banner2e top

Historic Capital Press Club Elects New President, Leadership Team

cpcteamphoto2

PHOTO CAPTION: Capital Press Club leadership team is pictured, left to right, President Emeritus Derrick Kenny; First Vice President Robyn Wilkes; President Hazel Trice Edney; and Second Vice President Sherrie Edwards-Lassister. Not pictured are Treasurer Joan Davion and Immediate Past President Nyree Wright. PHOTO: Roy Lewis/CPC

 

Historic Capital Press Club Elects New President, Leadership Team

 

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Award-winning journalist Hazel Trice Edney, editor-in-chief of the Trice Edney News Wire and President/CEO of Trice Edney Communications LLC, has been elected president of the historic Capital Press Club.

 

Edney, a veteran reporter, who is also former editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service and BlackPressUSA.com, was elected by the CPC board April 19. She took office May 1.

 

"I nominated Hazel Trice Edney because she is able to be the proactive advocate for communications professionals of color needed in the DC area," says CPC President Emeritus Derrick Kenny, owner of Bold American Marketing. "She boasts a stellar track record as a seasoned journalist and has earned numerous awards. In addition, she has the proven ability to manage a non-profit communications organization, educate young communications professionals, motivate volunteers and establish partnerships with valued corporations and newsmakers. She is ideal for this office. She has the vision, strength, integrity and faith that are needed to move CPC forward into the future."

 

The new leadership team also includes First Vice President Robyn Wilkes, Director of Communications, Greater Washington Urban League; Second Vice President Sherrie Edwards-Lassister, Senior Account Manager, Campbell and Company; Treasurer Joan Davion of The Davion Group; Immediate Past President Nyree Wright, Senior Vice President, MSLGROUP Americas; and Kenny, who is also Digital Media Manager, Montgomery CountyOffice of Cable and Broadband Services.

 

"Newsrooms across America are shrinking. That means the numbers of Black journalists in the newsrooms are diminishing while the numbers of injustices facing African-Americans are increasing," said Edney, who has reported for the Black Press for more than 25 years. "In addition to the destructive forces of racism in our communities, we also see its economic impact on our media outlets. This climate reveals that this organization of Black media professionals is just as necessary and just as relevant as ever. The Capital Press Club will not shrink from the front lines in the war for justice and equality for others as well as ourselves."

It was 68 years ago - in 1944 - that the Capital Press Club was established as the National Press Club refused to accept African-American members. As it approaches its 70th Anniversary in two years, The Capital Press Club exists to unite communications professionals of color through professional development, networking, new business opportunities and entrepreneurship, and issues advocacy. Its diverse membership of journalists, marketing, public relations, advertising and communications professionals from all disciplines is dedicated to maintaining superior standards of ethics, promoting cooperative business competition, and addressing the recruitment and retention of qualified minority communications professionals.

As Election Approaches, Radical Anti-government Groups Skyrocket

As Election Approaches, Radical Anti-government Groups Skyrocket

Part One of a Two-Part Special Report

By Mark Potok

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Intelligence Reporthate groups 2000-2011

patriot and militia groups 1995-2011

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The radical right grew explosively in 2011, the third such dramatic expansion in as many years. The growth was fueled by superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories, the changing racial makeup of America, and the prospect of four more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.

The number of hate groups counted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) last year reached a total of 1,018, up slightly from the year before but continuing a trend of significant growth that is now more than a decade old. The truly stunning growth came in the antigovernment “Patriot” movement — conspiracy-minded groups that see the federal government as their primary enemy.

The Patriot movement first emerged in 1994, a response to what was seen as violent government repression of dissident groups at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and near Waco, Texas, in 1993, along with anger at gun control and the Democratic Clinton Administration in general. It peaked in 1996, a year after the Oklahoma City bombing, with 858 groups, then began to fade. By the turn of the millennium, the Patriot movement was reduced to fewer than 150 relatively inactive groups.

