary scientists are not agreed on whether race is a valid way to classify people. What may seem to be significant "racial" differences to some people - skin color, hair, facial shape - are not of much scientific significance. In fact, genetic differences within a so-called race may be greater than those between races. One philosopher writes: "There are few genetic characteristics to be found in the population of England that are not found in similar proportions in Zaire or in China….those differences that most deeply affect us in our dealings with each other are not to any significant degree biologically determined."

Class Text: Slavery

Starved, beaten and tortured African slave in America

Journey through Slavery ep 1 of 4 - Terrible Transformation

1.

1:22:50

Published on Mar 13, 2013 Documentary that examines the transatlantic slave trade which took place across the Atlantic Ocean from the 16th through to the 19th centuries. The transatlantic slave trade was responsible for one of the largest forced human migrations in record history.

Starved, beaten and tortured European slaves (called serfs) in Russia, forced to till a field like animals.

WATCHED 3:48

Introduction to Week 6 - Russian Serfdom and American Slavery

COLRS @ UIS

 2 years ago  547 views

Saudi Princess Arrested for Forcing Kenyan, Others - YouTube

▶ 3:14 www.youtube.com/watch?v=96SQCczLkx0 Jul 13, 2015 - Uploaded by gistonit Saudi Princess Arrested for Forcing Kenyan, Others ... Indonesian fighter arrest Saudi jet ... ةيسينودنإ تالتاقم/

Human trafficking: the modern day slave trade - YouTube

▶ 2:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0xWMXaYdBk Aug 5, 2013 - Uploaded by Thomson Reuters Foundation Human trafficking: the modern day slave trade ... There are more slaves in the world today than at any time ... Russian serfs being treated like animals, made to till a field.

Class Text: "Young black men killed by US police at highest rate in year of 1,134 deaths" Young black men killed by US police at highest rate in year of 1,134 deaths

Jon Swaine, Oliver Laughland, Jamiles Lartey and Ciara McCarthy

Thursday 31 December 2015 15.00 EST

Last modified on Thursday 31 December 2015 17.44 EST

Final total of people killed by US police officers in 2015 shows rate of death for young black men was five times higher than white men of the same age

Thursday 31 December 2015 15.00 EST

Last modified on Thursday 31 December 2015 17.44 EST

Young black men were nine times more likely than other Americans to be killed by police officers in 2015, according to the findings of a Guardian study that recorded a final tally of 1,134 deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers this year. The Guardian view on killings by US police: why we must keep counting

The Counted has made up for the Obama administration’s failings, but the lack of oversight remains. So we will restart our count of people killed by police until the government does its job

Despite making up only 2% of the total US population, African American males between the ages of 15 and 34 comprised more than 15% of all deaths logged this year by an ongoing investigation into the use of deadly force by police. Their rate of police-involved deaths was five times higher than for white men of the same age.

Paired with official government mortality data, this new finding indicates that about one in every 65 deaths of a young African American man in the US is a killing by police.

“This epidemic is disproportionately affecting black people,” said Brittany Packnett, an activist and member of the White House taskforce on policing. “We are wasting so many promising young lives by continuing to allow this to happen.”

Speaking in the same week that a police officer in Cleveland, Ohio, was cleared by a grand jury over the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy who was carrying a toy gun, Packnett said the criminal justice system was presenting “no deterrent” to the excessive use of deadly force by police. “Tamir didn’t even live to be 15,” she said.

Protests accusing law enforcement officers of being too quick to use lethal force against unarmed African Americans have spread across the country in the 16 months since dramatic unrest gripped Ferguson, Missouri, following the fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white officer. Overall in 2015, black people were killed at twice the rate of white, Hispanic and native Americans. About 25% of the African Americans killed were unarmed, compared with 17% of white people. This disparity has narrowed since the database was first published on 1 June, at which point black people killed were found to be twice as likely to not have a weapon.

The Guardian’s investigation, titled The Counted, began in response to widespread concern about the federal government’s failure to keep any comprehensive record of people killed by police. Officials at the US Department of Justice have since begun testing a database that attempts to do so, directly drawing on The Counted’s data and methodology.

The FBI also announced plans to overhaul its own count of homicides by police, which has been discredited by its reliance on the voluntary submission of data from a fraction of the country’s 18,000 police departments. The Guardian’s total for 2015 was more than two and a half times greater than the 444 “justifiable homicides” logged by the FBI last year.

The FBI director, James Comey, said in October it was “embarrassing and ridiculous” that the government did not hold comprehensive statistics, and that it was “unacceptable” the Guardian and the Washington Post, which began publishing a database of fatal police shootings on 1 July, held better records. The Counted will continue into 2016.

Data collected by the Guardian this year highlighted the wide range of situations encountered by police officers across the US. Of the 1,134 people killed, about one in five were unarmed but another one in five fired shots of their own at officers before being killed. At least six innocent bystanders were killed by officers during violent incidents; eight police officers were killed by people who subsequently died and appeared in the database.

