The End Of America's Longest War?

Hat tip: a JJP reader


From The Daily Dish

30 Oct 2008 12:40 pm
The End Of America's Longest War?

A reader writes:

Earlier this week, in your post “The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama”, you wrote under Point 4: “A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.”



On the one hand I agree with you; on the other hand, you don't go nearly far enough. An Obama presidency means much more than a truce in the 60’s culture war. It means the end of a much older and more terrible war, in which the 60's was merely one battle: the American Civil War. That is what is at stake here.

The Civil War was fought from Sumter to Appomattox, from April 12, 1861, to April 9, 1865. But the roots of the war predated 1861, and the consequences lived on long after 1865. In reality the Civil War never ended, it just shifted from a military to a culture war - the same culture war that is still going on today.

What you call the “boomer warfare” of the 1960’s was part of that larger war, marking the struggle to end Jim Crow, the century-long regime of American apartheid (Vietnam was, in my opinion, related but secondary). The end of apartheid was a second humiliating defeat for the forces of the conservative "South" at the hands of the liberal "North", and it subsequently gave rise to those decades of distorted and irrational politics you so deplore, as the reactionary and fundamentalist forces regrouped and mounted yet another rearguard insurrection against their liberal "oppressors", culminating in their partial ascension to power under Bush. (And we can only hope it ends there, instead of with Palin and the Christian Nationalists in 2012).


I realize this may sound harsh; I do not think Bush is a racist, for instance (quite the contrary), and I am very aware of the progress made in this country since I was young, including in the South; nevertheless, this election is clearly about race, about who and what we are as a nation, as a people, as a family (I would throw California's Prop 8 squarely into this battle too).

So let's be clear - it is not "boomer warfare" which has distorted our politics, or made rational politics so elusive since the 60's: it is something far deeper, something far older, something which has been with us from the beginning in this country, and which we in turn brought with us from the Old World; something which in fact traces back to the very origin of humanity - spiritually, psychologically, politically, evolutionarily. That depth is what gives the American story its pathos and its importance. That is why the world watches us: to see if we can work it out - to see if there is hope.
And that's why January 20, 2009, is so important: the day Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th president will mark the third, and I believe the final defeat of the forces of repression and division in this country, and the actual end of the American Civil War.

How can I be so sure? Because when the American President is inaugurated, it is directly homologous to the crowning of the King in ancient days: the King is the groom, the Nation is the bride, the crowning is the hieros gamos, the sacred marriage. When Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th president, a symbolic marriage will be enacted, binding us together forever, black and white. We will have chosen to become one. We will have chosen to become family. The War will be over. E pluribus unum.

The whole world will be watching this. You have stated over and over again that an Obama presidency would be “transformational”, even “indispensable”. You're right. And you're right that this is only the beginning. A new chapter is dawning.

Will the old guard resist? Of course. But their power is waning. Providence made sure the better man lost in 2000, and the eight years since have been just enough rope for the old, corrupt right to hang itself.

It's observations like this that make me love the internet. Just the possibility that I could come across something that would make me go ' Damn'.

Where are the Gun Rights, Second Amendment People With THIS Case?

Originally saw this case on Prometheus 6.

A commentary at Black America Web opens with this:

A bunch of white guys show up at your house after 11 p.m., cursing, calling your 20-year-old son the N-word and threatening to kill him. You take your .32 Beretta, go outside and order the mob off your property.

Instead of leaving, one of the white guys slaps the gun in defiance. What do you do?

John H. White, a resident of Riverhead, N.Y., said he knew what he had to do. On Aug. 9, 2006, White found himself and his son Aaron faced with precisely the scenario described above. Daniel Cicciaro, 17 years old, was the white kid who slapped the gun in White’s hand. White shot Cicciaro in the face, fatally wounding him.

Three days before Christmas, a jury of 11 whites and one black in Suffolk County, N.Y., found White guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

You read right. They come onto his property; threaten his child. Don't leave after KNOWING that there is a gun. One of them gets killed, and JOHN WHITE is the one who was found guilty?

WTF?

WTF?

The man in Texas kills 2 who weren't even breaking into HIS house, but his NEIGHBOR'S house...not charged.