But the movement came roaring back beginning in late 2008, just as the economy went south with the subprime collapse and, more importantly, as Barack Obama appeared on the political scene as the Democratic nominee and, ultimately, the president-elect. Even as most of the nation cheered the election of the first black president that November, an angry backlash developed that included several plots to murder Obama. Many Americans, infused with populist fury over bank and auto bailouts and a feeling that they had lost their country, joined Patriot groups.

The swelling of the Patriot movement since that time has been astounding. From 149 groups in 2008, the number of Patriot organizations skyrocketed to 512 in 2009, shot up again in 2010 to 824, and then, last year, jumped to 1,274. That works out to a staggering 755 percent growth in the three years ending last Dec. 31. Last year’s total was more than 400 groups higher than the prior all-time high, in 1996.

Meanwhile, the SPLC counted 1,018 groups operating in the United States last year, up from 1,002 in 2010. That was the latest in a string of annual increases going all the way back to 2000, when there were 602 hate groups. The long-running rise seemed for most of that time to be a product of hate groups’ very successful exploitation of the issue of non-white immigration. Obama’s election and the crashing economy have played a key role in the last three years.

At the same time, a third strand of the radical right — what the SPLC designates as “nativist extremist” groups, meaning organizations that go beyond normal political activism to harass individuals they suspect of being undocumented immigrants — shrank radically. After five years of sustained growth, these vigilante groups plummeted last year to 184 from 319 in 2010, a one-year drop of 42 percent. The decrease appears to be a product of bad press, internecine quarrels, and the co-optation of the immigration issue by state legislatures around the country passing draconian nativist laws like Alabama’s H.B. 56.

Patriot and Militia Groups 1995-2011

In some ways, it was surprising that the same deflating effect did not hit the Patriot and hate groups, as 2011 also saw many politicians and other public figures attacking Muslims, LGBT people and other minorities, effectively taking on some of the issues dear to the radical right. But there was enough of a far-right wind to fill the sails of politicians, hate and Patriot groups, and Tea Parties alike, very likely the result, in large part, of a view of Obama as a dire threat to the country. (An IBOPE Zogby survey last year found that 30% of all voters did not believe that Obama was born in the U.S. even after the release of his long-form birth certificate.)

It’s hard to know how all this will play out, given the unsettled nature of the presidential campaign and, in particular, the GOP primaries. The animus toward Obama and the government may be as much rooted in economic as racial anger.

In May 2011, a scholarly study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science found that white Americans believe that progress in race relations since the 1950s has come at their expense, with bias against whites more of a social problem in the last decade than bias against blacks. (This comes against the backdrop of the Census Bureau’s prediction that non-Hispanic whites will lose their majority, falling to under 50% of the population, by 2050.) But a Pew Research Center study this January suggested that income inequality may be even more important. The survey found that some two-thirds of Americans believe that there are “strong conflicts” between rich and poor, about a 50% increase since a 2009 survey. That sensibility also was apparent in both the Tea Parties and the Occupy Wall Street movement.

And so it is with many extremist groups.

August Kreis, a longtime neo-Nazi who in January stepped down as leader of an Aryan Nations faction after being convicted of fraud related to his veteran’s benefits, told the Intelligence Report that it was all about income inequality.

“The worse the economy gets, the more the groups are going to grow,” he said. “White people are arming themselves — and black people, too. I believe eventually it’s going to come down to civil war. It’s going to be an economic war, the rich versus the poor. We’re being divided along economic lines.”

At the most macro level, the growth of right-wing radicalization — a phenomenon that is plainly evident in Europe as well as the United States — is related directly to political and, especially, economic globalization. As the nation-state has diminished in importance since the end of the Cold War, Western economies have opened up, not only to capital from abroad but also to labor. In concrete terms, that has meant major immigration flows, many of which have drastically altered the demographics of formerly fairly homogenous populations. In Europe and the U.S. both, white-dominated countries have become less so. At the same time, globalization has caused major economic dislocations in the West as certain industries and kinds of production move to less developed countries.

