Debt Settlement Companies Targeted By FTC: New Rules Curb Scams

New Federal Rules Take Aim At Shady Practices Of Debt-Settlement Companies


Got debt?

Well, if you do, the Federal Government has made it more difficult for unscrupulous or sham debt-settlement companies to make false claims that much of your debt can be easily erased.

Debt-settlement or debt-relief services promise to renegotiate or in some way change what you owe to an unsecured creditor or debt collector.

As the economy tanked, many people fell behind on their consumer loans and as a result were drawn in desperation to firms that claimed they could, in some cases, cut debts in half. The promised assistance might have included finding ways to reduce a debt balance, an interest rate or penalty fees.

Law enforcement officials have increasingly been receiving complaints about companies that collected fees but did little, if anything, to settle people's debts.

The Better Business Bureau said that since the recession started in late 2007, it has received thousands of consumer complaints from all 50 states about debt-settlement companies that have driven people deeper into the hole, in some cases causing them to be sued by creditors or even to have wages garnished.

To curb deceptive practices, as of Monday, new rules being implemented by the Federal Trade Commission require debt-relief companies to make specific disclosures to potential customers, such as how long it will take to get results, how much the service will cost and the potential negative consequences that could result from seeking debt relief. The firms are also prohibited from misrepresenting what they can do for debtors, in particular the percentage of debt that is typically erased.

For example, in calculating how well a company has done for customers, a debt-relief service has to include those customers who dropped out or otherwise failed to complete the program.



The new rules amend the Telemarketing Sales Rule and specifically cover telemarketers of for-profit debt-relief services, including those offering credit counseling, debt settlement and debt negotiation services. Legitimate nonprofit organizations that help people renegotiate their debts aren't covered under the new rules. However, companies that falsely claim nonprofit status are subject to the FTC standards.

It's important to note that the rules cover telephone calls made to potential customers and calls made by debtors in response to advertisements and other solicitations, including people working on behalf of a debt-relief firm.

Another phase of the law will take effect next month, and it's significant. Beginning Oct. 27, it will be illegal for a debt-relief service to charge upfront fees. Companies that sell their services over the telephone won't be able to get paid until they successfully settle or reduce a customer's credit card or other unsecured debt.

The fees are often based on a percentage of the amount of debt that you want help with. Let's say you owe $20,000 on four credit cards. You might be charged a fee of 15 percent ($3,000) of the debt you want reduced. Here's the problem. You would pay the fee regardless of how many of the accounts, if any, are actually settled, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

There are also provisions on how money set aside for a settlement offer is to be handled. Customers are told to stop paying their bills and instead send money to the debt-settlement firm with the intention of offering creditors a lump-sum offer for less than what's owed. Under the new rules, a dedicated account has to be established at an insured financial institution, and the money belongs to the client, who can withdraw it anytime without penalty.

These new rules are a great first start, but Congress needs to close some loopholes. The rules don't limit the amount of fees companies can charge. There's just too much room to gouge people. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has introduced legislation that would limit debt-settlement fees.

Further, the rules need to expand beyond debt-relief services offered by telephone. Providers who meet face to face with people before signing them up are exempt from most of the new provisions.

This effort should help stem the scams, but it won't stamp them out. There are just too many desperate debtors willing to believe anything if it means getting relief from their bills.

"It's significant that the FTC is cracking down on the offending debt-settlement companies, but real protection for consumers will mean enforcing the rules, and that'll be harder," said Chris Viale, chief executive of the nonprofit Cambridge Credit Counseling.

If you're in debt, learn about your new protections. Otherwise, you'll just make a bad situation worse. And don't believe in easy fixes. There aren't any.

Sources: BBB, Cambridge Credit, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Youtube

Richard Burr Maintains Double-Digit Lead Over Elaine Marshall

Another Poll, Same Result: Richard Burr With Big Lead Over Elaine Marshall


Republican Sen. Richard Burr has a 13 point lead over Democratic challenger Elaine Marshall, according to a new survey.

Burr is leading with 49 percent followed by Marshall with 36 percent, and Libertarian candidate Michael Beitler at 4 percent, according to a new survey by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm based in Raleigh.

The poll found that Burr has solidified his support among Republicans and is doing well among independent voters. Marshall, who has not yet been able to advertise on television, is still not very well known.

The survey of 681 likely voters was taken Sept. 23-26 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percent.


