WSSN Stories

The Black Small Business Association of California (BSBA) sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom June 12. In it, the group criticized the state’s proposed allocation of $20 million in the 2020-21 budget to enforce AB 5.  

When the controversial labor law took effect in January, AB 5 reclassified millions of workers in California from independent contractors to W-2 employees.  

The letter, signed by the organization’s president Salena Pryor, argues that the state’s costly plan to enforce AB 5 would only exacerbate income inequality. 

“BSBA believes that at this time, when California is facing a massive $54 billion deficit and the state’s unemployment rate is 24 percent, it would be fiscally imprudent to spend $20 million on enforcement of a policy that has been detrimental to the livelihoods of Black small business owners,” the letter reads. 

The fight to amend or, for some, to overturn AB 5 has continued amid the COVID-19 pandemic and, now, the George Floyd protests. In the wake of worldwide efforts to call out systemic racism, Black business organizations are speaking out against the restrictions that AB 5 has placed on African American entrepreneurs in California. 

Many California Democrats, including the bill’s author Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), say they are open to making adjustments in the law as long as its core purpose, fighting against gig worker misclassification, is kept. Republican opponents, on the other hand, have called for suspending AB 5 altogether so independent contractors can work freely during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Gov. Newsom has not discussed whether or not he is in favor of making updates to AB 5 since he declared his support for it at a press conference in April. 

The California Black Chamber of Commerce (CBCC) and the Los Angeles Urban League both released statements June 9 criticizing the law. They point out that a disproportionate number of Black independent contractors and businesses have been negatively impacted by AB 5. 

The statement signed by Michael Lawson, President of the Los Angeles Urban League, read, “AB 5, the legislation introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez focuses solely on the employee side of the equation and ignored the impact that this legislation has on Black-owned businesses that have suffered through a history of redlining that allowed banks and other financial institutions to legally discriminate against Black-owned businesses, preventing them from gaining access to capital and credit.” 

Though there has been no official study of the impacts of AB 5 on Black owned business, the Center for Responsible Lending found that 95% of businesses owned by African Americans and other people of color were unlikely to receive aid from the Paycheck Protection Program  because of a lack of commercial banking relationships. That effort was a part of the federal government’s emergency response to the Coronavirus crisis.  

Both organizations’ statements also criticized a recent tweet by Gonzalez defending AB 5. Gonzales wrote, “Can you imagine if folks were arrested for wage theft? Or if police just shot them like they were looters?” 

“How dare you use the shooting of civilians by police as a political weapon to defend your misguided and disastrous law that has robbed thousands of Californians of their right to earn a living with dignity, respect, and independence,” the CBCC press release fired back. It was signed by Edwin Lombard, who is listed on the letterhead as president and CEO.  

The CBCC is currently in a legal dispute over leadership with two factions vying in court to take the helm of the organization.  

On June 11, the California State Assembly voted unanimously to amend AB 5 based on months of negotiations between Gonzalez and different advocacy groups. The bill’s two amendments loosen restrictions for independent contractors in multiple industries, including writers, photographers, musicians, translators and interpreters. 

During the June 11 floor hearing, Assemblymember Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) spoke in favor of the amending the bill by reading from the CBCC’s letter, stating plainly the effects of AB 5 on Black businesses. 

Kiley, a staunch opponent of AB 5, has said he would like to see the law overturned.  

“AB5 has already crushed thousands of Black businesses and will keep more form operating in the gig economy,” Kiley read, restating the position of Black business owners. “Nearly a million Californians would lose jobs, opportunities, and independence if the future of AB5 were up to you. 

“We are not asking for your help or misguided protection. Just open the door and let us help ourselves,” the CBCC letter read. 

SACRAMENTO – Last week, Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) and other California elected representatives gathered at the West Steps of the state’s capitol to pay tribute to the late George Floyd. 

