The General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR) reacted with disappointment toward the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to weigh in on whether a Native American slur should be used as a sport team’s name.On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Native American groups to change the name of the Washington, D.C.’s football team. Advocates for changing the name call the trademark “disparaging,” adding that the patent for the name should have been denied years ago. Supporters in the case claim the plaintiffs waited too late to file their lawsuit.

“It is ironic that such a ruling would come during Native American Heritage month, a month set aside by the nation’s leaders to honor the first inhabitants of this land,” said GCORR’s General Secretary, Erin Hawkins. GCORR has been following this case for quite a while, hoping that the courts would uphold a federal law that allows the cancellation of a registration “at any time” if the trademark comprises “matter which may disparage … persons, living or dead … or bring them into contempt, or disrepute,” as is the case with the Washington team’s name and logo. According to General Secretary Hawkins, “GCORR is clearly unhappy to hear news that the nation’s high court would not agree to hear the lawsuit on behalf of Native American activists who consider the team name of the Washington, D.C. football team offensive.”

The Washington DC football team adopted its name and logo in 1933 when the team was moved from Boston to Washington. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a trademark in 1967 and has renewed it several times since. The lawsuit began in 1992 with longtime advocate for Native American rights, Susan Shown Harjo. However, on Monday the justices refused to intervene in the dispute, effectively ending the suit.

GCORR believes allowing the case to reach the nation’s highest court would have signaled to the Native American community and to all of those who courageously advocate for diversity and an end to racism, that the issue of Native American mascots is one that merits full attention and advocacy. “It would have brought this long debated issue to the forefront of the American consciousness,” says General Secretary Hawkins.

GCORR reminds all United Methodists and all people of faith that when one of us is injured, in word or deed, we all suffer. “Our concern and protest against racism at all levels, even in the seemingly benign use of a sports name, must continue to be our priority,” Hawkins added.

By Eliezer Valentín-Castañón

In this whole debate, one of the issues missing, at least in the general conversation, is the role that racism has played. The fact of the matter is that most racial/ethnic persons (who are usually among the ranks of the impoverished) in the United States have little or no access to healthcare services. Despite years of efforts to erase racial disparities in healthcare, and help African Americans live equally long and healthy lives, African Americans still get far fewer operations, tests, medications and other life-saving treatments than whites, according to three major studies published in 2005 (Race Gap Persists In Health Care, Three Studies Say. By Rob Stein, Washington Post staff writer, Thursday, August 18, 2005).Racial/ethnic groups (other than Asians) rate their overall health worse than non-Hispanic whites. “While poor or low income people of all races report worse health status than higher income people, differences in overall health status by race/ethnicity persist even within income groups.” Racial/ethnic folks “frequently report higher prevalence of specific health problems, such as diabetes or obesity, which can have serious consequences for health and longevity.” African-Americans experience higher death rates from heart disease and cancer than other groups. (Key Facts: Race, Ethnicity and Medical Care, 2007 Update)

Racial/ethnic folks are more likely to be in fair or poor health, compared to whites. Many African Americans and American Indians/Alaska Natives rate their health as fair or poor compared to whites. Latinos and those who self identify as two or more races are also more likely to be in poor health. (Race, Ethnicity and Health Care, by Cara James, Senior Policy Analyst, Kaiser Family Foundation)

Access to healthcare offers the United States a vital step on the road to establishing health equity among Americans and addressing the health disparities that have been affecting minority groups in the United States. Data from a 2007 survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics show that Hispanics (30.2 percent) and African-Americans (15.3 percent), were more likely to lack health insurance than non-Hispanic whites (10.6 percent). Without health insurance, many go without having a usual source of care, important preventive screenings, and prompt treatment of illnesses or injury.

In addition, about one-quarter of uninsured patients receive their care from emergency room departments, compared with only one-tenth of privately insured patients. According to Linda Craig of CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, “Emergency departments are a safety net and often the place of first resort for healthcare for America’s poor and uninsured.”

Professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Jonathan Gruber maintains that affordable health insurance available to lower-income families would improve not only the health of those families but also the health the U.S. economy, by freeing up funds that the families could spend on other goods. This was indeed evident in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Medicaid expanded coverage to include low-income children and pregnant women.

Racism plays a role in this debate not only because it is part of the U.S. reality but because it is a reality that describes the role of racism in access to healthcare in many other parts of the world. In an article about South Africa’s healthcare system under apartheid, Elena Nightingale describes the grave reality the experienced by black folks in that country. But if we just change “apartheid” with “racism” in America and its relation to healthcare one would be surprised.

Nightingale states: “[Racism remains a] prime cause of the unequal and racially discriminatory provision of funds for health services; of the over-crowding of the ill- equipped black hospitals and the underutilization of white hospitals; of miserable housing, gross pollution, poor sanitation, and lack of health care . . . . [Racism] in consequence, is the underlying structure causing the dreadful burden of excess morbidity and mortality, much of it preventable, that is borne by the black population. (Elena Nightingale, et al., Apartheid Medicine: Health and Human Rights in South Africa, 264 JAMA. 2097, 2102 (1990)

This impact is more noticeable among racial/ethnic children, who are always at the bottom of the conversation. A report issued by the Urban Institute stated that:
…The prevailing racial and ethnic disparities … among children and adults alike, Hispanics fared worse than blacks in both health status and insurance coverage, and blacks fared worse than whites. Hispanics are the largest and fastest-growing racial or ethnic minority in the United States, accounting for 13 percent of the population today and expected to reach 33 percent by the end of the century. Non-Hispanic whites, in contrast, make up 68 percent of the population today but will make up only 40 percent in 2100 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2003). If policymakers allow the current disparities to persist, the health of the nation may deteriorate as the composition of the population changes. (Race, Ethnicity, and Health, Kenneth Finegold and Laura Wherry)

Certainly, most Americans agree that our healthcare system is badly broken, and our children are suffering for it. Therefore, one of the things missing in the conversation over reform is that to reform the system we must also address racism as one of the obstacles to adequate healthcare. It is not just lack of money. We must take steps to make insurance more affordable and insurance companies accountable to us, but we should also address the disparities based on race that continue to haunt American society.

In the current healthcare debate we are not going to solve all the problems of the system. But we most agree that anyone wishing to purchase health insurance should be able to do so, regardless of pre-existing conditions. We should all agree that an insurance company should not be able to kick you off your plan if you get sick. We all should agree that if you lose your job, it shouldn’t mean you lose your health insurance. Finally, we all agree that millions of Americans are having trouble paying for rising premiums and co-pays.

This is not going to solve racism in the healthcare system but, hopefully, it will get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Several thousand protesters, including General Commission on Religion and Race Vice President Bishop Minerva Carcaño (Desert Southwest Conference) marched and rallied at the nation’s capitol October 13 to draw new attention and awareness to the need for U.S. comprehensive immigration reform. Chanting “Obama Listen!” and “Immigration Reform Now!” protestors focused their rally efforts on immigrants and their families- reforming immigration laws in order to keep families united.

Religious leaders and community organizers see national immigration reform buried under the weight of other priorities demanding President Obama’s attention, including the Afghanistan war and health care reform. While president Obama continues to promise immigration reform, movement has been slow. Religious and community leaders say that while the reform languishes, families suffer—parents are deported to their homelands while their children, born in the U.S. are left to be raised by relatives, friends or alone.

The organizations Familias Unidas and Reform Immigration FOR America sponsored the day’s event which, following meetings with in lawmakers offices, and the march, concluded on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol with a prayer vigil and speeches from event organizers, including House Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, a democrat from Illinois and chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

In a prepared statement Gutierrez said “We need a law that says it is un-American for a mother to be torn from her child, and it is unacceptable to undermine our workforce by driving the most vulnerable among us further into the shadows.”

Among the measurers immigration reform advocates are seeking that takes into consideration health care reform by:

• Making sure lawful immigrants are not subject to lengthy waiting periods
• Making sure that children of immigrants have access to care
• Opposing verification requirements that make it difficult for the most vulnerable immigrant populations to get adequate care.