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Google Maps, Youtube

North Carolina's Wake County Schools Loses $10.3 M Over Anti-Diversity Policy

Feds Deny North Carolina's Wake County Schools Magnet Program Grant


North Carolina's Wake County Schools' request for $10.3 million in Federal money to expand its magnet school program has been rejected by the U.S. Department of Education, adding fuel to the debate about ending the school district's diversity policy.

North Carolina's largest school district will not be among those sharing the $100 million in grants expected to be announced today by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, according to Wake school board member John Tedesco. Education officials have been informing members of Congress who represent winning school districts, and Tedesco said his congressional contacts told him no systems in the state won magnet grants this year.

No reason was given for why Wake fell short. But the news comes at a critical time, with Wake facing the loss of $100 million next year from the end of federal stimulus dollars and state budget cuts in education funding.

"Anytime you don't get money that's not good news," said Tedesco, a member of the school board's ruling coalition. "Would I have liked to get the money? Of course."

The $10.3 million, which would have been distributed over the next three years, would have been used to expand new magnet programs at Smith Elementary School in Garner and Brentwood Elementary School and Millbrook High School in North Raleigh. All three received magnet programs as part of an effort to reduce poverty rates and raise test scores.

The federal magnet money would have expanded teacher training at Smith and Millbrook for their International Baccalaureate programs and allowed Brentwood to expand its magnet engineering program schoolwide, according to Wake's magnet application.

Chris Lassiter, principal of Smith, said the grant would have also allowed the school to offer Mandarin Chinese. But he said they haven't been relying on getting the money.

"The grant would have been a nice supplement to the program," Lassiter said. "But we'll be successful without it."

The fate of Wake's magnet grant has been heavily debated for months.

Opponents of the school board majority have repeatedly warned that ending the district's policy of diversifying schools by socioeconomic status would jeopardize winning the magnet grant.

The school board majority disagreed and in May gave final approval to eliminating diversity from its student assignment policy. A school board committee headed by Tedesco is working on a draft student assignment plan thatwould divide the county into 16 neighborhood zones and stress proximity, stability and family choice.

"Their decisions have caused a nationally recognized school system to be called into question," said Yevonne Brannon, chairwoman of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, a community group that opposed the elimination of the diversity policy. "I don't think the federal government was going to hand over millions of dollars when our judgment is in question."

Brannon noted that Wake has won $36 million in magnet grant money since 1985.

But Tedesco said it can't be proven that there's a connection between eliminating the diversity policy and not winning the grant. He pointed out that Wake didn't win a $7.5 million grant in 2004 when it had the diversity policy.

"I don't know how an intelligent person would make the leap and say that's why we didn't get the grant," Tedesco said.

Tedesco said that if Wake's change in assignment policy were a problem then the U.S. Education Department would have rejected the district's request this year for a one-year extension to finish using $1.3 million in unspent magnet grant money.

Tedesco pointed to additional competition nationally this year for federal magnet money. He also speculated that federal officials didn't give any magnet money to school districts in the state because North Carolina recently won the $400 million federal Race to the Top education grant, aimed at paying for school reform efforts in the state. It's uncertain how much of this federal grant Wake will get.

In addition to Wake, the Cumberland, Guilford and Winston-Salem/Forsyth school systems also applied for the magnet grant this year.


View Larger Map


Sources: NAACP, McClatchy Newspapers, Wikipedia, WRAL, Youtube, Google Maps

Bev Perdue Throws Ken Lay Under The Bus Over Millions In Tax Revenue!

NC Tax Secretary Chief Is Out, N.C. State Senator Is His Replacement


North Carolina Revenue Secretary Kenneth Lay is leaving his job after a series of problems involving refunds that have frustrated North Carolina taxpayers seeking any little bit extra in their wallets in the extended downturn.

Gov. Beverly Perdue's office announced she had accepted Kenneth Lay's resignation Wednesday and will replace him with outgoing state Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston, until recently the longtime co-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The resignation's effective date is Oct. 22 for Lay, a former Bank of America executive who took the Cabinet position when Perdue was sworn in January 2009.

"I thank Ken Lay for his service to the state, and for the progress he has made in seeking a new strategic direction for the Department of Revenue," Perdue said in a statement.

When asked if Lay was forced out, Perdue spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson said only the governor and Lay agreed Wednesday that it was the right time to bring in new leadership. Asked for an explanation of his departure beyond a two-sentence resignation letter, Lay said in a prepared statement only that the strategic vision "has reached a point of inflection, which is a perfect time for new leadership."