“We knelt in silence, honor and respect for George Floyd’s life. But we also placed a collective knee on police brutality and racism in this country,” said Senator Steven Bradford. “Over the last fifteen days we have witnessed one of the most amazingly diverse peaceful protests across the world. We are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the cycle of the wash, rinse and repeat approach to racism and police brutality. Now is the time to stand up.”

Officials honored George Floyd by kneeling in front of California’s capitol building for eight minutes and forty-six seconds. Attendance at the solemn tribute included Senate pro Tem Atkins, Assembly Speaker Rendon, Lieutenant Governor Kounalakis, and representatives on behalf of the Los Angeles County Delegation, and Black, Latino, Jewish, API, LGBTQ, and Women’s Caucuses.

On May 25, 2020, Mr. Floyd was killed during an arrest where the officer knelt on his neck and back for eight minutes and forty-six seconds, ignoring cries that he could not breathe, while other officers did nothing. Four officers involved in the arrest have been charged with counts of second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree murder.

Mr. Floyd’s death comes only six weeks after police in Louisville, Kentucky, fatally shot Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old black woman, during a midnight “no-knock” raid on her home. It comes ten weeks after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man, who was chased down by a white father and son in a pickup truck as he jogged in his neighborhood in Glynn County, Georgia.

By Mark T. Harris | Special to California Black Media Partners 

Former comedian and entertainment mogul Byron Allen filed suit against Comcast in 2015 seeking $20 billion in damages. Allen alleged that Comcast refused to offer many of his television programs as part of its cable television offerings because he is African American. 

Earlier this year, Allen’s legal challenge reached the United States Supreme Court to determine whether Allen could proceed with his civil action under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. 

Immediately following the Civil War and the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided a wide-ranging ban on race discrimination. Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is one of the statute’s most critical provisions, ensuring that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right … to make and enforce contracts … as is enjoyed by white citizens.” 

The goal of this section was to free the contracting process from the burdens of discrimination and ensure that newly freed slaves were guaranteed the same opportunity to contract as Whites. Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and its “equal protection” clause, soon followed in June of 1866. 

In response to Allen’s lawsuit, Comcast took the position that Allen must prove that his race was the “but for” basis for Comcast refusing to add his Black-owned television stations. In other words, if there were ANY other credible reason for rejecting Allen’s proposal to carry his television stations on Comcast, Allen would lose. 

In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Comcast over Byron Allen. All of the justices ruled that to prevail, “(Allen) must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, (he) would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right.” 

Let’s take a breath here. What Allen placed before our conservative led U.S. Supreme Court, was the potential for raising the evidentiary standard that every subsequent litigant in the United States — that’s any of us filing a discrimination case — would need to prove. 

The Supreme Court met Allen’s challenge and rejected his legal arguments. The result is that the next person seeking to argue that racial discrimination was one element leading to their failure to be awarded a contract, would have their case dismissed from any court in he nation because discrimination was not the “but for” reason for their rejection. 

Many leaders in the Black community attempted to talk Allen out of taking his battle with Comcast all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but Allen stubbornly persisted with his lawsuit. 

After losing on the procedural interpretation of the application of the “but for” standard, Allen has “folded” and has reached a settlement with Comcast! Allen and Comcast have agreed that three of Allen’s television stations will be offered by Comcast. However, a victory for Allen is an “L” for the Black community. 

Thanks to Allen, from this day forward, any African American or ethnic minority, when attempting to enforce Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, will be required to prove that the “but for” reason for their denial of a contract was their ethnicity no matter how egregious the otherwise discriminatory conduct they suffered may have been. In other words, thanks to Allen’s case, in order to receive enforcement under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the racial discrimination suffered by plaintiff must rise to the level of being virtually the only cause for the denial of a contract or contractual rights, as opposed to one of the causes for the denial. 

Many in the civil rights community, too, attempted to convince Allen not to pursue his litigation to the point of the U.S. Supreme Court fearing the very outcome that has now transpired . 

American jurisprudence operates under the principle of “stare decisis,” which is a Latin term meaning “respect for precedent.” What the Allen case represents is the creation of a new, almost insurmountable, barrier to bringing subsequent cases for litigants who have nowhere near the financial resources that Allen has at his disposal. 

