Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

Racial Profiling {Biracial Teen}

// November 15th, 2009 // No Comments » // In the News, Social Injustice

The news story I am printing below was in the Denver Post today. The young man is a good friend of my kids. He is also biracial- half black and half white. I was shocked when I read the story, but was sickened as I read the comments. His race was on trial. I know this young man and if these commentors knew who they were talking about, it might change some of what they said…

Racial profiling at Denver Safeway store alleged
By Felisa Cardona – The Denver Post

An African-American teen accused of stealing who was detained and searched by employees at Safeway was a victim of racial profiling, according to an investigation by Denver’s Anti-Discrimination Office.

The agency’s Nov. 5 finding of discrimination says “there is reasonable cause to believe that this is not an isolated incident but rather a pattern or practice of engaging in such racial profiling.”

Brandon Anderson-Thayer, now 18, filed a complaint against Safeway alleging discrimination, and the agency’s finding allows him to proceed with a civil lawsuit, said his attorney, Mari Newman.


“We’ve given Safeway every opportunity to try and figure out whether there is a way to resolve this case and to try to be a good community member, and they have just resisted all the way,” she said.

Safeway contends there is no evidence to support the allegations.

“Our company has a long-standing reputation for fair and unbiased dealings with customers, employees and the communities that we serve,” said Safeway spokeswoman Kris Staaf. “The DADO’s probable-cause determination in this case resulted from an inadvertent failure of the company to respond to a DADO administrative request and is not a finding on the merits.

“Safeway is committed to continuing to defend against the claims made here, as well as continuing our efforts to resolve this matter with the DADO.”

On Oct. 14, 2008, Anderson-Thayer, then 17, went to the Safeway at 1653 S. Colorado Blvd. to buy some snacks after school.

He was with two friends, Hassan Robinson, who is also black, and Joe Vilante, who is Pacific Islander.

Anderson-Thayer was handcuffed by security as he bought some hot chocolate from schoolmate Jessica Molendyk, who was working at a breast-cancer awareness stand to raise money.

“The manager’s only stated reasons for accusing Mr. Anderson-Thayer and his friends of theft were the fact that Mr. Anderson-Thayer and his friends apparently ‘looked suspicious’ and that the manager had problems with ‘kids like them’ in the past,” said a report by Lucía Guzmán, executive director of Human Rights and Community Relations, which oversees DADO.

Molendyk told DADO that Safeway head clerk Brandon Nance directed security guards to follow black teens in the store for no apparent reason and that she often observed Nance making racist jokes.

The teens were not carrying any backpacks that would help them conceal items and they paid for the snacks they had, the report said. For a half-hour, the teens were held in an upstairs office and searched and interrogated, the report said.

“By targeting Mr. Anderson-Thayer and his friends for discriminatory surveillance, search and seizure, Safeway denied the teenagers ‘full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations’ of Safeway,” wrote Guzmán.

DADO does not issue fines or sanctions against a business when there is a finding of discrimination.

The goal of the agency is to bring the parties together to come to a settlement or a resolution. If it can’t be worked out, legal action may be pursued by the person who filed the complaint, Guzmán said.

The finding said that Anderson-Thayer’s testimony is “credible” and that the affidavits filed by his two friends and Molendyk corroborate his statements.

Representatives from Safeway met twice with DADO and Anderson-Thayer for mediation but no significant progress was made, the report said.

When Safeway’s attorney was contacted for a third meeting, the company did not respond.

However, Safeway is still trying to resolve the case and is expected to continue to provide information to the agency even though deadlines were missed.

Guzmán said the discrimination finding does not mean a solution can’t be worked out.

“Our major work is the hope that resolution occurs,” she said, “and we will always stand ready to help facilitate positive resolutions.”

COMMENTS ON THE NEWSPAPERS WEBSITE-

There has to be more to this story, it just doesn’t jive as written. And look at the picture of the kid…he looks white!

~~~

The fact that they didn’t catch him means they are bad at their jobs. You can’t detain people and put people in handcuffs when they haven’t stolen anything. This kid is playing victim and looking for a quick payday and the Post looks like they are going to help him.

~~~

Good for Safeway. This defense for breaking the law is perposterous. I’m going to start shopping at Safeway as long as they keep racially profiling

~~~

This has nothing to do with the kid’s rights or profiling. It’s all about money. If Safeway had given the kid a nice settlement to go away, we’d be hearing nothing about racial profiling “blah, blah, blah…” and he’d be over at the Best Buy picking out a new iPod and Stereo Speakers for his car like any teen would.

~~~

It’s the old “Jessie Jackson (Operation Push) shake down” Works every time.

~~~

im saying is that if the guy in that photo claims he was racially profiled because he is black…well then he has no case because he isnt black.

~~~

that kid is white as white gets! Let me guess, he probably listens to rap and has saggy pants, so he calls himself black…uh…sorry, African American. If he is from South Africa I’ll give him this one!

~~~

i`m looking into my crystal ball…i see it ..still fuzzy.. i see an..escalade in someones future!

~~~

And Brandon’s mother must have read this all and responded-

I am Brandon’s mom. He did not steal (nor has he ever stolen) and the actual stated reason, according to witnesses, why they were followed was because the security (a private firm, not DPD) had been instructed to follow all African-Americans. They were followed from the time they entered the store. He was handcuffed (in front of a friend no less-humiliating) and held for at least a half hour. He was a minor and I was never notified. If that happened to your child, would you just let it go? The stress sent him into an epileptic seizure when he got home (a pre-existing condition). Brandon and his friends have shopped there since all of their lives; it is our “neighborhood” store.