Lay had been under fire in recent weeks after a new department policy made public was making it harder for North Carolina residents to get refunds when they overpaid their taxes by mistake, potentially leading to millions of dollars in withheld funds. Last year's change, following a 2007 law, led department officials to direct workers not to review returns flagged for a refund if they were more than three years old.

Perdue said last month she hadn't known earlier about the department policy change. Lay and the governor announced soon after a plan to eliminate a backlog of 230,000 returns since 1994 in the agency's computer system by year's end and pay refunds.

But Lay told The News & Observer of Raleigh recently the General Assembly would have to alter the law so that refunds for returns older than three years could be paid.

Hoyle, who decided not to run for a tenth term in November, said the price tag on the ill will with taxpayers with the policy change costs more than the refunds that had been otherwise withheld.

"We have an obligation to the citizens to administer everything fairly," Hoyle said in an interview. "People are suspicious of government anyway ... it's just not right."

The tax collections department also had been forced to delay tax refunds the past two years because of cash flow problems within state government. More than 300,000 refunds valued at $222 million hadn't been distributed this year, nearly a month and a half after the April 15 filing deadline.

Lay also took criticism after a WRAL-TV report found two department leaders had been reimbursed tens of thousands of dollars for mileage and lodging while commuting between their Charlotte area homes and their Raleigh offices.

Hoyle, 71, said he accepted Perdue's job offer Tuesday. He said he wanted to help Perdue, a former senator and president of the Senate as lieutenant governor.

Hoyle "has seen the Department of Revenue from the inside and out. He has spent years helping to write the state's tax laws, and I'm sure that experience will prove invaluable in his new role," Perdue said in her statement.

Hoyle was often a foil of the department as the Finance Committee leader, criticizing the agency for putting small business owners over a fiscal barrel because of poor advice it gave taxpayers or vague rules.

"I think a lot of people get caught in a trap," he said.

Hoyle said he would resign his Senate seat the day before he assumes his new job. Perdue said Hoyle's appointment was subject to a usual review by the state Ethics Commission. Hoyle said he doesn't believe his extensive business dealings will generate potential conflicts of interest.





Bev Perdue Right To Replace North Carolina State Revenue Secretary

Gov. Bev Perdue was right to replace N.C. Secretary of Revenue Kenneth Lay, a former Charlotte banker, after his department changed state policy and kept taxpayers' overpayments if they did not request a refund with a three-year statute of limitations.

That policy was unethical, undermined public trust in state government and, not to put too fine a point on it, was dumb.

Perdue's office said the governor never knew about it until a newspaper report in mid-August revealed the department was not informing taxpayers about the overpayments, making it harder to get refunds if taxpayers had not asked for them.

The Revenue Department has released e-mails that suggested it had consulted staffers in the governor's office about the change. In stories that ran Sunday in the News & Observer of Raleigh and the Charlotte Observer, Lay said he could not explain why the governor didn't know about the policy change and said he thought her office had checked off on it. Her staff said the matter was mentioned only in the briefest way, not in a formal policy discussion.

The department should have recognized the political storm that would blow up over keeping money that shouldn't have been paid to the government, and Perdue was rightly incensed when she learned of it. She ordered the department to eliminate a backlog of flagged returns by the end of this year and send the overpayments back to taxpayers. Officials have since determined the state owes $949,000 in overpayments to 3,300 taxpayers, but refunding them all will require a change in state law when the legislature convenes next year.

We don't know what Perdue thought when she saw Lay's remarks Sunday saying the governor's office had acquiesced in the change, but we imagine the words "new leadership" were among them. She announced Wednesday that she had accepted Lay's resignation and that outgoing state Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston, would replace him.

That Perdue would turn to a longtime ally is not surprising. Hoyle is an experienced politician and businessman unlikely to make a blunder such as hanging on to tax overpayments. And as co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, he knows state tax policy. Whether he's the right person to run a large bureaucracy is another question, but Perdue's office surely will be careful to make sure he has a good staff - and that the governor's office knows what it's doing this time.


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WRAL, Google Maps

North Carolina's Top Tax Man Ken Lay Resigns Under Mysterious Circumstances

Former Charlotte Banker Ken Lay Resigns as N.C. Top Revenue Chief


Gov. Bev Perdue today announced the resignation of state Revenue Secretary Ken Lay and his replacement by outgoing Sen. David Hoyle of Gaston County.