The sorry U.S. economy also may offer the best single explanation for the huge expansion in the so-called “sovereign citizens” movement, a subset of the larger Patriot movement. Although the size of the sovereign movement is hard to gauge — sovereigns tend to operate as individuals rather than in organized groups — law enforcement officials around the country have reported encounters. The SPLC, for its part, has estimated that some 300,000 Americans are involved.

Sovereign citizens whose ideology first developed in white supremacist groups, generally do not believe they are obliged to pay federal taxes, follow most laws, or comply with requirements for driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations. They also typically believe that filing certain documents can relieve them of debt or bankruptcy proceedings, or even bring them millions of dollars from secret government accounts. The claims are bogus, of course, but they have attracted thousands into the movement at a time of real financial hardship.


Hate Groups 2000-2011

Sovereigns’ focus on their supposed right to drive “upon the land” without any regulation has brought them into regular conflict with law enforcement officials. That was seen most dramatically on May 20, 2010, when a father-son team of sovereigns murdered two West Memphis, Ark., officers during a traffic stop, but officials have had other encounters. Just this January, a sovereign accused of trying to shoot a police officer during a traffic stop in Hurst, Texas, went on trial.

“There is a contingent of malcontents out there who are exceedingly hostile,” Rich Roberts, a spokesman for the International Union of Police Associations, told the Christian Science Monitor for an article last year on the rising number of shooting deaths of police officers. “It’s a really complex phenomenon in that it’s a whole combination of factors where on one end you’ve got people like sovereign citizens, who are actually deliberately targeting police, as opposed to your garden-variety bad guy who’s carrying a gun and will not hesitate to use it.”

The FBI agrees. Last September, it issued a bulletin to law enforcement officials entitled “Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement” that describes the movement as “domestic terrorist.” The bulletin notes that sovereigns have killed six law enforcement officers since 2000 and that Terry Nichols, convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing, was a sovereign.

The largest group of organized sovereigns, the Alabama-based Republic for the united States of America (RuSA), last year took a new step toward organizing a kind of government-in-waiting by adding a “Congress” with voting representatives in 49 states. The group says it is in the process of “reinhabiting” the government.

Although it can sound threatening, RuSA has not engaged in any known violence. But that’s not true of all other Patriot groups, two of which are alleged to have engendered major terrorist plots aimed at police and others last year.

In March 2011, Alaska Peacemakers Militia leader Schaeffer Cox and four followers were arrested on weapons and conspiracy charges related to an alleged plan to kill Alaska state troopers and a judge. A state court later ruled that hundreds of hours of secret recordings made by informants would not be admissible, leading to the freeing of one of Cox’s followers. But Cox and the other three still faced federal weapons charges and, this January, a superseding federal indictment again charged them with conspiracy to murder. In a related development, a woman who was the militia’s secretary was arrested trying to enter Canada when officials found a pistol and information about pipe bombs and the ricin toxin in her truck.

Then, last November, federal officials arrested four members of a Georgia militia. The four elderly men were accused of plotting to assassinate public officials, bomb federal buildings, and carry out mass murders in four U.S. cities by dispersing deadly ricin dust from the windows of speeding cars. Like Cox and his comrades, the Georgia men are to be tried this year.

One of the factors apparently driving the expansion of the radical right has been the spread of conspiracy theories and demonizing falsehoods. Tall tales about secret government concentration camps, for instance, have spread beyond Patriot groups into nativist organizations and others. Equally preposterous stories of plots to impose Islamic Shariah law and to “recruit” schoolchildren into homosexuality have been plugged around the country, often by well-known public figures. It seems clear that this kind of propaganda boosts membership in conspiracy-minded groups.