This Black man is on HIS property, protecting HIS child, from a White mob spewing racial epithets at him....and he's been found GUILTY?

WHAT THE #*$&?

Where the hell is the National Rifle Association?
Where the hell are all those Second Amendment fanatics?
Where the hell are all those Property Rights fanatics?

Is anyone going to sit here and tell me that a WHITE MAN...
if FIVE BLACK GUYS showed up at his house...
AT NIGHT....
and after you've told them about the gun, they don't go away and you shoot them would ACTUALLY BE CHARGED?

Show me the case.

And, where the hell are our ' so-called' LEADERS?

Is Hillary Clinton trying to 'Willie Horton' Barack Obama?

In case you haven't been paying attention to politics in the past few days, the former head of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, Bill Shaheen, 'resigned' because of remarks that he made about Barack Obama.

Per the WashingtonPost, here is the money quote:

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Now, numerous previous candidates have admitted to drug use. George W. Bush spent the better part of TWENTY YEARS under some sort of influence, be it booze or drugs, and nobody EVER ASKED HIM THIS QUESTION.

But, THE BLACK MAN, who has TWO Ivy League Degrees, is ASKED IF HE'S A DRUG DEALER?

But, if Sheehan was 'acting solo'/ 'going rogue', then what the hell was Mark Penn doing on Hardball with the same slime, not an hour AFTER the debate was over.

Thanks to our friend, sagereader, over at Think On These Things, breaks it down in this post: Evidence That Clinton Camp’s Attack On Obama’s Drug Use Was Deliberate

The title of this post comes from a reply at Jack and Jill.

NMP asked:

The larger question for the hankerchief heads, as you like to call them, supporting Hillary Clinton is will they join her in effectively using a Wille Horton on Obama...using the unjust incarceration of mostly Black men as a wedge issue to scare White folks against Obama?

I have written about Hillary Clinton's stance AGAINST retroactivity with regards to drug sentencing HERE.

Here is the money quote from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic:

Campaign aides have said that Obama's support for retroactivity in drug sentences would kill him with tough-on-crime white independents. But the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 decision yesterday that included Antonin Scalia, endorsed the view that judges could ignore sentencing guidelines when handing down prison terms for distributing crack versus powder cocaine, and a Bush administration panel today voted seven to nothing to impose retroactivity.

Now, her choice puts her to the RIGHT of SCALIA. It's going to be on the backs of Black Men and Women - who are the ones disproportionately incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. She'll prove her ELECTABILITY by proving how many BLACK FOLK she can keep locked up.

First scaring the White folk in Iowa with the Obama is a Drug Dealer smear, then once she's won that, have her Handkerchief Heads, come front and center, about why Black folk should vote for her, after she's vowed to keep standing, one of the most obvious and blatant examples of Racial Disparity in the Justice System.

We must suffer through this racist BS when it comes from a Republican.

But, I’ll be damned if I’m going to suffer through it from a Democrat.

I.am.NEVER.voting.for.her.



PS- And, don't forget, that not one, but TWO folks have had to resign in Iowa because of the Madrassa LIE.


Cross-posted at Brown Iowa

Hello Prison Industrial Complex, The Federal Version?

Hat tip: Prometheus Six

From the EbonyJet blog,The Gang Bill

The Gang Bill
Congress has fast-tracked some tricky legislation. now comes the tough part: pegging discrimination.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
By Brian Gilmore

At a sparsely attended Congressional briefing on Capitol Hill recently, Wayne McKenzie, a former prosecutor, and now Director of the Vera Institute’s Prosecution and Racial Justice Program, spelled out an initiative that was almost unheard of just a few years ago. The Prosecution and Racial Justice Program is, for lack of a better description, a new direction at the intersection of criminal justice and race. It helps prosecutors collect data on race and crime within their own offices in the hope that it will stop the discriminatory racial patterns so pervasive these days.

The Vera Institute, a 40-year-old organization that seeks solutions to problems with the criminal justice system, says the initiative “seeks to offer…prosecutors a mechanism for being proactive by monitoring the exercise of discretion” with their offices. In addition, McKenzie’s bold effort of technical management, it is hoped, will promote “fairness” and enhance “consistency” while guarding against “biased decision making” in the criminal justice system. In other words, if there is racism in the criminal justice system, McKenzie’s program will try to help prosecutors, through technical support and information gathering, identify the problem with hard data.