Before we rejoice Allen’s victory over Comcast, we should be mindful of the loss for our community it represents. 

Washington (AFP) – Democratic lawmakers knelt in silent tribute to George Floyd in the US Congress on Monday before unveiling a package of sweeping police reforms in response to the killing of African Americans by law enforcement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were joined by some two dozen lawmakers in Emancipation Hall — named in honor of the slaves who helped erect the US Capitol in the 18th century.

They knelt for eight minutes and 46 seconds to mark the length of time a white police officer pinned his knee on the neck of the 46-year-old Floyd, whose May 25 death in Minneapolis unleashed protests against racial injustice across America.

The Democrats said their bill aimed to create “meaningful, structural change that safeguards every Americans’ right to safety and equal justice.”

The legislation seeks to “end police brutality, hold police accountable (and) improve transparency in policing,” a statement said.

Pelosi, who like other kneeling lawmakers was draped in a colorful Kente cloth scarf that pays homage to black Americans’ African heritage, spoke afterward of the “martyrdom of George Floyd” and the grief over black men and women killed at the hands of police.

“This movement of national anguish is being transformed into a movement of national action,” she said.

The Justice and Policing Act, introduced in both chambers of Congress, would make it easier to prosecute officers for abuse and rethink how they are recruited and trained.

Its chance of passage in the Senate, where Republicans hold the majority, is highly uncertain.

Donald Trump, who is running for re-election in November, has cast himself as the law-and-order president and accuses Joe Biden, his Democratic rival for the White House, of seeking to defund police forces.

“The Radical Left Democrats want to Defund and Abandon our Police. Sorry, I want LAW & ORDER!” he tweeted on Monday.

The former vice president has not made any public statements supporting the defunding of law enforcement.

His campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement that Biden “supports the urgent need for reform” including funding community policing programs that improve relationships between officers and residents and help avert unjustifiable deaths.

Biden, who has said he believes the nation is at “an inflection point” given the magnitude of the protests, was traveling Monday to Houston to meet Floyd’s family. – ‘We hear you’ –

The policing legislation, introduced by Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass and two black senators, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, would ban the use of choke holds and mandate the use of dashboard cameras and body cameras for federal officers.

It mandates broad training reforms and would establish a misconduct registry to prevent fired officers moving to another jurisdiction without any accountability.

“A profession where you have the power to kill should be a profession that requires highly trained officers who are accountable to the public,” Bass told reporters.

Lawmakers expressed solidarity with the countless Americans who have taken to the streets in protest against police brutality and racial injustice.

“Black lives matter. The protests we’ve seen in recent days are an expression of rage and one of despair,” House Democrat Steny Hoyer said.

“Today Democrats in the House and Senate are saying: ‘We see you, we hear you, we are acting.”

By Lou Yeboah

With our television screens filled with pictures of rioting, looting, killing and violence in various American cities — just as it wounded the spirit of Habakkuk who couldn’t take it any longer and threw up his hands in desperation, to let heaven know exactly how he was feeling. Heart broken, looking for an answer from God, so are many people today. Crying from their heart about the rampant injustice and brutally inflicted pain that characterizes so much of the world.

“Oh Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth! Rise up Oh judge of the earth; repay to the proud what they deserve! Oh Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked exult? They pour out their arrogant words; all the evildoers boast. They crush your people, Oh Lord, and afflict your heritage. They kill the widow and the sojourner, and murder the fatherless; and they say, “The Lord does not see; the God of Jacob does not perceive.” [Psalm 94: 1-7].

We see man’s hatred and violence for his fellow man again and again as in Scripture. Think of Pharaoh who drowned the Hebrew boys in the River Nile. Think of Haman who plotted to kill all the Jews in the kingdom of Persia. Think of King Herod who killed the baby boys of Bethlehem. Think of David – a man after God’s own heart. Yet, what did he do? He killed one of his own soldiers – a loyal man – to cover up the sin of adultery. What did the Pharisees at the time of Jesus do? They hated Jesus and quickly sought His destruction. In the book of Acts we see that same hatred was transferred to the apostles and the church. Oh Lord, how long how long before you avenge your people? How long Oh, Lord?