But what may end up affecting the American radical right more than any other single factor in the coming year is President Obama and the presidential election campaign. If the primaries generate more attacks on the nation’s first black president based on complete falsehoods — that he is a secret Muslim, a Kenyan, a radical leftist bent on destroying America — it’s likely that the poison will spread. And if he wins reelection next fall, the reaction of the extreme right, already angry and on the defensive as the white population diminishes, could be truly frightening.

Next Week: The Strategies of America's Hate Groups

Mark Potok is senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, publisher of The Intelligence Report.

Obama’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage Divides Black Leaders

May 13, 2012

Obama’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage Divides Black Leaders
Most Say President’s Position Won’t Hurt Him With Black Voters

By Hazel Trice Edney

official_portrait_of_barack_obama

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – President Barack Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian couples has sparked heated debate among Black leaders. Though some predict his position will not erode Black support for him at the polls, others say they're not so sure.

“We’d make a mistake to be a one-issue people. That would be a tremendous mistake,” said the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., who agrees with President Obama on the issue. “Equality is indivisible. We live under the law whether it’s equality of races or gender or religion, we live under the law.”

In an interview, Jackson ticked off a list of issues that he believes override same-sex marriage in terms of importance and interest to African-American voters, including the job that Obama has done with the economy.

“We were losing 800,000 jobs a month; now it’s running up; the auto industry was gone, now it’s born again; the Ledbetter act - equal pay for women - was signed into law; he raised Pell grants for students and fought to lower tuition,” Jackson said. Jackson added the President’s sensitivity toward racial injustices, including his “positive statement to Trayvon Martin’s family.”

But, some Black leaders find themselves doing damage control this week.

“I was absolutely in shock because I couldn’t understand the timing of it and why it was necessary. It wasn’t a national issue or agenda he needed to respond to. I don’t know why he used his energy in this direction,” said the Rev. Dr. Jamal Bryant, pastor of the Baltimore-based Empowerment Temple with a membership of more than 5,000. Bryant says he adamantly disagrees with the President’s position and will hold a national phone conference this week to discuss the matter with leading Black clergy from several denominations.

“I’m a member of the AME church. We have in our book of discipline that same sex union same sex marriages are not welcomed in our denomination. And any pastor that performs a same sex wedding [could be considered] for suspension and the book of discipline also says that you can’t even hold a ceremony in your church,” he said.

About 10 years ago, the Council of Bishops of the predominately Black AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church, which boasts 2.3 million members and 7,000 congregations, reaffirmed that the official position of the AME Church is “not in favor of the ordination of openly gay persons to the ranks of the clergy of our church,” stated Bishop Richard Franklin Norris in a letter that he ordered read in every AME church.

Despite his disagreement with the President’s position, Bryant, who is leading an “Empowerment Movement” to register millions of Black voters, says he hopes the new controversy does not hurt him politically and agrees with Jackson that there is so much else to consider.

“I hope that the African-American community is larger than just one issue. I will say that it will have an impact and preachers are very much split heading into Sunday and how they will address it because we’ve covered and prayed for him the last four years, but this is something that is counter-culture to the general Black church traditions,” he said.

Meanwhile, an Open Letter from civil rights leaders and clergy was circulated to the media by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has long been in support of the President’s position.

The letter, circulated by e-mail, encouraged “a civil debate on this issue and to encourage all individuals to keep all issues of import to our communities in mind in the days ahead.”

It continues, “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ As leaders in today's Civil Rights Movement, we stand behind the President Obama's belief that same sex couples should be allowed to join in civil marriages. We also affirm that individuals may hold different views on this issue but still work together towards our common goals: fair housing and equitable education, affordable health care and eradicating poverty, all issues of deep and abiding concern for our communities. President Obama stated his view that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. This is a view that we concur with, because as civil rights leaders we cannot fight to gain rights for some and not for all.”

The letter was signed by Sharpton; Melanie Campbell, president/CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights icon and president-emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Julian Bond, chairman-emeritus of the NAACP.