The program is especially welcome now as the Democratic controlled Congress fast tracks a crime bill called “The Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Act.” The bill, already approved by unanimous consent by the Democratic controlled Senate, is just the kind of potential law that could promote what has been described in McKenzie’s briefing as “mistrust” between prosecutors and Black communities across the nation as they play God with the lives of so many people of color.

“The Gang Prevention, Intervention and Suppression Act,” as the title suggests, aggressively targets gangs, gang activity and crime, but in the process, targets juveniles of color, mainly African-Americans and Latinos. It is simple criminal justice work: many gang associated crimes will be federal crimes now so federal prosecutors with the full weight of Uncle Sam’s deep pockets, can start filling up adult federal prisons with African-American and Latino youth, who comprise a large number of gang members. It is the same formula that has been incredibly successful in filling up state and federal prisons during the failed War on Drugs.
The bill re-defines gangs broadly and vaguely and also makes the penalties for gang crimes and gang activity more severe than they are now. This includes life sentences in prison without parole for some crimes.

Of course, many states already have laws to deal with gang activity, but it is nearing election time, and the Democrats in Congress, who were too cowardly to stop the war in Iraq, and cannot deliver health care for some children living on the edge, have to deliver something to the people. This year’s political sacrifice: thousands of African-American and Latino youth in prison if the bill passes.

For the record, it is mostly those “Blue-Dog Democrats” who want to stick it to the country’s youth under the guise of solving the country’s gang problems, but the opposition so far has been shallow from anyone up there. Everyone on Capitol Hill, as an election approaches, loves a hard nosed crime bill. Congressmen Adam Schiff, Democrat, California, pushed this one upon us.

“[F]or those who do engage in gang violence,” Congressmen Schiff, Democrat, mused when he introduced it, “the bill will give law enforcement an enhanced ability to crack down on gang offenders and increase penalties for those gang members who terrorize our communities.”

Schiff, a well known Blue Dog, also boasted of the bill’s prevention funding in his press release although anyone reading the bill can see quickly: this is really about locking up as many people as possible for long sentences and even life without parole if necessary.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission knows the deal. It reported recently that 75 percent of those incarcerated because of the enactment of the bill into law will be African-American or Latino. This is consistent with most of the available statistics on this issue.

Note, of the more than 2200 individuals in the world sentenced to life in prison without parole as a juvenile, all but 12 of these individuals are in U.S. prisons. No other country in the world thinks this is credible criminal justice policy.

A lot of political heavyweights are against this bill and it is easy.

The American Civil Liberties Union called it “disastrous” for minority youth. The National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Coalition, an association of 80 national groups advocating for children, said the bill is “fundamentally flawed with its misguided emphasis on punishment and incarceration over prevention and early intervention.” Even the right wing Heritage Foundation hates it. They describe it as “overbroad” and add that it “disregards the constitutional framework underlying America's state and federal criminal justice systems.”

The best argument for opposing this bill, however, is contained in a competing bill – “The Youth Promise Act” introduced by Congressmen Bobby Scott of Virginia.

Rep. Scott is not interested in locking up more and more people only to see them released, without skills, direction, or hope, and watch them get arrested over and over for the rest of their lives. He wants to get at the root causes: poverty, alienation, lack of jobs, training, or direction.

“’The Youth Promise Act’ will provide resources to communities to engage in comprehensive prevention and intervention strategies to decrease juvenile delinquency and criminal street gangs,” wrote Rep. Scott when the bill was introduced on October 17, 2007. It is a much different approach as it provides significant funding for prevention programs rather than incarceration efforts.

The act, Scott adds “implements the recommendations of researchers, practitioners, analysts, and law enforcement officials from across the political spectrum…to reduce gang violence and youth crime.”

These findings have been well known for years. Throw young people in adult prisons and you are harvesting career criminals who you will have to incarcerate for decades. Throw them a lifeline and they might just climb out of hell.