The resignation of Lay, a former Charlotte banker, follows reports in Sunday’s News & Observer that the governor had signed off on a policy that made it harder for taxpayers who overpaid taxes to get refunds.

Perdue spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson said this afternoon the governor had never signed off on such a policy. But Pearson said it was time for “new leadership.”

Revenue officials face a backlog of tens of thousands of cases where taxpayers are owed money.

Pearson said Lay’s resignation takes effect Oct. 22.


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WRAL, Google Maps

North Carolina's Racially Divided Democrats Prepare For 2010 GOP Landslide

Top North Carolina Democrats Warn Of 2010 GOP Landslide


N.C. Senate Majority Leader Martin Nesbitt Tuesday invoked the Republican landslide of 1994 in urging Democrats to take nothing for granted - and go to the polls.

He told the Charlotte Uptown Democrats that changes in election law could help his party avoid a GOP sweep like the one that surprised Democrats 16 years ago.

"We know it can happen now," he said at the Levine Museum of the New South. "That's probably the biggest thing that's different."

Nesbitt, an Asheville Democrat, also touted new figures that show North Carolina led the nation in job gains from July to August and ranked fourth in the country in gains over the last 12 months - numbers that he said argue for continued Democratic leadership in Raleigh.

Nesbitt is the second-ranking Democrat in a Senate where Democrats now control 30 of 50 seats. But seven Democratic incumbents are either retiring or already have gone.

And with polls showing more voter enthusiasm for Republicans, the GOP is confident of picking up at least the six seats that would put them in charge for the first time since 1898.

On Monday the conservative Civitas Institute released a poll that showed Republicans leading Democrats on a generic legislative ballot by 11 percentage points.

John Davis, a pro-business political analyst, predicted Tuesday that if the elections were held now, Republicans would win at least 27 seats and are within reach of 29.

Nesbitt said he believes Democrats will hold most contested races, even those in Republican-leaning districts currently held by Democrats.

"At the end of the day, they're ours," he said. "The only way those people are going to lose is if we don't turn our people out on Election Day."

Nesbitt, who lost a House seat in the 1994 GOP landslide, was joined by Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx in urging Democrats to vote. He said unlike 1994, his party has on its side early-voting and same-day registration, which so far have helped Democrats.

The elections take place in the shadow of a state budget shortfall estimated at $3 billion. Nesbitt said Democrats would ensure that the state deals with that without hurting education - which takes up 57 percent of the budget - and other critical programs. Not so Republicans, he added.

"I guess they would cut $3 billion," said Nesbitt. "And they said they want to cut taxes too, so if they do that they would have to cut more (spending)."

Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, agreed that Republicans would cut spending, but systematically.

"One of the things very easy for them to do is say all those (Republicans) are going to do is slash-and-burn. That's not what we're going to do," Berger said. "I think most folks believe there's a degree of waste and inefficiency in government."

Berger said Republicans would adopt a long-range plan to reduce spending.

Asked later how he would fix the $3 billion shortfall, Nesbitt said he would keep his options open, but called a tax increase "unlikely."

"If we ever start recovering out of this recession, a lot of that will take care of itself," he said.


View Larger Map

Sources: Charmeck.org, McClatchy Newspapers, North Carolina General Assembly, Youtube, Google Maps

Charlotte Loves "Black On Black" Crime; Contributes To National Gun Violence

Attention!

Need To Purchase A Gun To Carry Across State Lines Or Want To Kill Another Black Citizen Without Being Prosecuted?

Come On Down To Charlotte, NC!

The New "Dirty South"! Sorry Atlanta.

They Love "Black On Black" Crime Here!

It Helps Reduce The Black Population!

Charlotte's Statistics Are Equal To/ Trump Newark's Gun Violence Crimes.

Yes I'm Being Facetious!

I Have To Laugh To Keep From Crying. But Its NO Laughing Matter!

Peace





Many Guns Used In Crimes Nationwide Are Traced Back To North Carolina (Charlotte)


Nearly half of the guns that crossed state lines and were used to commit crimes in 2009 were sold in just 10 states, and North Carolina makes the list.

That information comes from a survey that was done by a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an association of more than 500 mayors led by New York's Michael Bloomberg and Boston's Thomas Menino.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced more than 145,000 guns used in crimes in 2009 and found that 43,000 were sold in other states.

Nearly half of those guns, 49 percent specifically, were sold in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California and Arizona.