The controversy came front and center last week after Vice President Joseph Biden publically stated that he was in support of same sex marriage and that the president’s position was ‘evolving’ - a move that turned the media spotlight and pressure on President Obama to make his position clear. He had previously supported civil unions for gay couples.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the President made it clear:

“At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said. He added that he had not said anything because he did not want to nationalize the issue and the decision should be made by states.

“And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.”

The Sharpton letter underscored that the President’s position was personal and not meant to influence neither federal laws nor churches which are constitutionally protected by separation of church and state.

“The President made clear that his support is for civil marriage for same-sex couples, and he is fully committed to protecting the ability of religious institutions to make their own decisions about their own sacraments,” the letter states.

The political damage to the Obama re-election bid remains to be seen.

Howard University Political Scientist Wilmer Leon III says he believes there will be little backlash among Black voters.

“The repercussions will be negligible,” he said in an interview. “Basically, I don’t think he’s going to lose any significant support within the community even though there are certain ministers who are homophobic; anti-gay marriage, who will speak out heavily against this. But, at the end of the day, those who are going to support the president will continue to support the president.”

The key to the Obama position, he said, is that it does not affect the church.

“I was raised Catholic. I am a Catholic and I was taught to believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Personally, I disagree with same sex marriage. But, I am not arrogant enough to believe that my perspective should control other people’s lives. And that to me is the problem with those who are so adamantly opposed to and get so exercised about same sex marriage,” Leon said.

Despite the clear separation of church and state, some clergy believe the President’s statement will be hurtful to the cause of the Gospel because of the power of his position.

Rev. Anthony Evans, president/CEO of the National Black Church Initiative, felt so strongly that he got out in front of the President, issuing a press release shortly after Biden’s statement.

“The National Black Church Initiative calls on President Obama to Declare his Support for Jobs for Black People Not for Gay Marriage,” said the headline on the May 8 news release. The President made his statement on May 9.

“The National Black Church Initiative, a faith-based coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African Americans, is sad to see that the Obama administration is sending the gay marriage political trail balloon up again,” Evans said in the statement. “We love our gay brother and sisters, but the black church will never support gay marriage. It is and it always will be against the ethics and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Evans continues, "The current move by the Obama administration on same-sex marriage will cost him support from the Black church. The administration knows all too well that even though we love the President, the black church will never support same sex marriage.”

Evans predicts the President could “lose 15 to 25 percent of the Black Christian vote. The Black Church will never support anyone or any issues that go against our personal faith and belief in God, Christ Jesus and the Bible.”

The controversy is red meat for right wing Christian conservatives who are already opposed to the Obama presidency. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, stated in a weekend commencement speech at conservative Liberty University that he believes marriage is between "one woman and one man."

President Obama, the nation’s first African-American president, received about 95 percent of Black voter support in his 2008 election. Rev. Jackson said he thinks reasonable Black voters will not be swayed from their support.

“You got to look at the box score,” Jackson said. “You look at the end totals and you look at the alternatives.”

Stand Your Ground Law Bites Blacks in the Butt by Zenitha Prince

Stand Your Ground Law Bites Blacks in the Butt

By Zenitha Prince

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspapers
standyourground
Courtesy Photo

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - For Blacks, either side of the controversial “stand your ground” laws has proven disproportionately punitive, as recently proven in the cases of Florida’s Trayvon Martin and Marissa Alexander, civil rights activists and legal and other observers say.

In the case of Martin, the 17-year-old, hoodie-wearing Black teen was gunned down by community patrolman George Zimmerman, who invoked the state’s “stand your ground” policy in his defense.

“In our racially convoluted society quite regularly the perceived threat factor increases if the perpetrator is African American,” said the NAACP’S Hilary Shelton, vice president of government affairs and Washington bureau chief. And that’s one of the reasons police initially let Zimmerman go, Shelton added. “There was this perception that somehow or the other there were reasons to fear. So when the police saw this 6-foot-3 kid on the ground, they believed everything Zimmerman told them was true.”