Brian Gilmore is an attorney and a writer based in Washington, D.C.

So, just as we MIGHT begin to get a break because of drug sentencing, NOW, they're going to do it FEDERALLY?

Hell no.

Where is the CBC? Have they come out, IN FULL, for Bobby Scott's bill?

Juan Williams Discusses Growing Divide in "Black America"

Juan Williams examined the Black intra-racial divide on NPR's News and Notes program yesterday (Thursday). This has been evident for the last several years.... but Bill Cosby helped to really get a discussion going on the issue. It seems that before Cosby so boldly raised the issue, Black Americans were treating it like the Elephant in the room.

Well Juan acknowledges the Elephant. He discusses data from a recent NPR/Pew Research report on the issue of racial identity. The report seems to support what I have felt for a long time- that there is no such thing as a "Black America" per se. That is such a monolithic term and I have never favored the way that it has been used. This society is always attempting to place Black people in a box. In fact, Blacks seem to be the most "Boxed in" of all the major ethnic groups.

However, since the Civil Rights struggle of half a century ago, Blacks have become much more diverse, socially, culturally, economically, and politically. This is especially true in terms of cultures and values. The truth is, there is no overriding issue, such as unmitigated racism, that requires the kind of oneness or unity that was seen 50 years ago. Blacks have chosen many different paths. Unfortunately the media has not caught on to that fact. We are still referred to in monolithic terms....and it annoys the hell out of me. Ironically, this media ignorance has been one of the reasons for my push back against the Rap Culture, BET and the like, because there is this track record on the part of the media to lump Black folks together in one big pot.

The results of this study are not new to Black Americans, since many have known this for years. But it may be news for the news reporters and the TV producers. Will they do something constructive with this information, such as change the way they refer to Black people or change the way they report events? Somehow I doubt it.

The report is similar to Dubois's two Souls analogy, although it is now manifesting in different ways.

This Black cultural split is real and "the community" is becoming more divergent everyday. This is why I also don't like the term "Black Community" because it suggests a oneness that does not really exist and has not existed since the Black Pride movement of the 70's thru parts of the 80's. Black people are clearly choosing different value systems and lifestyles. In addition, the Black intra-racial gap is also growing in terms of economics and education.

There is a permanent underclass that is emerging, and Black Americans will disproportionally be a large part of that group.... and this time it will not be because of an oppressive White Man holding them back, it will be because of the choices that they have made and the value systems that they embrace.

So how will Black people identify in the future since the skin color paradigm is being shattered? A more important question might be... would society (esp. the Media) finally recognize our diversity?

It is amazing to me that in 2007, people like Dog Chapman, Michael Richards, Don Imus, etc feel that they can run to ONE MAN whom they feel represents all Black people. It's insulting. When Dog Chapman ran to Al Sharpton, it was just as insulting to me as the racist tirade itself... perhaps even more insulting.

But as long as we share Brown skin, I think we will always be treated as a monolith. This, in a way, is turning into a new form of racism. White Americans are seldom required to deal with these racial identity issues. But as a Black American I constantly feel under attack... as if I must constantly answer for the wrongs, the lifestyle choices and the values embraced by the wider group.

Black Pessimism at 20 Year High

Study: Black pessimism worst since 1980s

Blacks increasingly less certain about racial progress in America
Associated Press
updated 5:58 p.m. CT, Tues., Nov. 13, 2007

WASHINGTON - Growing numbers of blacks say they’re worse off than five years ago and don’t expect their lives to improve, a study released Tuesday shows. Black pessimism about racial progress in America, according to the study, is the worst it’s been in more than two decades.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based research organization, paints a mixed picture of race relations following Hurricane Katrina and the Jena Six case, in which six black teens were charged with beating a white student at a high school in the town of Jena, La.

It found that just one in five blacks, or 20 percent, said things were better off for blacks compared with five years ago; that is the smallest percentage since 1983, when 20 percent also made that claim. In-between, the percentage of blacks who said things had gotten better had grown, only to drop back to 20 percent.

Another 29 percent of blacks said things had gotten worse as opposed to staying the same, the largest number since 32 percent made that claim in 1990.