Hard broken, looking for an answer as Habakkuk, who spirit was wounded, and who finally couldn’t take it any longer. I too threw up my hands to heaven looking for an answer from God. 

As he said to Habakkuk, he said to me:  You may not understand it, Lou. You may not see the full picture. You’ll have to trust Me on this one. As you shake your hands in bewilderment at the scope of injustice and atrocity that you witness far too regularly. Have faith that I am still in control. That My sovereignty remains intact. That the final word still belongs to Me. Evil and injustice will NOT have the final word over their lives!

For “I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings. I WILL REPAY, says the Lord! I’m not going to just give them what they deserve, but I’m going to make the enemy pay. It may not happen overnight, but I will settle the case. Trust Me! I am a God of justice. I’ve seen it, now I’m going to do something about it. [Hebrew 10:30]. I’m going to send My angels, and they will gather out of My kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-49].

Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God. These are the words from the book of Deuteronomy that Paul references in Romans 12.

“See, the LORD is coming out of his dwelling to punish the people of the earth for their sins. The earth will disclose the blood shed upon her; she will conceal her slain no longer.” [Isaiah 26:21].

The wrath of God will be deserved — totally just and right.

Exhale with me!

By Hardy Brown?| Founder, California Black Media?? Special to?California?Black Media Partners? 

Last year, I read a book titled?“The?Color of Law.”?Every Californian?should read it,?too?— especially if you truly care about Black lives.?? 

“A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America,” the book subtitle?reads.?It is written by?Richard?Rothstein, a fellow at the Haas Institute?in Berkeley. 

I’ve made a note to myself to write the publisher. I’ll ask?them to swap the word “forgotten”?in the subtitle?with “un-acknowledged.” That switch in the book’s name would reflect just?how little most of us?Californians?really know?about our shared American?and?state?history, and the state created discrimination African Americans have endured. Black people suffering is central to our collective American story.  

I was?convinced of this when some?tone-deaf?comments?a handful of elected officials?made?about African Americans and?Affirmative Action?reached?my ears.?The?lawmakers going around bandying those hurtful, racially-coded and untrue opinions, so far, have been?mostly?White and Asian American politicians?who are opposed to?Assembly Constitution Amendment (ACA)?5, not realizing the benefits they themselves have gained from Affirmative Action programs.? 

They?repeat?that?worn-out,?beat-up and shortsighted?line you’ve heard too many times. Any?policy?in California, they argue,?that?would consider?race in college admissions, employment or contracting?is?itself racist,?and?it?would, by design,?reward?benefits to?people who don’t deserve?them?based on?nothing more than the color of?their skin.?? 

That’s where their?argument falls short.?Yes,?Affirmative Action is?about race but it is also about?much more?than?skin color. 

It?is?about?deplorable?current?circumstances?that?grew?directly?out of specific historical experiences. It is?about equaling?opportunity for?descendants of?enslaved Africans?in the United States?who were denied access to full citizenship rights?both?by law?and custom.?It is about compensation for?unpaid labor and?explicit?discriminatory anti-Black,?anti-former slave?laws cooked up?for nearly four centuries?in city halls and?state Capitols?across?this great?country,?including Sacramento.?? 

If?the Assembly and Senate vote yes on?ACA 5, the measure will appear on the California ballot in November. If?voters approve?ACA?5, it will?once again make?it?legal in California to?consider race in public employment, education, contracting and even in state data reporting.?? 

“The Color of Law”?documents?in clear?and unsparing?detail?how?city councils, state legislatures and the federal government?crafted?law?after?racist?law,?and?adapted other?public policies?with built-in?racial?biases. These?policies?were created to intentionally exclude Africans and rob them of economic opportunity afforded others?for centuries.?? 

This is not make-believe.?This troubling history?is all documented.?? 