The case of 31-year-old Marissa Alexander presents a different, but equally disturbing side of the coin, however. A Florida judge recently denied her a retrial on the basis of the “Stand Your Ground” principle. The mother of three faces a 20-year mandatory sentence on an aggravated assault charge, after she fired a gun during a tussle with her abusive husband.

The conviction was based on an Aug. 1, 2010 incident, when Alexander said her husband, Rico Gray, went into a jealous rage after finding text messages to her ex-husband on her phone. "That's when he strangled me. He put his hands around my neck," Alexander told CNN in an April interview from Duval County Jail in Jacksonville, Fla.

Though she escaped his grip, Alexander said she ran to the garage, thinking to flee with her vehicle. But she forgot her key and the garage door was locked, so she grabbed her gun and went back into the house. Gray then threatened to kill her, Alexander added, so she fired her gun into the air thinking to scare him off. "I believe when he threatened to kill me, that's what he was absolutely going to do.

That's what he intended to do. Had I not discharged my weapon at that point, I would not be here."

Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have cost her three years in prison, saying that she acted in clear self-defense and should be fully acquitted. But Circuit Judge James Daniel denied her request for a new trial, saying that despite new evidence, it would be improper to reverse Circuit Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt's previous findings in the immunity hearing. "Maybe I would be agreeing to a new Stand Your Ground motion, which highlights some of the difficulties we are struggling with procedurally implementing this new law," Daniel said. "But ultimately the motion is denied."

In making her decision Senterfitt questioned why Alexander went back into the house if she was “in genuine fear for her life,” saying such action belied her claim of self-defense.

But activists and other observers see the judges’ rulings as evidence of racial disparity in the application of the self-defense laws.

"There's a double standard with ‘Stand Your Ground,’" said Isaiah Rumlin, president of the Jacksonville chapter of the NAACP, in a CNN article. "The law is applied differently between African-Americans and whites who are involved in these types of cases."

The blog Wonkette expressed its skepticism this way, comparing Alexander’s case to Zimmerman’s: “In Florida, as it turns out, being in ‘genuine fear of your life’ means that you’re white and your attacker is black, so clearly that was her (Alexander’s) first mistake. Also, if you really want to Stand Your Ground you have to call the police only to ignore their instructions anyway, so there’s that. And crucially, it doesn’t say anywhere if her husband was wearing a hoodie when he was threatening to beat her up, which we hear is a relevant aspect of whether or not black men are actually scary.”

The NAACP’s Shelton said the organization is still examining patterns in the application of “Stand Your Ground”—otherwise known as "Line In The Sand," "No Duty To Retreat" or the “Castle” doctrine—across the country. But, he added, even without a racial breakdown, statistics show that in the 24 states that have such laws there has been a 300 percent increase in so-called self-defense-related homicides. Such loss of life is enough to challenge this principle, he said.

“We’re convinced that ‘Stand Your Ground’ is a vigilante, get-out-of-jail free card,” he said and later added, “[The case of Marissa Alexander] clearly demonstrates at the very least the confusion of ‘Stand Your Ground’ with the adjudication of these cases being handled so differently. You have quite a lot of disparity.”

The NAACP’s campaign to annul “Stand Your Ground” is among mounting challenges to such laws, which gives immunity or allows a self-defense defense to someone who kills someone to protect their property or person.

For example, in Georgia the Rev. Markel Hutchins filed a civil rights lawsuit, charging that the law does not apply equally to African Americans. He says the law makes racism—presented as “reasonable fear”-- a legal defense.

“Fear is oftentimes based on one’s own bias,” he said in a GPB.com article, “so when you have public policy that, literally lends itself to people being able to commit crimes or shootings under the color of law, because they’re reasonably afraid, it makes a bad public policy and puts the constitutional rights of so many people around the country in jeopardy.”