National Day of Action events were scheduled locally in Washington, D.C. and similar events were held across the country in at least 20 cities, including Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Denver and Albany.

by Jeneane Jones

Sixty-five children told to leave a Philadelphia area pool despite paying their membership fees, have stirred sentiments that harken back to the civil rights era and “whites only” facilities.

The story emerged several weeks ago in the media, when the Valley Swim Club in Montgomery County issued refunds to a day camp that had planned to take its young charges to a day of swimming. According to Valley Swim Club president John Deusler, and as reported on a local NBC affiliate, the kids were turned away, stating a “concern [that] a lot of kids would change the complexion and atmosphere of the club.” The majority of the children were African American and Hispanic.

Deusler and his wife Bernice have since issued an apology, for “a poor choice of words,” and the summer camp was offered its money back, stating the real concern had to do with safety and the size of the group of kids, and not racism. “We never meant to offend anyone,” Deusler told reporters. Still, the 65 children, who had been invited to the Valley Swim Club after losing access to pools closed in Philadelphia, were told they cannot return to Valley Swim Club. A neighboring club has offered their pool facility.

General Commission on Religion and Race Board member the Rev. Gregory Duncan (Virginia Conference) , says the situation is sad, but it serves to remind young people and old alike, that the vestiges of racism remain despite the election of an African American president.

“In some places, racism is just as active as it was in the 50s and 60s, said Duncan. It will not be enough for people of color to raise up their voices against situations like this. There can be no major change unless all of us together, including white people, raise our voices to say there can be no apology accepted for discrimination. We can’t do it by ourselves.”

By Jeneane Jones

Growing up my Uncle Roland had one of the few record shops in South San Francisco, Calif. Sometimes we worked there on weekends, but mostly we just looked forward to walking the cramped shop’s aisles, crammed with albums from every genre, leafing through posters of the latest hit makers, and absorbing the preferential treatment we received as my mother’s brother’s only nieces and nephews.

Michael Jackson, 1958-2009

This meant that as a teen I and my siblings had certain privileges not readily available to the other kids in the neighborhood. Once a hit record started playing on the local soul station we could count the hours before we’d be able to play the 45 on the living room stereo-compliments of being well loved by Uncle Roland. This is how I was introduced to Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five.

Following one of our visits to Roland’s Records, I remember family members standing around the kitchen one Saturday, listening to a prepubescent voice sweetly, and confidently declare his love for some PYT (years before THAT record came out. PYT means Pretty Young Thing). I said, to no one in particular, “What does that twelve year old boy know about L-O-V-E?” That of course, a question a girl three years his senior could certainly answer.

For the next five decades, Michael Jackson shared with me, and the world just what he did know about love. His love was unconditional. Despite difficult relations with his father, Michael loved family. Despite a fickle media which loved and in equal portions loathed him; Michael gave the media his best - in music, performance, and entertainment. He gave that gift to us with love. Unconditionally, without holding anything back.

During Tuesday’s memorial service at Staples Center in Los Angeles, family friend and civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton reminded us that Michael Jackson’s love of humanity gave us music that interconnected cultures, and brought together people from all ethnicities. His “We are the World” helped us relate to children starving in Africa as our own sisters and siblings, instead of faceless statistics reported on the nightly news. Rev. Sharpton said to the audience, “thank you Michael for eradicating barriers.”

As our country and the world moves the spotlight away from Michael and back to issues of health care, rising joblessness, ethnic fighting, nuclear war concerns, it seems we all have an opportunity to, as an old commercial put it, “be like Mike.” Commit ourselves to love unconditionally. Not to buy into to the people, or the issues that seek to reduce our attempts because of jealousy, hatred, pity, or diss-ease. I can commit to loving in everything I do; to communicate that love without regard for how it will be received. The concept can be traced to our scriptures, afterall. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase…For we are God’s fellow workers.” I can give my best, I can love my best, without regard for what someone else does. Michael did his thing, and I am expected to, must be committed to giving my best, in all things. I can trust and know that it is God who will make the best of what I do, despite my fears and limitations.