More than 21% of deadly incidents began with a complaint to police alleging domestic violence or some other domestic disturbance. About 16% arose from officers attempting to arrest a wanted person, execute a warrant or apprehend a fugitive. Another 14% of killings followed an attempted traffic or street stop, 13% came after someone committed a violent crime and 7% after a non-violent crime.

In addition to those killed after opening fire, 160 people were accused of refusing commands to drop a weapon. Another 157 were said to have pointed or levelled a gun or non-lethal gun at officers. Police alleged that 158 people killed had “charged”, advanced at or fought with officers. And while 79 people were killed after allegedly “reaching for their waistband” or grabbing for a weapon, 44 attacked officers, some with knives and blades.

“It would appear that police officers are often confronting people who are armed, non-compliant and threatening,” said David Klinger an associate professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St Louis.

The extensive demographic detail gathered as part of the study also shed light on the diverse set of people who died during confrontations with law enforcement. The group ranged in age from six-year-old Jeremy Mardis, in Marksville, Louisiana, to 87-year-old Louis Becker in Catskill, New York. Officers killed 43 people who were 18 years old and younger. The Counted: people killed by police in the United States – interactive

The Guardian has been counting the people killed by US law enforcement agencies since 2015. Read their stories and contribute to our ongoing, crowdsourced project

Mental health crises contributed directly to dozens of police-involved deaths. In at least 92 cases that led to fatalities this year, police had been alerted over a suicidal person or someone who was harming him- or herself. In 28 other deadly incidents, relatives or associates later said that the person killed had been suicidal before they died.

Of 29 military veterans who were killed by police in 2015, at least eight were said to have been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following their service. In all, mental health issues were reported in relation to 246 people killed by police this year – more than one in every five cases. On at least eight occasions, the death was officially ruled a suicide, prompting claims from relatives that officers were escaping scrutiny.

“We have a tremendous problem,” said Dr Daniel Reidenberg, the managing director of the National Council for Suicide Prevention. “In a society where firearms are as prevalent as they are, and where people know law enforcement are trained to respond to a certain situation in a certain way, we have a problem.”

Regional disparities also emerged from the year’s data. Earlier this month, the Guardian published a series of special reports on Kern County, California, where police killed more people relative to the size of its population than anywhere else in the country. Law enforcement officers there killed more people in 2015 than the NYPD, which has 23 times as many officers policing a population 10 times as big.

Following a spate of killings in recent weeks, New Mexico’s 21 deaths in 2015 represented the highest per-capita rate of any state. New Mexico’s rate of one killing by police for every 99,300 residents was more than 10 times greater than that of Rhode Island, where only one person among a population of more than a million was killed by law enforcement.

The death of Kenneth Stephens, 56, in Burlington, Vermont, last week meant that all 50 states and the District of Columbia had at least one death caused by police in 2015.

Only one of the 21 people killed by police in New Mexico, however, was unarmed. By contrast nine of the 25 people killed in New York state were unarmed, and seven of these were black men. While five of Georgia’s 38 deaths followed a suspect being shocked with a Taser – the highest proportion in the country – no Taser-involved deaths were recorded in more than half a dozen states. In all, 89% of deaths by police in 2015 were caused by gunshot, 4% were Taser-related, 4% were deaths in custody following physical confrontations and 3% were deaths of people struck by police officers driving vehicles.

The Counted found that in at least 255 deaths in 2015, the actions of police officers involved had been ruled justified. These rulings were typically made by a district attorney who worked alongside the department of the officers involved in prosecuting everyday crimes. About a quarter of the justified cases were decided on by a grand jury of the public.

Law enforcement officers were charged with crimes in relation to 18 of 2015’s deadly incidents – 10 shootings, four deadly vehicle crashes and four deaths in custody.

By the end of the year, one officer had been acquitted of charges relating to a fatal shooting in Pennsylvania, and the first attempt at prosecuting one of the officers involved in the deadly arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, had ended in a mistrial. Two deputies in Georgia charged over the in-custody death of Matthew Ajibade were cleared of manslaughter but convicted of cruelty, perjury and falsifying paperwork.

Philip Stinson, an associate professor at Bowling Green University who monitors the subject, said the number of officers being charged had risen sharply this year. “There is more public awareness, and I do think that in the past few years the veracity of police officers is being questioned more, after their statements were shown to not be consistent with video evidence,” he said.

Class Text: L.A. Homicide Blog

Google: Los Angeles Murders and Homicides - The Homicide Report - to read the latest homicide statistics. Pay attention to the races/ethnic groups and ages of people who die of gunshot wounds.

NACCP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet

Click on this sentence to access the Criminal Justice Fact Sheet. If the link does not work, Google: NACCP Criminal Justice Fact Sheet.

Course Description

ENGLISH 21, ENGLISH FUNDAMENTALS (3) NDA

Prerequisite: Appropriate placement level demonstrated through the English assessment process.

"This is a reading/writing course that teaches basic skills in composition, reading, and grammar/mechanics. Objectives relate to writing effective sentences and structuring academic prose based on readings. The course prepares students for transfer-level English and technical/vocational courses." (English Course Descriptions)

Course Learning Outcomes

"At end of the course, the successful student will be able to compose and support an explicit thesis statement by citing evidence in a multi-paragraph essay.