Experts Discuss Illnesses in Poor Neighborhoods

May 5, 2012

Experts Discuss Illnesses in Poor Neighborhoods

Howard Health Symposium Use D.C.'s Ward 8 as Case in Point

By Odochi Ibe and ReDonah Anderson

fredrickawhitfield

Fredricka Whitfield

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Howard University News Service

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - If CNN Anchor Fredricka Whitfield had not been persistent about asking her doctors for help, she may not have been alive to speak at Howard University on Tuesday. A few years ago when she started feeling sick, she went to a doctor and they told her she was fine.

She was not convinced she told attendees of Howard’s 2012 Health Symposium, which brought health experts and advocates to the Blackburn Center to discuss the discrepancy of proper health care treatment, access and environmental education among underserved people of color in America.

She said she was gaining weight, feeling increasingly lethargic, when she went to the doctor he still said, “Everything’s okay.”

But everything was not okay she said, “I had to really become that monster patient and say ‘I’m demanding that more be done.’ I demanded that I get every test executed and every scan done.”

Equipped with insurance, access to healthcare and a desire for answers, Whitfield avoided a serious medical complication that could have led to further sickness or death. After all of her doctor’s visits and tests she was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor.

Many people in Washington D.C.'s Ward 8 share similar stories as Whitfield: they are burdened by unknown ailments, and unsure of how to cure them. However, with a poverty rate of 35 percent, many lack insurance and are unable to fight for a solution, according to the Urban Institute.

The speakers at the last discussion of the day were: Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Bradford Grant Ph.D, Professor Angel F. Clarens of the university’s architecture department, and research student Aarika Puckett presented their findings on how environmental issues play a key role in health inequalities in low-income neighborhoods.

“You’ve heard of ‘sick building syndrome’, blight and environmental conditions that cause health problems,” Grant said. “There are many conditions that we are exploring as it relates on how to produce a healthy sustainable environment for our activities for our health and lives.”

Sick building syndrome is describe as a situation in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be linked to time spent in a building, according to the EPA.

In 2006, Professor Clarens demonstrated the power that changing the “brick and mortar” environment people live in can affect their health. He assisted in revamping an apartment building in the Langston Lane area of Southeast, which had been declared a high crime area by the attorney general.

Partnering with a nonprofit organization he assisted in the development of site strategies such as creating a gated communities to increase the level of safety, a play ground and rental office to establish a presence in the neighborhood. They also added large bay windows and introduce color to the building so the residents units see up and down the street, which they thought would help community moral. Clarens said that it was important that the resident felt they had ownership in the community or they would not embrace and their new environment.

“The nonprofit has hired a full time social worker and she has made miracles a transformation she takes care of children makes sure they have a good breakfast, they go to school, come back to work and little by little over the last three years she’s changing little by little the culture that exists in the community. Then making all of these physical improvements worthwhile,” he said.

Following the presentation, Brian Smedley Ph.D, vice president and director of the Health Policy Institute of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, and Mohammed Akhter Ph.D, director of the DC Department of Health discussed the solutions needed to make district residents healthy.

One of their main concerns with health care involved finding solutions to health disparities, such as the scarcity of healthy foods in underprivileged neighborhoods, which cause unhealthy diets.

Akhter said that the Department of Health is pushing to change food deserts in low-income communities.

“We must help change the environments by taking the available park land that’s owned by the city to grow vegetables and fruits for the community,” Akhter said. Additionally, we have an agreement that is being pursued with the DC Public School system that guarantees great land be open to the community to start gardens.”

In an effort to stop unhealthy lifestyles during childhood, Akhter said when a child shows up with their parent to the doctor they should be given a prescription for their diet, exercise and direction to the nearest safe-walking area.

A concern that Akhter addressed was that generations of underprivileged people are isolated from current awareness of health care because of trepidation, which motivates ‘the need to connect’.

X