Those same governments,?here in California and around the country,?extended hand-up?after hand-up,?using all of our tax dollars,?exclusively to?White Americans. These targeted?economic programs?improved the financial standing of?millions of White Americans?and?contributed?to the?establishment?of a strong?and?expansive?White?middle class in the country by the 1950s.?Some of those?same?policies,?way too?many to?list here,?also?contributed to the?geographical?segregation, by race?and?rail track, that persists in our cities and towns?across?the country.? 

And, no,?“The Color of Law”?is not?only?about states?located?below the?Mason-Dixon Line in?the old?Confederate?South?—?that?all-too-notorious region of?our country?where?slavery’s?most?infamous?profiteers?and their surrogates?degraded, beat?and slaughtered?African Americans?while?whole families of us toiled in the fields?without pay for?centuries?harvesting?tobacco, cotton and?rice.?? 

“The Color of Law”?also?includes numerous examples of racist?legislation?right here?in California.  

Our state?and its cities and towns?—?from our founding in?1850 to?the minute you’re reading this sentence —?have passed?minor?local?ordinances?and?sweeping?state laws?on everything from?public housing to the War on Drugs that have negatively impacted?the pockets and peace of?Black Americans.?? 

In fact, so many of our cities created adjacent “unincorporated areas” where a majority of African Americans lived and received no municipal services for their tax dollars.  

Today, African American?Californians?have the?least?household income?and wealth among all other races, including?many new?immigrants,?who have come and joined our multiracial American family, and?benefited from the civil rights advances Blacks have?shed blood and died?to?make available to all?in this country?and state.?? 

Our children perform the worst on the state’s standardized tests among their peers of other races and ethnicities.?We are arrested,?convicted?and?sentenced to prison more than any other group in California, and we make up the?lion’s share of the state’s?homeless population.?? 

By every study, we are stigmatized, racially profiled and discriminated against the most. This happens in every arena from hiring?and?hairstyles to apartment hunting?and?home buying.?? 

In our UC and CSU schools, African American college students are the only group whose percentage?of students enrolled is less than our representation in the state’s population.?? 

Yet, so many of our fellow Californians of other races deny the impact?state-created, sanctioned?and?implemented anti-Black?policies have?had on our lives and living conditions.?? 

By?the time I got to the?last page?of??“The Color of Law,” ?I?can’t?say the book opened my eyes?to the?brutal?history of anti-Blackness,?enforced?segregation, and legalized discrimination?in California and around this country.?I was born?and raised?in Jim Crow America?in a former slaveholding state, North Carolina,?where?local?elected officials always?kept?steps ahead?of the federal government,?rolling out their?own?counterforce laws?to pull back on?any?national?legislation that?attempted to advance?the rights?of?the descendants of slaves.?I have?plenty of anecdotal evidence.?? 

The book did supply, however, a trove of concrete examples?that confirm just how deliberate,?deep-seated and un-American those policies that excluded African Americans?for centuries have been.?? 

So how can?some of?our fellow Californians turn a blind eye to our state?and country’s?role in contributing to the?desperate?and disparate?conditions from which Black Californians have yet to recover?  

This week, as our state’s lawmakers of all races and backgrounds prepare their hearts and hands to vote on ACA 5 in our state legislature, I urge each one of you to take an honest look at the cruel under-told and understudied history of American policies that have negatively contributed to the current economic and social conditions of Blacks here in California and across the United States. 

I ask each one of you to pose some questions to yourself: Why do we keep confronting the same untreated racial problems decade after decade in our beloved Golden State? Why does it take the violent beating or murder of a Rodney King, Tyisha Miller, Oscar Grant, Stephon Clark or George Floyd to shock us out of our complacency? Why don’t we seek lasting solutions from the same hallowed chambers of representative government that have for centuries now too often been the birthplace of policies that have limited the rights of Blacks as Californians and American citizens.  

Last week, African American activists confronted affirmative action opponents on a Zoom town hall a conservative Republican candidate organized. At least one Republican elected official attended the event that the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) supported.    