At end of the course, the successful student will be able to write an accurate, well- organized summary of a text, and effectively integrate ideas from a text into his/her own written composition.

At end of the course, the successful student will be able to compose a variety of effective sentences incorporating English usage rules and concepts."

Student Learning Objectives

After successfully completing this course, you will be able to...

1. 2. 1. Write a convincing, well-organized essay of 1-3 pages; 3. 4. 5. 2. Successfully incorporate English usage rules into sentences and compositions; 6. 7. 8. 3. Use basic textual support in a composition; and 9. 10. 11. 4. Read actively (annotate).

12.

Institutional Course Outcomes

English 21 will also help students meet these Institutional Student Learning Outcomes:

A. "Critical Thinking: Analyze problems by differentiating fact from opinions, using evidence, and using sound reasoning to specify multiple solutions and their consequences." In essays and class discussions, analyze arguments.

B. "Communication: Effectively communicate thought in a well-organized manner to persuade, inform, and convey ideas in academic, work, family and community settings." In writings and class discussions, share ideas about what makes an argument effective. G. "Cultural Diversity: respectfully engage with other cultures in an effort to understand them." In writings and class discussion, analyze literature from a multi-cultural perspective.

H. "Ethics: practice and demonstrate standards of personal and professional integrity, honesty and fairness; apply ethical principles in submission of all college work." Submit writings in which words other than your own are documented in MLA format.

I. "Aesthetics: Use multiple modes of inquiry and approaches to experience and to engage with the art and nature; develop and express personal creative visions throughout all aspects of one's life." In writings and discussions, demonstrate recognition of literature as art-especially works of non-fiction.

Grading Scale

A = 100 - 90 points

B = 89 - 80 points

C = 79 - 70 points

D = 69 - 60 points

F = 59 - 0 points

NOTE: There are no plus (+) or minus (-) grades in the LACCD system. For this reason, I will offer three (3) extra credit points at the end of the semester so that students may change grades that would be a B+, C+ and D+ into an A, B, and C. However… fulfillment of extra credit assignments does not guarantee that extra credit will be awarded; all extra credit assignments must be of superior quality.

Course Essay Rubric

Rubric for Papers Rubric for English 21 Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) Criterion 1. Does not 2. Demonstrates SLO 3. Demonstrates SLO demonstrate SLO adequately more than adequately. adequately C 1. 1. 1.

O Lacks clear thesis/focus and Has thesis/focus and Has clear thesis/focus and persuasive purpose, and persuasive purpose. persuasive purpose. may be off topic. N 2. 2. 2. T Provides sufficient, but Supports thesis with 2-3 or minimal support for thesis. all of these types of Does not support thesis evidence: facts, expert E adequately. opinions, relevant anecdotes, and descriptions N of situations and events.

T O 1. 1. 1.

Lacks some necessary and Contains sufficient Contains sufficient and R appropriate transitions transitions between appropriate transitions between sentences and sentences and paragraphs. between sentences and G paragraphs, and essay paragraphs, so paper seems may be one paragraph. 2. stylistically superior. A 2. Orders ideas and support 2. for thesis logically. N Orders ideas and support Orders ideas and support for thesis randomly. for thesis thoughtfully and I logically, allowing reader to comprehend content easily. Z

A

T

I

O

N G 1. 1. 1.

R Contains simple vocabulary Contains some college- Contains appropriate and sentence structure. level vocabulary and college-level vocabulary sentences with more than and a variety of sentences A 2. one clause. that help essay to read well and seem stylistically M Features many different 2. superior. kinds of distracting errors that stop reader from Has some English usage 2. M focusing on content: errors, but these errors do grammar, spelling, not distract reader from May have some English A punctuation, wrong words, focusing on content. usage errors, but these awkward/garbed phrasing. errors are minor and do not distract reader from R focusing on content. /

M E

C

H

A

N

I

C

S

Resources

Please go to http://www.wlac.edu/studentlife/index.html to learn about what campus resources are available to you: tuition waivers, book vouchers, academic counseling, tutoring, and additional services. Be aware that WLAC has a Writing Lab on the ground floor of the library--and it offers online help. For library computer-assisted instruction information, please see the Class Schedule.

Writing Lab: http://www.wlac.edu/library/info/lab_writing.html

Plagiarism (Cheating)

In most English classes, cheating occurs in two ways. First, a student presents another person's words or ideas (or other people's words and ideas) as his or her own, quoting or paraphrasing that person (or people) without indicating that quoting or paraphrasing is occurring. Second, a student has someone else write his or her work. Every semester I seem to catch students cheating; I don't enjoy catching cheaters. Please do NOT cheat.

Students who cheat will be subject to all appropriate academic penalties: They will receive a failing grade on their assignment, and the Dean of Student Services will be notified. If an assignment seems too challenging for you, or if you have an emergency that stops you from completing an assignment, Private Message me. I'll try my best to help you.