Michael Jackson had frailities like me, like all of us. He had demons, like all of us. His were laid bare for the country and the world to see, and to pick at, and to make bleed. But he did not let that stop him from planting seeds of love, with songs like, “I’m going to start with the man in the mirror.” With all his frailties, he never stopped planting new ideas, seeds of hope, and love for the world, for the world to reap.

Michael’s albums are still in the family stereo at our home in California. When we want to jam like the old days, we’ll get together and kick up the volume-singing out loud and loudly to lyrics that declare the ABC’s of love.

It takes courage to love. Michael taught us his ABC’s of what it takes to do it courageously.

by Jeneane Jones

This week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who claimed they were discriminated against when city officials threw out the results of a promotion exam that showed white candidates had outperformed minority candidates. The city argued that under the federal civil rights law, Title VII, employers are prohibited from actions that would have a “disparate impact” on specific racial groups. The firefighters argued however that they were victims of reverse discrimination, and sued the city.

The Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling 5 to 4 that the city improperly threw out the test results. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”

The General Commission on Religion and Race joins with civil rights leaders who are concerned the decision can have a negative impact on developing a diverse workforce with equal opportunity for all. “The Supreme Court ruling comes at a crucial point in our nation’s history when we have the opportunity to fully dismantle the systems that sustain racism,” says Erin Hawkins, General Secretary on Religion and Race for the United Methodist Church. “The decision threatens to reduce or cut back on the protections that have already been established to prevent discrimination in the workplace and we are concerned how the ruling may be applied to other areas.”

In addition to raising concerns about workplace discrimination, the ruling makes the conversation about race more difficult, preventing an important dialogue on the issue of white priviledge and the systematic conditions that perpetuate racism.

The case also brings Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonya Sotomayor back into the spotlight. As a federal appellate judge, she heard the case last year and sided with city officials. Critics of her nomination are using this case as more evidence of her racial bias, and a reason to block her confirmation to the Supreme Court. In a written statement, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee stated “Discrimination and racial preferences have no place in our courts, let alone on the highest court in the land.”

Sotomayor supporters applaud her decision to support city officials and are concerned this Supreme Court ruling represents a slippery slope. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who voted against the decision, expressed concern about the impact it will have on the nation. “Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today’s decision does to that objective is untold, ” she said.

We want to hear what you think.

President Barack Obama and Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Sonya Sotomayor

By Jeneane Jones

The nomination of Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as President Barack Obama’s historic choice to fill an upcoming Supreme Court vacancy once again offers the country a way to bring conversations about race front and center.

A recent New York Times commentary implied that Sotomayor’s nomination might mean President Barack Obama’s image, as poster-president for a post-racial society looks a bit smudged. It noted that while the president seems to routinely avoid self-identifying with his ethnicity, or issues immediately recognized as racial ethnic concerns, his choice of a Latina to replace retiring white Judge David Suter shows ethnic-identifying tendencies causing some to shudder, certain that the president’s racial agenda is showing.

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Bronx-born daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, will become the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and only the fourth woman to achieve that accomplishment.

In announcing his choice in a video announcement, President Obama noted Judge Sotomayer’s ivy league credentials, stating that “she would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in 100 years. Critics are focusing in on one of Judge’s Sotomayor’s most prominent cases involving an affirmative action claim and her comment suggesting that her Latina background helps shape her jurisprudence.

According to the New York Times, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party’s radio voice has argued that Judge Sotomayor should be declared a “reverse racist” for the comment and described Mr. Obama as “an angry man with a chip on his shoulder.” Such comments are a reminder of this country’s penchant for stripping away all vestiges culture for certain individuals, in order to make them more acceptable in the sight of the dominant culture.

As Mr. Limbaugh reaches back into the dusty relics of fear to repurpose the President as “The Angry Black Man” let us offer another possibility, based on a president who seeks to bring the “best of the best” into every structure of government, including our justice system. In corporate settings, CEO’s tend to agree that to solve a problem, it is best to bring as many divergent ideas to the table, to allow for the most creative solutions possible. As this country faces complex issues around immigration, a failed criminal justice system and an rise in hate group activity, why not welcome a President’s interest in bringing the best of the diversity that lives and works among us, and see their work as essential assets for the work of building the beloved community.

