April 2, 2017

Rep. McEachin Requests Federal Investigation into High Suspension Rates for African-American and Disabled Students
By Holly Rodriguez

Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.)

 
Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Richmond Free Press

RICHMOND, Va. (TriceEdneyWire.com) - Congressman A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) has asked the U.S. Department of Education to investigate the disproportionately high suspension rates for African-American students and students with disabilities in his district.

His request, made in a March 26 letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, seeks a prompt review by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

It also comes on the heels of a complaint filed in August with the Office for Civil Rights by the Richmond Branch NAACP claiming African-American students, particularly those with disabilities, are unfairly punished in Richmond Public Schools.

So far, there has been no response from the federal office.

“Unfair, unwarranted disparities in student treatment are completely unacceptable; the consequences for affected students are deeply harmful and, potentially, extremely long-lasting,” Rep. McEachin stated in his letter to DeVos. “As you know, the federal government has a unique ability, and a correspondingly great responsibility, to help correct such injustices.

“Accordingly, I write to request that the Office for Civil Rights … investigate all documented disparities in the ways public schools in Virginia’s Fourth Congressional District treat their students.”

The district, which runs from Richmond to Chesapeake, also includes Henrico, Chesterfield and Petersburg, Va.

In a phone interview with the Free Press, Rep. McEachin said his office made repeated requests to Henrico County Public Schools officials to provide reasons for the steady rise in the number of African-American students, some with disabilities, who are disciplined with suspensions and expulsions at a disproportionately higher number than non-African-American students.

“We tried to be proactive,” he said. “And despite inquiry after inquiry after inquiry, (HCPS) never provided an explanation for the continued rise or a plan of action to remedy this problem.”

As the son of a special education teacher, Rep. McEachin said his knowledge and work on disparities in education for African-American students with special needs goes back to the beginning of his political career in the Virginia General Assembly in the late 1990s.

“Unfortunately, the situation in many ways has worsened rather than improved,” he stated in his letter.

Data from reports by the Legal Aid Justice Center and the Virginia Department of Education bear that out.

In a review done at the request of Richmond schools Superintendent Dana T. Bedden of data collected from fall 2013 to spring 2016, the Virginia Department of Education found that city students with special needs were suspended or expelled at a rate 2.5 times that of their non-disabled peers.

Separately, data filed with the Richmond NAACP’s complaint indicated that while African-American students comprised 76 percent of RPS’ total student population in the 2014-15 school year, 93 percent of short-term suspensions, 98 percent of long-term suspensions and 97 percent of expulsions involved African-American students.

Additionally, the Legal Aid Justice Center’s report shows that African-American students with disabilities in Henrico County were 6.7 times more likely to be disciplined with suspensions of 10 days or more. In Chesterfield, African-American students with disabilities are nearly four times more likely to be given long-term suspension that other students with disabilities.

“I am not in the mood to play racquetball,” McEachin said. “I need the federal government to come in and tell us what we need to do to clean up our act.”

Dr. Bedden said Wednesday that RPS is working with the Virginia Department of Education to develop a corrective action plan that includes professional development for teachers and improved services for students.

“We need to do better, and we recognize that,” he said. “That was why we requested analysis from the VDOE. But we also realize that we didn’t get here overnight, and we are not going to get out of this overnight.”

Bedden said some initiatives in place “are centered around cultural competence, dynamic multiple assessment and improving special instruction, while monitoring, to hold our students and staff accountable.”

While the problem may be complex, J.J. Minor, president of the Richmond Branch NAACP, said the solution is quite simple.

“The solution is a red sign with four letters — STOP. Stop discriminating against children with disabilities and African-American students because, while we have issues going on, there have got to be better alternatives,” he said.

Minor said he stands behind Rep. McEachin’s call for an investigation and hopes the data will be made available to the public. By exposing the disparities, he said, the school boards within the 4th Congressional District will be held accountable and called upon to design ways to fix the problems.

“We’re going to be looking into this as well to help our children any way we can,” he said.

Minor also suggested that a board or committee be created specifically to investigate and monitor incidents across the state.

April 2, 2017

He Wanted to Murder a Black Man and He Did

April 3, 2017

Time for Congress to Restore $6 Billion in HUD Funding
By Charlene Crowell

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - From youth yearning for the time to have their own place, to older Americans hoping to age in place, the need to have a home is a shared concern of consumers of all ages and locales. It’s where children are raised and memorable moments dwell. It’s also where many people rest, reflect, and shut out the worries of the day.