June Yang Cutter is an Asian American Republican running for State Assembly in District 77, which covers parts of northern San Diego and the nearby cities of Poway and Rancho Santa Fe, among others.  She is running against incumbent Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego). 

One major topic on the call was the proposed constitutional amendment ACA 5.  

ACA 5 would allow California voters a chance to uphold or overturn Proposition 209, a ballot measure that passed in 1996 outlawing the consideration of race in contracting, college admissions, employment and state data reporting in California.  

If voters approve ACA 5 in November, it would bring Affirmative Action back to the state of California. The state would then join 42 other states that provide equal opportunity programs that support women and minorities.?? 

Affirmative Action is an issue that has polarized some staunch African American opponents of Prop 209 and some avid Asian American supporters of it in California, driving a deep wedge that remains smack-dab at the heart of the relationship between those two advocacy camps.  

Last Wednesday, June 3, during a virtual town hall meeting organized to drum up opposition to ACA 5, participants made some comments Black activists said were misguided and demeaning.  

Some of the Black participants, who attended the digital town hall took offense when one of the speakers referenced a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., quote to make the argument that Black people should get ahead by their own means rather than lean on affirmative action to access opportunities.  

“He had this immigrant story of how he had to pull himself up by the bootstraps,” said Chris Lodgson, a member of American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS). “(And he) started talking about how Dr. Martin Luther King would not be in favor of ACA 5 and Affirmative Action. That was sort of the tipping point. I told him that it was disrespectful for him to invoke the name of Dr. Martin Luther King. Taking away Affirmative Action has particularly hurt us.” 

Lodgson and other ADOS members, say the Zoom call moderators, dropped them from the meeting when they started speaking up, but they made sure they communicated to the group that  some of the comments made on the call were disrespectful and insulting to them. They also pointed out that the selective reference to King without providing context dishonored the memory of an African American icon who stood for equality for all.  

“We let them know,” Lodgson said. “The second point I made was that George Floyd was put in the ground in the middle of COVID-19, and you all out here trying to take (stuff) away from Black folks. It’s disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves. We told them just like that.” 

Last month, the California Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement approved ACA 5, which Assemblymember Dr. Shirley (D-San Diego) Weber, chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC), introduced earlier this year. It passed out of committee with a 6-1 vote.? 

Under current law, Prop 209 prohibits the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to certain individuals or groups on the basis of their race, sex color, ethnicity, or national origin.? 

Many opponents of Prop 209 say the legislation puts an end to opportunities that were designed to level the playing field for minorities.?? 

If approved by voters in the November 2020 general election, ACA 5, also known as the California Act for Economic Prosperity, would remove the provisions of Prop 209 from the California Constitution.? 

ACA 5 has the support of various organizations and civic leaders across the state, which include the National Organization of Women, California Federation of Teachers, California-Hawaii NAACP State Conference, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, and California State Board of Equalization member Malia Cohen. 

 
Others supporters of the proposition are the Justice Society, California Black Chamber of Commerce, Chinese For Affirmative Action (an organization that protects the civil and political rights of Chinese Americans). 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Norman Yee also endorses the ACA 5. 

Although several prominent Asian American leaders and organizations support ACA 5, others remain bitterly opposed to it.  

Crystal Lu, President of the SVCAF, wrote a letter to members of the California Assembly urging them to vote no.  

“The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws,” Lu’s letter read. “ACA 5 re-introduces racial preferences, still a form of racial discrimination, into the state law. Therefore, it violates the US Constitution. It will divide California and pit one group of citizens against another simply based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.” 

Lu said the SVCAF has started a Change.org ?petition? that more than 22,600 people have signed.  

Dr. Mei-ling Malone, an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who has an African American father and Taiwanese mother, supports ACA 5.? 

Malone, an instructor of African American Studies, told California Black Media that Asian Americans have an unfortunate history of taking unfriendly positions toward African Americans that dates all the way back to the late 1800s and early 1900s.  