In Charlotte, Larry Hyatt's Coin and Gun Shop has been in business for more than 50 years.

"North Carolina, for one, is a very strict gun control state," Hyatt says.
But, he also says there is very little control of what happens to a gun once it leaves a gun store.

"A lot of freedom gives a lot of criminals a lot of room to do bad things," he explains.

Judy Williams, from the group Mothers of Murdered Offspring, doesn’t want North Carolina to be on this top 10 list.

"I think the idea of my home state being known to be a place where people can come and acquire guns so easily, that's not good," she says.

Williams would like to see even tighter controls on the sale of guns.
Larry Hyatt says one reason North Carolina probably made the top 10 is because it already has strict policies on gun sales and permits.

"They are talking about guns that are traceable.

There's probably two-thirds of firearms that can't be traced because they were bought in states where there are not good records kept," says Hyatt.


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Google Maps

North Carolina Student Assignment Fight May Reach U.S. Supreme Ct

Well Folks By The Way Things Are Headed Looks As If The Wake County, North Carolina Student Assignment Fight May End Up At The U.S. Supreme Court's Door!

Another Brown Vs. Board Educational Landmark Case For The 21st Century.

Yeah!

Unless Pres. Obama Blocks It For Political/ 2012 Election Reasons. Hopefully Not!

Next Battle Stop: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

Its About Time The NAACP Stepped Up To Fight For Equal Education.

In Fact They Should Have Did It Last Year!

Yeah!








North Carolina NAACP Takes Wake County Schools To Feds


Claiming that the Re-Segregation of Wake County public schools has already begun, North Carolina NAACP has launched a far-reaching legal effort to stop the transformation of North Carolina's largest school district.

State and national leaders of the Civil Rights Organization gathered at a downtown church Saturday to announce a federal civil rights complaint accusing the Wake County school system of racial discrimination over student assignment and disciplinary issues.

School board members Ron Margiotta and John Tedesco quickly denounced the legal action as lacking merit and distracting from their efforts to assign students closer to home and to improve academic achievement.

The complaint, filed late Friday, is part of an effort to block the new school board majority from moving forward with assigning students under a neighborhood zone system that would replace a diversity-based plan. Joining the NAACP as parties in the complaint were the youth group N.C.

HEAT (Heroes Emerging Among Teens) and Quinton White, a high school senior who was reassigned by the school board this year.

The complaint cites student reassignment changes made this year by the new board, the new assignment plan under development, and disproportionately harsh discipline of minority students.

It claims the Wake school system has violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits groups that receive federal dollars from engaging in discrimination. The Wake school system received nearly $78 million in federal funds last fiscal year.

The federal government rarely declares that groups are violating Title VI, said Wendy Parker, a Wake Forest University School of Law professor and expert on civil rights law. But judging by the national attention the Wake fight has received, Parker said it's likely that officials will investigate and put more of a spotlight on the situation.

"This investigation is not something they're going to put on the back burner," Parker said.

The state NAACP used Title VI to file a federal civil rights complaint in December accusing the Wayne County school system of discrimination. Federal officials are still investigating the Wayne County complaint.

News and worship

Pastors and lawyers spoke passionately Saturday at a gathering at Christian Faith Baptist Church. It was part news conference, part worship service. A multiracial crowd of about 100 people cheered and sprinkled the speeches with echoes of "amen" and "tell it."

Ben Jealous, the national president and CEO of the NAACP, spoke of the need for Wake County school officials to build upon the successes of the county's diversity policy, not tear it down.

"In this country, where we all have to spend so much time fixing what's broke," Jealous said to cheers, "how dare you come in and break what's fixed?"

But Margiotta, chairman of the school board, argued that the system is already broken. He pointed to low test scores and low graduation rates for low-income and minority children under the old assignment policy. He immediately dismissed the civil rights organizations' claims as lacking merit.

"These are all distractions that are trying to take us away from our job of educating the kids," Margiotta said Saturday. "We're not going to let this distraction take away from our focus on academic achievement."

Tedesco pointed out that the board is revising the suspension and expulsion policies questioned in the complaint. Those policies were in place when the new board took office in December.

"If anything, it shows how out of touch they are with what's really going on," he said.

The school board is already facing a wide-ranging special review of its policy decisions, including its elimination of the diversity policy, from AdvancED, the Georgia-based organization that accredits Wake's high schools. That review was also generated by a state NAACP complaint.

Now investigators from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights may also come to Raleigh in response to the new federal complaint.