Right now, the future of our country’s commitment to housing is in jeopardy. In the recently-released White House Budget Blueprint, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will not resemble its former self. While some programs are proposed to become smaller, others are identified for extinction. Fortunately, while the President proposes a budget, Congress must hold hearings that offer opportunities to amend what some would deem indefensible.

The irony is that so many HUD programs and services that have enjoyed longstanding, broad and bi-partisan support across the country are among those proposed to end.

For example, since 1974, HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program has provided local and state officials the flexibility to fund local priorities for services, projects and partnerships. Whether the need was affordable housing, blight removal, community supportive services or a way to leverage capital in redevelopment projects, local concerns have guided how to make the best use of federal funds.

According to the White House Budget Blueprint, CDBG would absorb $3 billion of HUD’s proposed $6.2 billion agency cut. Reactions from municipal leaders and organizations was swift.

“From CDBG block grants, to Community-Oriented Policing Services, the programs targeted for cuts provide support for millions of working Americans and help cities invest in public-good projects like police stations, food banks and domestic violence shelters,” said Matt Zone, a Cleveland city councilmember and president of the National League of Cities (NCL), an organization that advocates for 19,000 cities, towns, and villages. “These unprecedented cuts would be devastating to all our nation’s cities – with the worst impacts felt in small towns and rural communities.”

“In housing, the proposed budget would end some of HUD’s most successful programs that help underserved communities including: Community Development Block Grants, the HOME Investment Partnerships, and Choice Neighborhoods,” noted Yana Miles, a policy counsel with the Center for Responsible Lending.

Two of the HUD programs that Miles cites are the focus of another proposed $1.1 billion in cuts: Choice Neighborhoods and the HOME Investment partnerships program.

The Choice Neighborhoods program provides funding and technical assistance to support local community efforts to improve struggling neighborhoods dotted with distressed public or HUD-assisted housing.  Like CDBG, eligibility is formula-based and requires a formal revitalization strategy or Transformational Plan.

This past December, HUD announced that from 34 competitive applications, five cities were selected to receive grants totaling $132 million: Boston, Camden, Denver, Louisville, and St. Louis. An estimated 1,853 units of severely distressed public housing will be replaced by nearly 3,700 new mixed-income, mixed-use housing units as part of an overall effort to revitalize neighborhoods

For every $1 in Choice Neighborhoods funding, awardees and their partners typically leverage for their projects an additional $5 in public and private funding. Together, the five cities are expected to leverage $636 million through other public/private sources and expect to stimulate another $3.3 billion indirectly to magnify their impact.

The HOME Investment Partnerships program focuses exclusively on creating affordable housing opportunities for low-income families. Until now, it has also been the single largest block grant dedicated to expanding this housing sector. Formula grants for states and local communities are often awarded in partnership with local nonprofit organizations to build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for either rent or homeownership.

For the nation’s 1.2 million families who live in public housing, the proposed budget blueprint will take $1.3 million from facility improvements, and another $600 million in operational costs.

These and other severe funding cuts proposed are the exact opposite of what Dr. Carson testified to during his confirmation hearings. On January 12 before the Senate’s Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, he said, “[I]t’s difficult for a child to learn at school if he or she doesn’t have an adequate place to live. In these situations, government can and should help. However, I believe we need to ensure that the help we provide families is efficient and effective.”

By his own admission, Secretary Carson has never worked in government before. Now as the head of a key cabinet agency, he and his senior staff would be well-served by learning which programs work well and should be preserved from heavy-handed budget cuts.

Since post-World War II, FHA-backed mortgage loans have provided funding for millions of Americans. With down payments as low as 3.5 percent, families who cannot afford a large down payment for a conventional loan, can make that important transition from renter to homeowner.  In recent years, FHA-backed loans are the most used by Black and Latino consumers.

HUD’s history of service has many more examples of how modest public investments have and can continue to leverage larger private funds. The programs that fostered this success deserve to be supported and funded at levels that will continue to benefit the nation.

###

Charlene Crowell is communications deputy director for the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

March 28, 2017

Omarosa Shocks, Angers Some NNPA Publishers as She Abruptly Leaves ‘Black Press Week’ Breakfast

Chairman calls meeting a ‘lost opportunity for the president’ and ‘waste of time’ for NNPA

By Hazel Trice Edney

Trump aide Omarosa Manigault listens to question from reporter Hazel Trice Edney. Photo: Shevry Lassiter

NNPA President Ben Chavis discusses prospective interview with Manigault during heated exchange. PHOTO: Shevry Lassiter

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – Omarosa Manigault, President Donald Trump’s director of communications for public liaison, walked out of a breakfast meeting she had requested to attend, hosted by the National Newspaper Publishers Association last week after disputing the accuracy of a story written by this reporter in January.

