Op-Ed
‘The Detroit Walker,’ a Study in Resilience
By Lee A. Daniels
NNPA Columnist
For most of the last decade, James Robertson, a 56-year-old Detroiter, walked to work every day.
Of course, anyone who’s not been on planet Saturn this month knows that simple sentence is a gross understatement, akin to saying Brazil’s mighty Amazon River is just an ordinary waterway.
In the space of three days as January turned to February, the fact that James Robertson has walked a total of 21 miles to and from work most of his working days since 2005 became an Internet sensation, attracting legions of admirers and donations totaling at least $300,000. All because thousands of people both in Detroit and far from the Motor City recognized the quality that James Robertson embodies most of all.
That quality is resilience.
The plainspoken Robertson has said he was determined to keep the job he loved as a machine operator for a plastics molding firm that had moved from one suburb relatively near Detroit to a location farther away. So, when Robertson’s nearly 21-year-old car quit on him in 2005 and his working-man’s salary was too low for him to afford another one, and public transit cutbacks eliminated the possibility of fully commuting by bus, Robertson embarked upon the physically and mentally grueling regime of riding the bus from his neighborhood to its end point – and then walking for hours through city and suburban neighborhoods to his job.
Despite getting on average, two hours of sleep a day during the workweek, he’s never missed a day of work and he’s never been late. “I do it with no excuses,” the plain-spoken Robertson said later to one of the many news organizations that sought him out in the wake of a Feb. 1 Detroit Free Press story about him. “If you want something, you gotta go out and get it … You better go ahead and do it because your girlfriend doesn’t want to hear it, your coworkers don’t want to hear it and you got to get up and do it again the next day.”
That story was the product of a query made to the newspaper by a banker who, after seeing Robertson walking many days along his commuting route, began to give him rides for part of Robertson’s arduous trek. The publicity, in turn, led a Wayne State University student, to quickly set up an online funding campaign. The initial target: $5,000.
Now, the banker has assembled a team of advisers to ensure the windfall the story brought in will be managed wisely. Robertson himself has made it plain the windfall won’t change his simple wants and needs. “I’ve seen what happens when people get money,” he told the Free Press. “My dad, God rest his soul, he still influences me. He’s not going to let me get haughty.”
James Robertson has become a figure of widespread acclaim for two reasons. First, he’s a man who has refused to accept defeat. He refused to bow to powerful large-scale economic forces – such as those that have pushed many blue-collar and white-collar jobs away from cities and public transit cutbacks. And he refused to surrender to smaller-scale individual economic setbacks that increasingly threaten low-wage workers’ ability to get and keep jobs. Secondly, Robertson’s quiet heroism illuminates the value of work itself to human beings’ sense of themselves and their own sense of connection to the larger society. It also underscores the point that poor people and people with modest incomes don’t need tendentious lectures about that. They just need work and affordable means of getting to those jobs. In other words, James Robertson refused to be kept from his goal.
At the first level, one can say that goal is simply to keep the particular job he loves.
But there’s another meaning to the incredible saga of James Robertson. That meaning is to be found in the elements that make up that over-arching quality of resilience he possesses in abundance. Those elements – commitment, grit, and a refusal to be deterred – show he understands a profound point about human existence. It is the determination to keep trying to make our way in the world on our own terms—a determination produced not by our vanity but by our humanity.
Lee A. Daniels is a longtime journalist based in New York City. His essay, “Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Great Provocateur,” appears in Africa’s Peacemakers: Nobel Peace Laureates of African Descent (2014), published by Zed Books. His new collection of columns, Race Forward: Facing America’s Racial Divide in 2014, is available at www.amazon.com.
###
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Oakland Post Endorses Barbara Lee
Barbara Lee will be able to unify the city around Oakland’s critical budget and financial issues, since she will walk into the mayor’s office with the support of a super majority of seven city council members — enabling her to achieve much-needed consensus on moving Oakland into a successful future.

As we end the celebration of Women’s History Month in Oakland, we endorse Barbara Lee, a woman of demonstrated historical significance. In our opinion, she has the best chance of uniting the city and achieving our needs for affordable housing, public safety, and fiscal accountability.
As a former small business owner, Barbara Lee understands how to apply tools needed to revitalize Oakland’s downtown, uptown, and neighborhood businesses.
Barbara Lee will be able to unify the city around Oakland’s critical budget and financial issues, since she will walk into the mayor’s office with the support of a super majority of seven city council members — enabling her to achieve much-needed consensus on moving Oakland into a successful future.
It is notable that many of those who fought politically on both sides of the recent recall election battles have now laid down their weapons and become brothers and sisters in support of Barbara Lee. The Oakland Post is pleased to join them.
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
MLK Bust Quietly Removed from Oval Office Under Trump
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of April 30 – May 6, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 7 – 13, 2025
-
Activism2 weeks ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Activism2 weeks ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 14 – 20, 2025
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Trump Abruptly Fires First Carla Hayden: The First Black Woman to Serve as Librarian of Congress