Senate hopeful slams civil rights

Dr. Rand Paul is Kentucky's GOP nominee for Senate. Dr. Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand. And Dr. Rand Paul is in a PR pickle.

In an interview with Robert Siegel on NPR's All Things Considered last Wednesday, Dr. Paul was asked whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act went too far.

Paul answered: "What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism."

Upon the show host's urging, Paul then went on to say that he is in favor of ending institutional racism, but that "a lot of things could be handled locally."

What does that mean exactly? Leave it to MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to ask just that, and then some:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...

Maddow:...How about desegregating lunch counters?

Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion...

Maddow:Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.

WOMP. Busted. And so began the dig out. After today's appearance on Good Morning America, the Washington Post reports that a Paul campaign spokesman said the GOP nom will do "no more national interviews on the topic." Paul also backed out of this Sunday's scheduled appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, becoming only the third guest to do so in the program's history.

(Have we learned nothing from Tiger Woods, Dr. Paul? You clam up. We talk more.)

Now let's get to the meat of what Paul was saying. A Libertarian through and through, Paul advocates for limited government infringement in public life. Fine. But limited government infringement on discrimination, to the point of allowing private businesses to say, "No, young black man. You cannot work/eat/exist here"?

Liberty for who, Dr. Paul?

Watch the complete Maddow skewering of Rand Paul: (And let me just say, minute 14 on? DING! Maddow for the kill!)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Photo Credit: Wall Street Journal

Giving voice to an all-too-often overlooked past

Jerry Mitchell is a hero. I stumbled upon his blog--Journey to Justice--during my daily news binge. For over 20 years, investigative reporter Mitchell has dedicated his career to Civil Rights coverage both past and present. He has helped solve cold case murders, assassinations and other high-profile cases like the Birmingham, Ala. church bombing of 1963. As part of Mississippi's Clarion Ledger, Mitchell's blog critiques current issues in the news, from hate crimes against white supremacists to calls for an end to the "N word."

In addition to Journey to Justice, Mitchell contributes to HistoryBeat.com's Civil Rights in America: Connections to a Movement. This site includes past coverage of the Civil Rights Movement, black history records and stories of Civil Rights heroes.

Two pages on this website stand out among the rest: The "Investigations" page pinpoints on a map Civil Rights cases that have yet to be solved. A list of names of those killed in these cold cases accompanies the map. It's easy to look at this list coldly or at least impersonally, without thinking about the impact an unsolved case would have on those who lost someone dear to them. I must admit I tried to do this, until I arrived at the "Share Stories" tab.

This page is a user-generated forum for people to share Civil Rights stories, experiences of racism today or memories of loved ones. The first comment I saw was that of a woman who posted a photo of her mother's gravestone in Alabama (see above). Her mother was murdered after fighting for her right to vote, says the headstone. The post below the photo, by the same woman, details the night her mother died. The author was six years old.

Stories like this cannot come from the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists and star-status newscasters. These raw, heart-wrenching stories are swords only to be wielded by the victims themselves. Lest we doubt the power of new media formats, take a look at the "Share Stories" page and you will be assured of their power and impact.

Taken together, Journey to Justice and Civil Rights in America help keep the Civil Rights Movement alive. Intertwining history with current issues, both Mitchell and HistoryBeat.com refuse to let racial justice fade into our past. With so many murders unsolved and families broken by racism, we owe it to those who can never forget.

Photo Credit: Sally_Liuzzo992

White America: Coming to a textbook in Texas

It's referred to as the "Texas Textbook Massacre," and it's easy to see why. Last Friday, the Texas Board of Education approved a "template" for all elementary and high school history, sociology and economics textbooks--a template that ignores or falsely attributes many contributions and achievements of minority groups.

According to author Diane Ravitch of The Daily Beast, the Texas state board is the largest textbook buyer in the state, which bestows on it the power to say what should and should not appear in the books. While FOX News says the revisions are an effort to be sure "our children will know about the founding principles of this country," others lament changes they believe rewrite history.