3 NAACP arguments

Officials of the NAACP are basing their complaint on three legal arguments.

The first argument is that the school board approved reassignment changes for this school year that were based on the race of the students and thus "intentionally discriminatory." The NAACP is citing the reassignment of minority students from Garner High School to Southeast Raleigh High School and the movement of mainly white students from Stough Elementary to Lacy Elementary.

"The Board was implementing the will of a well-organized and vocal set of parents who want to live in racially-isolated neighborhoods and send their children to racially-isolated schools," the complaint said.

The students moved from Garner High live in Southeast Raleigh. The NAACP cites long-standing complaints by Garner elected officials, community leaders and parents that the town's schools have excessively high percentages of poor students because of busing from Southeast Raleigh.

Carolyn Morrison, a member of the school board minority, agreed with the language of the complaint on that issue.

"I really think there has been intentional resegregation," she said. "Many times when I have offered amendments, to say we are not looking to have high-poverty or segregated schools, they would not support that. That to me is intentional."

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

Capacity, not race

Tedesco said race was never taken into consideration in reassigning students from Garner to Southeast Raleigh.

"What it was all about, it was about capacity," Tedesco said. "Garner High School last year had to open a 'trailer-teria' because they were so overcrowded."

The Lacy moves represented the reversal of the old board's decision in 2009 to move those children to Stough Elementary. Many of the Lacy parents, who lived in or near the Glen Eden neighborhood in Raleigh, helped raise money for the new board members during the school board election campaign last fall.

Dana Cope, noting that he was a lifelong member of the NAACP, called it "offensive" to say that the parents wanted to return to Lacy for racial reasons.

"People wanted to go to the neighborhood school they had supported," said Cope, who is also executive director of the State Employees Association of North Carolina.

The NAACP's second legal argument focuses on the new community assignment zones being developed to replace the diversity-based system. A school board committee is working on a new model, loosely based on current high school attendance boundaries, that would divide the county into 16 zones.

The complaint contends that the new zones will segregate schools and deny students of color access to educational opportunities.

Tedesco said the complaint is premature because it ignores elements of the plan yet to come, focusing only on preliminary maps.

The third argument is that Wake suspends and expels a disproportionately high percentage of black and minority students. The new board majority has acknowledged that the district was suspending too many students and is overhauling the discipline policies.



More Legal Action?

The federal complaint culminates months of threats of legal action from the Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP. On Saturday, he warned that the state chapter still may file a lawsuit in addition to this federal civil rights complaint.

He vowed to not back down from his fight in Wake County, saying the NAACP is not in this to cut backroom deals or play games with our children's future."

"Don't ask us to compromise on something less than what our forefathers and foremothers have already fought for," he added.

Tedesco said he and his colleagues won't be slowed in their drive to bring a new assignment and academic model to Wake schools, even though the process may be costly to the system.

"The NAACP wants to take money out of the classroom and put it in the courtroom," Tedesco said.


View Larger Map

Sources: Education Week, MSNBC, NAACP, The Grio, McClatchy Newspapers, The Grio, Wikipedia, WRAL, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Vs. Thurgood Marshall: 21st Century Civil Rights Battle: Education Reform!

Will Equal Education Reform For America's Public Schools Become Pres. Obama's 21st Century Civil Rights Battle?

If He Has The Intestinal Fortitude To Proceed, And If He Truly Cares More About The Future Of Children Than Politics, Yes It Will Be!

But Aren't Our Children Worth It?

Peace

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

Brown v. Board Of Education


Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students and denying black children equal educational opportunities unconstitutional.

The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which permitted segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.

For much of the ninety years preceding the Brown case, race relations in the U.S. had been dominated by racial segregation. This policy had been endorsed in 1896 by the United States Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that as long as the separate facilities for the separate races were "equal," segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment ("no State shall... deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws.").

The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it.

Brown was influenced by UNESCO's 1950 Statement, signed by a wide variety of internationally renowned scholars, titled The Race Question.

This declaration denounced previous attempts at scientifically justifying racism as well as morally condemning racism. Another work that the Supreme Court cited was Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944). Myrdal had been a signatory of the UNESCO declaration. The research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.

The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation had an impact on black schoolchildren's mental status.

Brown v. Board of Education

In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their twenty children.

The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of Racial Segregation.

Separate elementary schools were operated by the Topeka Board of Education under an 1879 Kansas law, which permitted (but did not require) districts to maintain separate elementary school facilities for black and white students in twelve communities with populations over 15,000.