By John Coleman

A number of United Methodist advocates against racism view a new report citing a record number of hate groups across the United States as unsurprising evidence of continuing problems, but also some progress, in the nation’s struggle to end racial bigotry.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), based in Montgomery, Ala., says there are more suspected hate groups in the United States now than ever in recorded history. The SPLC annual survey revealed 926 active hate groups in 2008, a 4 percent increase from the year before and a 54 percent increase since 2000, when there were 602 such groups. That spike comes as no surprise to nearly a dozen United Methodist leaders queried by the denomination’s General Commission on Religion and Race (GCORR).

Most respondents see the disturbing trend as refuting dubious notions that the problem of racism has been solved in light of the 2008 election of the first African American U.S. president, Barack Obama. Indeed, researchers at SPLC concluded that Obama’s election likely contributed to the rise in racist hate groups and to a record number of assassination threats against him as president.

“No question there’s been a backlash after the election,” says Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project. “But it still says a lot for our country that we elected an African-American president.”

“Officials reported that Obama had received more threats than any other presidential candidate

in memory,” according to Intelligence Report, a quarterly SPLC magazine that monitors hate-group activity, “and several white supremacists were arrested for saying they would assassinate him or for allegedly plotting to do so.”

“Sadly, it does not surprise me,” wrote the Rev. Andy Oren, a Milwaukee pastor who chairs the Wisconsin Conference Commission on Religion and Race. “While the election of President Obama has been hailed by many (obviously a majority of voters!), it has fueled the flames of racism within many as well.”

The Rev. Taka Ishii, a Japanese-American pastor of an interracial congregation in Golden Hill, Conn., and a GCORR board member, sees a reactionary fear of the unknown at work among many who join hate groups. “We see this African American president in the media every day, and although a majority of us celebrate his election, some are afraid of his presidential power and believe something awful might happen to them. It is fear of the unknown because he is not white.”

Two other key factors seen as contributing to a growing number of hate groups are the failing U.S. economy and vocal opposition to the growing presence of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic/Latino. The immigration controversy has been an ongoing source of hate-group recruitment, but the election outcome and the worsening economy, including fear over loss of jobs and homes, bolstered those numbers in 2008 and no doubt, continue to do so.

SPLC found that the three largest racist hate groups are the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and Skinheads. They also determined that five states had the most hate groups:

• California: 84
• Texas: 66
• Florida: 56
• South Carolina: 45
• Georgia and New Jersey: 40 each

Alaska and Hawaii had no reported hate groups. New Mexico, North Dakota and Maine had only one.

To read full version of this story visit General Commision on Religion and Race.

Today, Saturday March 21, is anti-Racism Day (formally titled International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) and we would like to celebrate this day with the start of our new blog. We welcome you to visit us in our corner of the blogosphere, and tell us what you think about our blog and common cause: to end racism and create a more inclusive, beloved community of racial justice and reconciliation.

So come celebrate Anti-Racism Day and please keep coming back. Read and comment on our weekly posts, beginning with new articles, questions and reflections on racial profiling. Join the conversation and help us  keep it going. Tell us what you are doing, or want to do, to overcome racism in your life, your home, workplace, school, organization, and community.

And remember, we all need to make everyday Anti-Racism Day.

Read the following information to learn about this special day, originated by the United Nations.

In 1996, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed March 21 to be the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Resolution 2142) and called upon world leaders to increase efforts to eliminate all forms of racial intolerance and discrimination.
The day was chosen to remember the deaths of nearly 70 people killed by police in 1960 during a peaceful demonstration against racist apartheid in Sharpeville, South Africa. That tragedy of brutal injustice has long been used as a rallying cry by anti-racist organizations worldwide.

Racist practices hurt their victims, but they also limit the promise of entire societies where they are tolerated,” wrote United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his 2007 observance message.  “They prevent individuals from realizing their potential and stop them from contributing fully to national progress.