The sudden move by the minister and reality star clearly shocked NNPA members and their guests in the March 23 meeting; especially since Manigault had called the chair of the historic group the night before and “asked to attend”, according to NNPA Chair Denise Rolark Barnes. Plus, during opening remarks, Manigault had praised Black journalists for historically asking “the tough questions”.

Manigault became agitated after this reporter asked a question following up on a story published under her byline for the Trice Edney News Wire Jan. 8. The story quoted civil rights lawyer Barbara Arnwine as stating that Manigault promised the “first interview” with Trump to NNPA President Benjamin Chavis during a Jan. 4 Trump transition team meeting with Black leaders.

Manigault doesn’t dispute having promised the interview. However, she was incensed because the story said she promised Chavis “the first” interview.

In context, the Jan. 8 story reports:

‘“Manigault’s promise of the interview was disclosed after a representative of the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) stressed the importance of Black reporters interfacing with the president. Both Chavis and NABJ representatives participated in the closed door meeting held Jan. 4 at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in North West DC.

‘“When NABJ said we need to make sure that somebody Black interviews the President first, [Omarosa] said, ‘Oh no.  Ben Chavis and I have already spoken and he’s going to be the first interview,’” recounted Arnwine, president/CEO of the Transformative Justice Coalition, in an interview. Arnwine said Chavis then “acknowledged that that was correct - that they had already been in touch with him about it.”’

Hearing of Manigault’s denial this week, Arnwine seemed puzzled.  “It was to me a highlight. I had hoped that it really meant that African-American journalists were being repositioned into a higher priority for the incoming administration,” she said. “And I am surprised that this representation is unfortunately being dropped or not followed through. I was in the room and it was not said once. It was said twice.”

It is not clear whether the Trump staff made a recording of the meeting since it was off the record. Since the meeting, some have speculated that perhaps Manigault meant Chavis would be the first Black Press representative to interview Trump rather than the first journalist.

After seeing one White media reporter after another interview the President, this reporter, a former NNPA editor-in-chief invited to the breakfast by Barnes, followed up on the Jan. 8 story:

The first question pertains to “the promise that Ben Chavis would get the first interview with the president; then I have another question,” this reporter said after being acknowledged by Manigault.

Manigault strongly responded, “Ben Chavis was never promised the first interview. He was promised an interview, but not the first. And I was very surprised because we’ve always had a great working relationship, Hazel, that you wrote such a dishonest story about a closed off the record meeting that I invited NNPA to to make sure that we had a great relationship, that we started early. I was really surprised that you made that a press story because that was inaccurate. And moreover, you weren’t in the room.”

The publishers were in Washington observing NNPA's annual Black Press Week, this year celebrating the 190th anniversary of the Black Press. The exchange, during the breakfast meeting at the Dupont Circle Hotel, quickly went downhill with both professionals clearly agitated.

“It was not inaccurate, and I have my sources right here. The question is when is the interview going to take place? That’s the question,” this reporter insisted.

Manigault responded, “We’ve been working for months because we have that kind of relationship…We had been working very closely to make sure that NNPA was on the front row and at the forefront of what happened. Your article did more damage to NNPA and their relationship with the White House because it’s not just me. So you attack me, they circle the wagons. So you can keep attacking me and they will continue to circle the wagons, but that does not advance the agenda of what NNPA is doing,” Manigault said. “I’m going to continue to work with Ben Chavis, who I adore, to make sure that we do what we said we were going to do. Interestingly enough, we were just talking about this privately over here. And so, if you want to make another headline or do another story about it, I think that is really not professional journalism.”

This reporter responded, “It’s professional journalism.”

Actually, the Jan. 8 story had in no wise attacked Manigault. In fact it quoted Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church as calling her a “great leader” and NAACP Vice President Hilary Shelton as saying, “I have a lot of respect for her.”

Chavis, in the Jan. 8 story, had made it clear that the meeting was off the record for him and the other dozens of organizational leaders in the room Jan. 4, including several non-working journalists.

This reporter and CNN’s Betsy Klein staked out the Jan. 4 meeting for more than three hours standing in winter weather outside the building on the sidewalk. Some organizational leaders spoke guardedly after the meeting that day while most, including Chavis, declined comment.