The plaintiffs had been recruited by the leadership of the Topeka NAACP. Notable among the Topeka NAACP leaders were the chairman McKinley Burnett; Charles Scott, one of three serving as legal counsel for the chapter; and Lucinda Todd.

The named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African American.

He was convinced to join the lawsuit by Scott, a childhood friend. Brown's daughter Linda, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools. Linda Brown Thompson later recalled the experience in a 2004 PBS documentary:

". . . well. like I say, we lived in an integrated neighborhood and I had all of these playmates of different nationalities. And so when I found out that day that I might be able to go to their school, I was just thrilled, you know. And I remember walking over to Sumner school with my dad that day and going up the steps of the school and the school looked so big to a smaller child. And I remember going inside and my dad spoke with someone and then he went into the inner office with the principal and they left me out . . . to sit outside with the secretary. And while he was in the inner office, I could hear voices and hear his voice raised, you know, as the conversation went on.

And then he immediately came out of the office, took me by the hand and we walked home from the school. I just couldn't understand what was happening because I was so sure that I was going to go to school with Mona and Guinevere, Wanda, and all of my playmates."

The Kansas case, "Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas," was named after Oliver Brown as a legal strategy to have a man at the head of the roster. Also, it was felt by lawyers with the National Chapter of the NAACP, that having Mr. Brown at the head of the roster would be better received by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices because Mr. Brown had an intact, complete family, as opposed to someone who was a single parent head of household.

The thirteen plaintiffs were: Oliver Brown, Darlene Brown, Lena Carper, Sadie Emmanuel, Marguerite Emerson, Shirley Fleming, Zelma Henderson, Shirley Hodison, Maude Lawton, Alma Lewis, Iona Richardson, and Lucinda Todd.

The last surviving plaintiff, Zelma Henderson, died in Topeka, on May 20, 2008, at the age of 88.

The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which had upheld a state law requiring "separate but equal" segregated facilities for blacks and whites in railway cars.

The three-judge District Court panel found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the negro and white schools in Topeka were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricular, and educational qualifications of teachers.

Supreme Court Review

The case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington D.C.).

All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Davis case, the only case of the five originating from a student protest, began when sixteen-year-old Barbara Rose Johns organized and led a 450-student walkout of Moton High School.

The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention of gross inferiority of the segregated schools' physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found substantial equality as to all such factors.

The Delaware case was unique in that the District Court judge in Gebhart ordered that the black students be admitted to the white high school due to the substantial harm of segregation and the differences that made the schools separate but not equal.

The NAACP's chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University of Kansas—conducted the state's ambivalent defense in his first Appellate trial.

Unanimous Opinion And Key Holding

In spring 1953 the Court heard the case but was unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.

Conference notes and draft decisions illustrate the division of opinions before the decision was issued.

Justices Douglas, Black, Burton, and Minton were predisposed to overturn Plessy.

Fred M. Vinson noted that Congress had not issued desegregation legislation; Stanley F. Reed discussed incomplete assimilation and states' rights and was inclined to the view that segregation worked to the benefit of the African-American community; Tom C. Clark wrote that "we had led the states on to think segregation is OK and we should let them work it out."

Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson disapproved of segregation, but were also opposed to judicial activism and expressed concerns about the proposed decision's enforceability.[19] After Vinson died in September 1953, President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.

Warren had supported the integration of Mexican-American students in California school systems following Mendez v. Westminster.

The case was being reargued at the behest of Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, who used re-argument as a stalling tactic, to allow the Court to gather a unanimous consensus around a Brown opinion that would outlaw segregation.

Chief Justice Vinson had been a key stumbling block. The justices in support of desegregation spent much effort convincing those who initially dissented to join a unanimous opinion. Even though the legal effect would be same for a majority versus unanimous decision, it was felt that it was vital to not have a dissent which could be relied upon by opponents of desegregation as a legitimizing counterargument.

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the self-restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. The activist faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate, dominated by southerners, confirmed his appointment.

Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion.

Although most justices were immediately convinced, Warren spent some time after this famous speech convincing everyone to sign onto the opinion. Justices Robert Jackson and Stanley Reed finally decided to drop their dissent to what was by then an opinion backed by all the others. The final decision was unanimous. Warren drafted the basic opinion and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.

Holding

The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. They found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given to black children from the nature of segregation itself.

