Politics

Support Grows for Taking Down Confederate Flag

Published

10 years ago

June 23, 2015

Oakland Post

Cornell William Brooks renews call for taking down Confederate flag in South Carolina. (Courtesy Photo)

By George E. Curry
NNPA Editor-in-Chief

WASHINGTON (NNPA) – In what is quickly and unexpectedly gaining ground as a fitting memorial to the nine African Americans killed by a White supremacist at Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, S.C., some of the most ardent defendants of the confederate flag are reversing course and saying for the first time that the flag should no longer fly over the Capitol in South Carolina.

The most shocking news came Monday when two-term Gov. Nikki Haley said, “Fifteen years ago, after much contentious debate, South Carolina came together in a bipartisan way to move the flag from atop the Capitol dome. Today, we are here in a moment of unity in our state without ill will, to say it’s time to move the flag from the Capitol grounds. A hundred and fifty years after the end of the Civil War, the time has come.”

Both pro- and anti-flag advocates reached a compromise in 2000, hoping to defuse a growing public debate over the Confederate flag. Under the agreement, state lawmakers voted to allow the U.S. and state flags to fly on the Statehouse dome in Columbia and move the Confederate battle flag to the top a nearby memorial to Confederate soldiers.

They agreed that any future changes to the positioning of the flag, which is the first thing a visitor sees when approaching the Statehouse from the north on Main Street, would require a two-thirds vote of the legislature, a decision that is expected to be challenged in coming weeks.

In South Carolina, the Confederate flag has had a divisive history, especially for Republican politicians interested in growing their share of the Black vote while holding on to their staunchly conservative base.

Former Gov. David Beasley learned that the hard way. In 1996, he called for removing the Confederate battle flag from the Capitol to a Statehouse monument. But seeking re-election two years later, he vowed to never try to do that again. By then, it was too late and he lost to Jim Hodges, the Democratic challenger who embraced the support of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

On July 15, the NAACP launched a boycott of the state over the Confederate flag issue. Five days later, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) voted to withdraw its 2000 national convention from Charleston.

Though unpopular in many quarters, some White politicians in the state have taken a bold stand against the flag.

Joseph P. Riley, the mayor of Charleston, told the New York Times: “When it is so often used as a symbol of hate, of defiance to civil rights, to equal rights, equality among the races, a symbol used by the Klan, a symbol you saw at every protest during the times of integration and racial progress, then in front of the state Capitol, for those who harbor any of those kind of feelings – and I hope they are few – it nonetheless sends the wrong kind of message.”

Haley, an Indian-American frequently touted as a possible GOP vice presidential candidate, reversed the stand she had taken throughout her political career in reaching that same conclusion. When she first ran for governor in 2010, she declared the Confederate flag issue had been “resolved to the best of its ability” with the compromise on the placement of the flag on Capitol grounds.

In seeking re-election in 2014, she said the flag was a non-issue for businesses considering whether to locate to South Carolina.

But the killing of nine Blacks in Emanuel A.M.E. Church changed all of that. Dylann Roof, an avowed White supremacist, has admitted crashing Bible study at the church and killing victims, ages 26 to 87, in hopes of starting a race war. In an online site, Roof, 21, is seen in numerous poses holding the Confederate flag.

At a news conference following the shooting, Gov. Haley fought back tears and she tried to unite a shattered community.

On Monday, she acknowledged that her new position would not please all voters.

“There will be some in our state who see this as a sad moment. I respect that. But know this: For good and for bad, whether it is on the statehouse grounds or in a museum, the flag will always be a part of the soil of South Carolina,” she said.

“But this is a moment in which we can say that that flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state. The murderer now locked up in Charleston said he hoped his actions would start a race war. We have an opportunity to show that not only was he wrong, but that just the opposite is happening.”

She added, “My hope is that by removing a symbol that divides us, we can move forward as a state in harmony and we can honor the nine blessed souls who are now in heaven.”

Within hours of the governor’s announcement, Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, disclosed that it is removing all Confederate flag-related items from its shelves.

“We have taken steps to remove all items promoting the confederate flag from our assortment – whether in our stores or on our website,” Brian Nick, a spokesman, said in a statement.

Sears, which operates stores under its own brand as well Kmart, announced Monday that although it does not sell Confederate battle flags in its stores, it is moving to remove sale of such merchandise online by third parties.

Target, another large retailer, said it does not sell such items. A check of Target’s website earlier this week did not show any Confederate merchandise being sold. It was not immediately clear whether Amazon will follow Walmart’s lead.

As of early this week, Confederate flags and other Civil War memorabilia designed by independent merchants were being shipped by Amazon, the online giant.

Leland Summers, the South Carolina division commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, issued a strongly worded statement seeking to distance supporters of the flag from the murderer.

“Not knowing your heritage is ignorance,” he said. “It is shameful and disgraceful that other organizations chose to use this heinous act to promote their political agenda. Do not associate the cowardly actions of a racist to our Confederate Banner; for it is a Banner of honorable men, both Black and White. There is absolutely no link between The Charleston Massacre and The Confederate Memorial Banner. Don’t try to create one.

NAACP President Cornell William Brooks disagrees.

“We cannot have the Confederate flag waving in the state capital,” he said at a press conference in Charleston. “Some will assert that the Confederate flag is merely a symbol of years gone by, a symbol of heritage and not hate. But when we see that symbol lifted up as an emblem of hate, as a tool of hate, as an inspiration for hate, as an inspiration for violence, that symbol has to come down.”

Gov. Haley and the state’s two Republican Senators – Lindsey Graham, who is White, and Tim Scott, who is Black – have concluded that it is time for the flag to come down.

“We know that bringing down the Confederate flag will not bring back the nine kind souls that were taken from us, nor rid us of the hate and bigotry that drove a monster through the doors of Mother Emanuel that night,” Haley said. “Some divisions are bigger than a flag. The evil we saw last Wednesday comes from a place much deeper, much darker. But we are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer. The fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something we cannot stand. The fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the Capitol grounds. It is, after all, a Capitol that belongs to all of us.”

###

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Obama Becoming More Outspoken on Race

Don't Miss

Lynch’s Installation as AG Overshadowed by Charleston Tragedy

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

14 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

14 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

15 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”