Neither Manigault – nor any of her colleagues – would speak on the record Jan. 4 and this reporter has not been able to reach Manigault for comment since. Also, until the March 23 breakfast, Manigault had said nothing to this reporter about disagreeing with the article.

At one point during the breakfast back and forth, Manigault turned to Chavis saying, “He’s right here. The source is here.”

This reporter said she would not divulge her sources; then asked Chavis to recount what he had “told me”. He repeated, “What I told you was it was an off the record meeting.”

This reporter’s question was not isolated as it pertained to Black Press access.

Stacy Brown, a reporter for the Washington Informer and NNPA contributor had actually asked the first question at the breakfast, noting Manigault’s opening words about the importance of Black Press coverage. “Just as important for us is access,” Brown stated, “What kind of access can we expect from this administration? When I say we, I’m talking about the Black Press,” Brown asked.

Manigault responded, “I know that [White House Press Secretary] Sean Spicer and the rest of the press team are working to make sure that the NNPA gets access so I think it is important that they stay engaged.”

Referring to President Trump’s March 22 meeting with Congressional Black Caucus leaders, Manigault said she believed the White House “had a historical number of African-American journalists covering it and given access to that particular event.”

But, Washington Informer photographer Shevry Lassiter, quickly responded, “Except us.” Lassiter said she was told that too many people had signed up for coverage, giving her the perception that “We were too late.”

When Manigault responded, “Your paper work has got to be right,” Lassiter clarified, “It was right. We got notice and sent it in; then couldn’t get in. She said they had too many,” Lassiter said, referring to a staffer.

“Are you bashing my young staffer?” Manigault asked. She then stated repeatedly, “I’m not going to let you do that. I’m not going to let you do that. I’m not going to let you do that.”

That exchange was followed by this reporter’s question and the brouhaha that followed. When this reporter asked to move on to the second question, Manigault abruptly walked out with staffers in tow a little more than 10 minutes after arriving.

Publishers were aghast.

“Did she just walk out? Did she leave?” someone in the audience said quietly.

“How is she going to come in here and just walk out?” asked Chicago Crusader Publisher Dorothy Leavell, standing. The former NNPA president and NABJ Hall of Fame Inductee said, “And any other Black Press person ought to be insulted by what she did,” said Leavell. “It was totally disrespectful.”

A man’s voice called out, “We are insulted!”

“That’s how the Trump people act. This is Trumpism! This is Trumpism!” said another publisher.

The criticism was not just aimed at Manigault. Some in the room said this reporter was as much at fault in the way the question was posed.

GOP political commentator and consultant Paris Dennard, also present at the breakfast meeting, said in an interview that the question was adversarial.

“With all due respect to you Hazel, it came off as a bit confrontational,” Dennard said. “It came off as being a little bit on the attack.”

Dennard continued, “What I know is it was a priority for Omarosa to be here…I know that it was not her intention to come in and leave. No one gets up, comes to NNPA with people that she’s known and worked with to make a scene and leave. That wasn’t her intention.”

Barnes had given Manigault a glowing introduction, calling her a “top strategist” who helped get Trump elected. “There’s so many things that I could say about Rev. Omarosa Manigault and I just want to say that some of us really do consider her a great friend. I know that she’s a supporter of NNPA. And that is why she asked to come to speak to us this morning.”

Chavis sought to calm the group after Manigault walked out, stating that he believes the interview is still on.

“Let’s collect ourselves,” he said. “It’s in our interest to have an interview with the President of the United States. And that’s what we’re trying to accomplish and I believe we will accomplish…If Omarosa can help us facilitate that engagement, I think it’s in our interest. But as journalists, I know you have to ask your questions.”

Barnes, clarifying that she was speaking momentarily as publisher of the Washington Informer instead of NNPA chair, concluded, “That was totally unnecessarily. She doesn’t start a conversation saying ask the ‘tough questions’ and then run away from the tough questions…And so we’re going to have to bypass her. She’s not the only person in the White House if we want to deal with the White House.”

Later, in an interview speaking as NNPA chair, Barnes said: “To me, I almost feel as if we were baited…I expected a different presentation from her, which would have led us into asking a different set of questions about the issues she was going to raise and not get into this personal confrontation with a journalist. So, I’m disappointed that she didn’t – in my opinion - come in and speak on the President’s and on the administrations’ behalf about things that are important to this administration that the Black Press should be focusing on. That didn’t happen. It was a lost opportunity for the President. And it was definitely a waste of time for NNPA.”