In addition, fewer than half of all blacks, or 44 percent, said they expected their prospects to brighten in the future. That’s down from 57 percent in 1986, during the height of the Reagan administration when the Justice Department actively sought to curtail affirmative action in favor of race-neutral policies.

Whites see black gains

Whites have a different view about black progress, according to the survey. Whites were nearly twice as likely as blacks to see black gains in the past five years. A majority of whites polled, or 56 percent, also said they believed prospects for blacks would improve in the future.

“As disturbing as these findings are, in one sense it’s surprising they are not actually worse,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 200 groups including the NAACP and National Urban League. “Most African Americans believe the government response to problems is one of benign neglect rather than forceful action.”

Rest of article is Here.

It's not hard to understand why Black folk would be so pessimistic. I do think Katrina has a lot to do it; it's just something that won't be forgotten by the community. And, it somewhat relates to the Michelle Obama post below.

Racial divide in savings

Per The Chicago Tribune:

Racial divide in savings
New study of investment practices reveals African-Americans more often shun stocks, leaving blacks behind whites in building nest egg
Gail MarksJarvis
October 12, 2007

If middle- and upper-income African-Americans continue to save and invest the way they tend to do, they stand to struggle financially through retirement in greater proportions than whites at similar income levels.

On average, black Americans are saving less for retirement than whites, and close to half shun the stock market, according to a study released Thursday by Argosy Research for Ariel Mutual Funds and Charles Schwab Corp. Consequently, the money saved by black investors is not positioned to grow with the power that comes from stocks and stock mutual funds.

The survey found that the average savings for blacks Americans earning $50,000 or more a year is $48,000, compared with $100,000 for whites with the same incomes and educational backgrounds. And while 76 percent of whites invest in stocks or stock mutual funds, only 57 percent of black investors do.

Ariel and Schwab started surveying middle- and upper-income people by race a decade ago, believing cultural differences were creating disparities in investment practices.

"Both whites and African-Americans are failing to save enough, but if Americans have a cold, African-Americans have pneumonia," said John Rogers, an African-American who is the founder of Chicago investment firm Ariel Capital Management.

One possible solution, experts say: more education, such as Ariel's support of a school in Chicago that teaches children about money.

In 401(k) plans, where people save money for retirement at their workplaces, the contrast between black and white investors is stark, Rogers said.

On average, blacks at age 42 have $11,000 saved for retirement, while whites have $48,000, Rogers said. He drew the numbers from a survey of 21,000 401(k) plans by the Great-West financial services company.

If each one of those people were to save another $2,000 a year and invest all the money in a stock market mutual fund, those with $11,000 could end up roughly with $195,115 at retirement, while those with $48,000 would have about $413,400.

This assumes that each would earn about 8 percent annually in the stock market on average. But the Ariel research suggests that many black investors probably would earn less than that.

According to the survey, only a third of black investors said stocks and mutual funds were the "best investment overall." Half preferred real estate, which historically has not consistently provided returns as high as stocks.

In 2002, 74 percent of African-Americans were investing in stock or stock funds. At the time, 82 percent of whites were doing the same.

As the stock market plunged, both races pulled away from the stock market, but the retreat was significantly higher among black investors.

Chris Long, a black financial planner in Chicago, said he recently talked an African-American couple into returning to a diversified portfolio of stock and bond mutual funds. They had been frightened by the downturn in 2002 and withdrew from stock funds, but they realized their savings were not growing adequately, he said.

"Culturally, African-Americans aren't comfortable in the stock market," Rogers said.

As a young broker years ago, Rogers said, "White friends came to me with stocks they had inherited from aunts or grandparents, but black friends came with nothing." Their families hadn't had the types of jobs or businesses that provided experience with investing, he said.

"There was no lifetime experience, and that's a big thing," he said.

"There weren't discussions about the stock market around the dinner table," said Lisa Toppin, vice president of human resources at Schwab.

In the survey, most black respondents said they are getting their first experience with investing in 401(k) plans at work. And that is a relatively new trend. In the past, black employees often have worked in jobs that provided defined-benefit pensions, but those plans are fading away.