They did not come in chains like Black people, she said, referring to a group of Chinese immigrants as one example of an Asian American sub-group whose historical relationship with African Americans has been characterized more by conflict than agreement.  

 The need for labor on the Continental Railroad and other menial jobs at the turn of the 20^th century prompted the United States to relax immigration policies. Asians took advantage of it and emigrated in large numbers.   

“Asian Americans have had a long history of being anti-Black as their strategy to protect themselves,” Malone said in a telephone interview with CBM. “Say like in the early 1900s when the Chinese were immigrating to Mississippi, they were doing everything they could to prove to White Folks that they were not Black. They wanted to be more like White people.” 

Malone said the move to align themselves with White identity and interests in America has been about self-preservation for some Asian Americans. The White power structure, she said, was more suitable and advantageous.  

Malone said some Asian Americans still rely on that strategy to get ahead.  

Former Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who is Taiwanese American, says some Asian Americans have bought into an idea that America has sold them: That they are the most vaunted group among the country’s minorities.  
 

“Obviously, alternately, they could have been in solidarity. Asians and Black folks could have been fighting together,” Malone said. “But unfortunately, many Asians have a history of taking the fate of ‘we’re going to side with the White power structure.’ The model-minority myth helped tighten that strategy.”? 

The next round of voting on ACA 5 will be on the Assembly floor at the State Capitol on June 10. If the proposition passes that hurdle, it moves on to the California Senate for consideration.  

In an unanimous 98-0 vote presided over by Vice President Pence, a rare occasion, the Senate voted to confirm Gen. Charles “C.Q.” Brown as the Air Force’s next chief of staff.

In addition to being the first African American military service chief, Brown will be the first African American to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff since Colin Powell was chairman from 1989 to 1993.

The historic confirmation comes as the nation is gripped by protests over racial injustice that were sparked by the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died when a police officer who has since been charged with second-degree murder knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes.

In a video last week, Brown spoke starkly about his feelings on Floyd’s death and being an African American service member.

“As the commander of Pacific Air Forces, a senior leader in our Air Force and an African American, many of you may be wondering what I’m thinking about the current events surrounding the tragic death of George Floyd,” Brown said.

“I’m thinking about how my nomination provides some hope, but also comes with a heavy burden. I can’t fix centuries of racism in our country, nor can I fix decades of discrimination that may have impacted members of our Air Force,” added Brown, who also spoke about navigating “two worlds.”

President Trump, who has come under criticism for threatening to deploy active-duty troops to quell the protests, celebrated Brown’s confirmation Tuesday before the Senate even started voting.

“My decision to appoint @usairforce General Charles Brown as the USA’s first-ever African American military service chief has now been approved by the Senate,” Trump tweeted about a half hour before the vote. “A historic day for America! Excited to work even more closely with Gen. Brown, who is a Patriot and Great Leader!”

Brown, who has been the commander of Pacific Air Forces since July 2018, will take over for current Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, who is expected to retire later this summer. The Air Force said Tuesday that Brown’s swearing-in ceremony will be held Aug. 6.

Trump nominated Brown in March, but his confirmation was delayed first by Senate scheduling uncertainty amid the coronavirus pandemic and then, as reported by Defense News, by an informal hold Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) placed on the nomination over questions about the Air Force’s KC-46 aerial refueling tanker.

Prior to leading Pacific Air Forces, Brown was the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command.

His résumé also includes time as the commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command in 2015 and 2016 during the height of the air campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

He has also served multiple tours across Europe, Asia and the Middle East as an F-16 fighter jet pilot, racking up more than 2,900 flying hours.

Assemblymember Dr. Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, gave an emotional speech June 3, at a press conference held at the California State Capitol. 

On Wednesday, June 10, one of Weber’s bills, ACA 5, co-authored by Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson), will be taken up on the Assembly floor.  If passed, ACA 5 would give voters a new chance to weigh in on affirmative action, which was banned when voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996. Supporters say ACA 5 would remove roadblocks to opportunities for women and people of color.