How should they have behaved? They were dressed like most men under 30, they had no backpacks and they paid for everything…. and they were still in the store, buying hot chocolate from a Breast Cancer Awareness fundraiser, hardly a action buy someone trying to hide something.

To clarify a few points, he chooses how he wants to be identified, as an African-American. We took this to the city because we want the store to change their policy and become more sensitive in how they treat the community. We took it public because the community needs to understand that, even though it is 2009, these things still happen on a regular basis. Most of what we were asking for was that they make amends and form relationships with the African-American community and the school that the kids attend (which is predominately minority and where the kids often come to shop). No Escalade for this family.

Unless you are a minority in this city, you are probably not aware of how young minority males are profiled on a regular basis. I see this happening in the community all of time. This was not the first time for Brandon or his friends to be profiled for “walking while black” and for these young people, it forces them into a position of always having to be on the defense. We are here to say, “ENOUGH”!

What are your thoughts? Comment below!

Justice of the Peace Resigns Over Interracial Marriage Dispute

// November 4th, 2009 // 2 Comments » // Blended Living, In the News, Social Injustice

Justice Keith Bardwell was forced into the spotlight in Hammond, LA last month when his wife, Beth Bardwell, informed Beth Humphrey, a white woman in south Louisiana, that her husband would not perform her marriage ceremony because her fiance was black. Although Beth and her new husband, Terence McKay, did end up getting married by another Justice of the Peace three days later, the damage had been done – the couple’s eyes had been opened to a pain all to familiar to interracial couples: the pain of rejection and disapproval. However, in this case, despite the strength and class exhibited by the McKays, the Justice would soon find the damage he had done to himself to be irreparable. News of the case traveled at the speed of light as Twitter and Facebook buzzed about the issue and the outrage spread like wildfire.

Beth and Terence McKay have done countless interviews and have undoubtedly been through an enormous amount of undue stress simply as a result of seeking out a Justice to validate their marriage under the law. As Bardwell came to his own defense, not issuing an apology or a justifiable response to the accusations, he admitted recusing himself from the duty of performing their ceremony based on his own personal prejudices toward interracial couples which he claimed stem from what he considers to be the widely acknowledged belief that children born into interracial marriages suffer as a result of their multicultural heritage and the inability of society to accept them. He went on to say that in his experience, interracial couples do not last and for those two reasons, he “didn’t want to do that to the children” born to these couples in the future.

Since the story initially broke – having blown up the news and social media alike causing a windstorm of controversy which peaked around the 15th of October – the Justice has officially resigned his position. In speaking to CNN affiliate WBRZ, he stated, “I needed to step down because they was going to take me to court, and I was going to lose. I would probably do the same thing again [ ... ] I found out I can’t be a justice of the peace and have a conscience.” Let’s just take a moment to examine the word “conscience” which is defined as being the moral sense, or that capacity of our mental constitution, by which we irresistibly feel the difference between right and wrong. Conscience is a part of our personal mental constitution. Apparently, the Justice failed to realize that HIS constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution that protects us ALL as individuals. The constitution of the United States is very clear and does not allow open interpretation in regards to IT’S views on marriages like that of the McKays which involve more than one ethnic background. The Supreme court ruled on this in 1967, stating:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

I am ecstatic that he resigned. However, I am appalled at the comment he made about there being a war between his position as justice of the peace and his position as a morally sound, ethically conscious individual. Does he REALLY think he was acting out of integrity? I have to say that it’s scary to admit to myself there are still people in this world who are in such strong opposition of interracial families to go as far a to break the LAW to prevent themselves from having to partake in “doing” such a disservice to the children involved. That’s IF I choose to entertain the notion that he was genuinely concerned for ‘the children,’ which I do not.

That’s just sick.

And it shows that we have such a long way to go, still…

Interracial Couple Denied Marriage

// October 31st, 2009 // No Comments » // In the News, Social Injustice

On June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court decided in the Loving vs. Virginia case in favor of Richard and Mildred Loving. The decision meant that from that moment on, it would be illegal for ANY state to restrict the marriage of two people on the basis of race, citing the following:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

Unfortunately, on October 6, 2009, a Louisiana couple found that there are still Justices who are willing to go against the law to prevent – or at least discourage – interracial marriages. Beth and Terence McKay contacted Keith Bardwell, a Justice of the Peace in Hammond, LA, who has been in his position for 34 years, to have him officiate their ceremony. Imagine Beth’s shock when Bardwell’s wife informed her that he does not perform marriages for mixed-race couples where one of the individuals is black, citing the reasoning as concern for the potential lack of social acceptance for their future children.

Our views have been expressed without restraint…

Kat Robertson:

Laura Stillman:

Jennifer Morris:

Now that WE have expressed our views, we’re curious to know what our readers think… how do you feel about this situation? I have to say, after reflection (and time to cool down) my reaction has turned from complete disgust to a mixture of disgust and relief. Up until this point, people would roll their eyes and dismiss claims that interracial couples were discriminated against. No one really understood what multicultural families face. Now, the entire nation has no choice but to digest this situation and respond to it.