Rogers said one reason black investors may have felt stung so badly by the 2002 market crash was their choice of mutual funds. He said research shows that black investors often do not hold multiple types of funds to diversify and decrease risk in downturns. On average, blacks choose 1.7 funds in their 401(k), compared with 3.7 among whites.

Ariel and Schwab are calling on businesses to do more to educate employees about 401(k)'s or other retirement savings plans in the workplace. And they are encouraging businesses to support financial education in schools.

Ariel supports the Ariel Community Academy, a school on Chicago's South Side. The school teaches saving and investing to children from pre-kindergarten through 8th grade. As they progress, they are actively involved in investing money.

Both Rogers and Toppin lauded McDonald's Corp. as an example of a company that has undertaken efforts to increase 401(k) participation among black employees.

McDonald's noted four years ago that participation in the company 401(k) plan was lower among minority restaurant managers than white managers. To build up participation among both groups, the company increased pay levels by 1 percent and had managers invest the raise in a 401(k).

They were allowed to opt out if they wished, but every $1 the managers put in the plan was matched by $3, said Rich Floersch, executive vice president of human resources.

Larger savings are rewarded with even higher percentages of matching money.

In addition, McDonald's has provided advisers to help employees select mutual funds, and minority employees meet with peers to discuss saving and investing.

Floersch said participation in the 401(k) plan by African-Americans has climbed to 95 percent from about 50 percent.

----------

gmarksjarvis@tribune.com

Despite what is commonly thought, we are a more conservative people. Everybody had a Mama or Big Mama with her 'Rainy Day ' fund, and the stock market, though at this time, the provider of more funds for the Rainy Day, too many in our community are not educated about the long-term benefits of investing. Too many of us don't realize that you have to look long-term (20 years) in order to get the full benefits of investing in the market. Then, there is the matter of we, as a community, not having the amount of funds TO invest like other communities.

Financial independence is the most local way to help our families. Building wealth has to become a multi-generational endeavor for our community, as it's been for the White community.

School Discipline Tougher on African-Americans

Hat tip: Booker Rising

School discipline tougher on African Americans
By Howard Witt Tribune senior correspondent
September 25, 2007

AUSTIN, Texas - In the average New Jersey public school, African-American students are almost 60 times as likely as white students to be expelled for serious disciplinary infractions.

In Minnesota, black students are suspended 6 times as often as whites.

In Iowa, blacks make up just 5 percent of the statewide public school enrollment but account for 22 percent of the students who get suspended.


Fifty years after federal troops escorted nine black students through the doors of an all-white high school in Little Rock, Ark., in a landmark school integration struggle, America's public schools remain as unequal as they have ever been when measured in terms of disciplinary sanctions such as suspensions and expulsions, according to little-noticed data collected by the U.S. Department of Education for the 2004-2005 school year.

In every state but Idaho, a Tribune analysis of the data shows, black students are being suspended in numbers greater than would be expected from their proportion of the student population. In 21 states—Illinois among them—that disproportionality is so pronounced that the percentage of black suspensions is more than double their percentage of the student body. And on average across the nation, black students are suspended and expelled at nearly three times the rate of white students.

No other ethnic group is disciplined at such a high rate, the federal data show. Hispanic students are suspended and expelled in almost direct proportion to their populations, while white and Asian students are disciplined far less.

Yet black students are no more likely to misbehave than other students from the same social and economic environments, research studies have found. Some impoverished black children grow up in troubled neighborhoods and come from broken families, leaving them less equipped to conform to behavioral expectations in school. While such socioeconomic factors contribute to the disproportionate discipline rates, researchers say that poverty alone cannot explain the disparities. "There simply isn't any support for the notion that, given the same set of circumstances, African-American kids act out to a greater degree than other kids," said Russell Skiba, a professor of educational psychology at Indiana University whose research focuses on race and discipline issues in public schools. "In fact, the data indicate that African-American students are punished more severely for the same offense, so clearly something else is going on. We can call it structural inequity or we can call it institutional racism."

Rest of the story is here:

This is another one of those ' Duh' moments. Nothing in this story is any kind of new news for Black folk. Only in black and white newsprint what we already knew. We've seen it, time and time again, Black children being punished with a greater severity than other groups.