Among these changes, New York Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr. reports, the board approved a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement. The board voted to include both the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers and emphasize the role conservatives played in the passage of civil rights legislation. The board also approved the inclusion of the "unintended consequences" of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation, all of which were meant to alleviate inequality and racial injustice.

At the same time, the board voted to emphasize the success of the "free-enterprise system" (because "capitalism" has too many negative connotations) and the central role of Christianity in shaping America. (Thomas Jefferson was removed from a list of writers who inspired revolutions, only to be replaced by St. Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.)

On the upside, the media I reviewed tended to disparage the Texas board's decision, emphasizing that there were no historians, sociologists or economists included in the decision-making process and detailing the pitfalls of the board's control over textbook publishers. However, these criticisms do little to help the third graders who may grow up thinking the Selma to Montgomery march was started by Orval Faubus (the Arkansas governor who prevented nine black students from entering Little Rock Central High School after Brown v. Board of Education).

How do we prevent a generation of students who know little about the contributions of black protesters, Hispanic migrant workers or Asian railroad workers? We could hope students make it to college, where the textbooks aren't controlled by the state. But that would be letting non-college bound students slip through the cracks and enter the workforce with a high school diploma and a skewed version of America's past.

Like so many periods in American history (many of the very periods the Texas state board chose to rewrite), the effort to include minorities must be led by a pioneering group of teachers, parents, students and media. Teachers can and should supplement their curriculum with coverage of minority contributions, while parents can provide the counter to "America=white + Christian" at home. Both white and minority students can rally together to start discussions on minorities' role in American history, and the media should take it upon themselves to feature these discussions and their implications. If the University of California is any indication, both students and teachers are actively invested in race issues in the educational system.

While it may be asking a lot of parents, teachers and students to look outside the template laid out for them, the Texas state board is asking even more of minority students to forget their place in American history.

Photo Credit: Texas Tribune

Immigration law is not Jim Crow

Should illegal immigrants be admitted to U.S. high schools? Should they be able to enroll in our colleges or enlist in our military? And if they get a degree, should they be able to apply for any job for which they are qualified?

The answer to all these questions is yes, according to the Dream Act, a federal bill that would impact 16 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Claremont Graduate University professor Will Perez, Ph.D, reports on the Dream Act and the United We Dream Coalition, advocating for passage of the Act and detailing the social and economic benefits of granting said rights to undocumented immigrants. He presents a solid argument, listing the challenges faced by these undocumented students and stressing that many of them came to the United States with their parents; they had no choice in the matter. Should they be punished for their parents actions? Perez says no.

Perez draws on his research to show that undocumented students are some of the most socially active today. Pair this with increased economic output from allowing them to get into higher-level, and higher paying, jobs, and you have greater returns for all of us, he says.

So what are the problems with Perez's assertions? For one, I'm not sure he's going to convince any anti-immigration stumpers that the Dream Act is right and good. You can present all the arguments in the world, but at the end of the day, these students are not American citizens. I consider myself pretty pro-immigration, pro-amnesty and pro-education, and this essay was even hard for me to wrap my head around. Unless Perez focuses more on personal relevance for the anti-amnesty camp, those against the Dream Act will continue to prevent its passage.

The other, more glaring problem with this article is Perez' comparison of the Dream Act to another fight for equality: "The similarities between the civil rights movement and current immigration reform movement are numerous," he writes.

I disagree. While the general theme--equal rights--may carry through both movements, the circumstances are not comparable. Under the 14th Amendment, African Americans living in America became U.S. citizens. Under the 15th Amendment, blacks were given the right to vote. Undocumented immigrants have not been granted citizenship or voting rights. The civil rights movement was a fight for rights granted by U.S. citizenship, while the Dream movement is a fight for the extension of citizenship rights to non-citizenship in America.

While the idea of granting undocumented immigrants the rights of citizens may rile anti-immigration groups, the comparison to civil rights may distance the pro-amnesty/immigrant rights groups from both his argument and the Dream Act itself. A well-meaning article then becomes its own worst enemy, to the detriment of 16 million.

Photo Credit: The Orlando Sentinel