This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were "equal", which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional. The justices answered with a strong "no":
Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does... Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children.

The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group.

A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a Racially Integrated school system...

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Local Outcomes

The Topeka middle schools had been integrated since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in 1871 and its sports teams from 1949 on.[22] The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only "below the high school level."

Soon after the district court decision, election outcomes and the political climate in Topeka changed.

The Board of Education of Topeka began to end segregation in the Topeka elementary schools in August 1953, integrating two attendance districts. All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January 1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned schools at their option.

Plaintiff Zelma Henderson, in a 2004 interview, recalled that no demonstrations or tumult accompanied desegregation in Topeka's schools:

"They accepted it," she said. "It wasn't too long until they integrated the teachers and principals."

The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP chapter president who organized the case.

Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.

Social Implications

Not everyone accepted the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In Virginia, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. organized the Massive Resistance movement that included the closing of schools rather than desegregating them.[28] See, for example, The Southern Manifesto. For more implications of the Brown decision, see Desegregation.

In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out his state's National Guard to block black students' entry to Little Rock High School. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying elements of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Arkansas and by federalizing Faubus' National Guard.

Also in 1957, Florida's response was mixed. Its legislature passed an Interposition Resolution denouncing the decision and declaring it null and void.

But Florida Governor Thomas LeRoy Collins, though joining in the protest against the court decision, refused to sign it arguing that the attempt to overturn the ruling must be done in legal methods.

In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous Stand in the Schoolhouse Door where Wallace personally backed his "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" policy that he had stated in his 1963 inaugural address.

He moved aside only when confronted by General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard, who was ordered by President John F. Kennedy to intervene.


Backlash And Scientific Racism

The intellectual roots of Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation in 1896 under the doctrine of "separate but equal" were, in part, tied to the scientific racism of the era.

However, the popular support for the decision was more likely a result of the racist beliefs held by many whites at the time.

In deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court rejected the ideas of scientific racists about the need for segregation, especially in schools. The Court buttressed its holding by citing social science research about the harms to black children caused by segregated schools.

Both scholarly and popular ideas of scientific racism played an important role in the attack and backlash that followed the Brown decision.

The Mankind Quarterly is a journal that has published scientific racism. It was founded in 1960, in part in response to the Brown decision.

Many of the publication's contributors, publishers, and Board of Directors espouse academic hereditarianism. The publication is widely criticized for its extremist politics, antisemitic bent and its support for Scientific Racism.


Legal Criticism And Praise

William Rehnquist wrote a memo titled "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases" when he was a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson in 1952, during early deliberations that led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

In his memo, Rehnquist argued: "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."

Rehnquist also argued for Plessy with other law clerks.

However, during his 1971 confirmation hearings, Rehnquist said, "I believe that the memorandum was prepared by me as a statement of Justice Jackson's tentative views for his own use." Justice Jackson had initially planned to join a dissent in Brown.

Later, at his 1986 hearings for the slot of Chief Justice, Rehnquist put further distance between himself and the 1952 memo: "The bald statement that Plessy was right and should be reaffirmed, was not an accurate reflection of my own views at the time."

In any event, while serving on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist made no effort to reverse or undermine the Brown decision, and frequently relied upon it as precedent.

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation.

Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. . . .
Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools—would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant. . . .

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (. . .) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.

Some Constitutional originalists, notably Raoul Berger in his influential 1977 book "Government by Judiciary," make the case that Brown cannot be defended by reference to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment.

They support this reading of the 14th amendment by noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 did not ban segregated schools. Other originalists, including Michael W. McConnell, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in his article "Originalism and the Desegregation Decisions," argue that the Radical Reconstructionists who spearheaded the 14th Amendment were in favor of desegregated southern schools.

The case also has attracted some criticism from more liberal authors, including some who say that Chief Justice Warren's reliance on psychological criteria to find a harm against segregated blacks was unnecessary.

For example, Drew S. Days has written: "we have developed criteria for evaluating the constitutionality of racial classifications that do not depend upon findings of psychic harm or social science evidence.

They are based rather on the principle that 'distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,' Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). . . ."

In his book "The Tempting of America" (page 82), Robert Bork endorsed the Brown decision as follows:

By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases . . . The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice.

Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.

In June 1987, Philip Elman, a civil rights attorney who served as an associate in the Solicitor General's office during Harry Truman's term, claimed he and Felix Frankfurter were mostly responsible for the Supreme Court's decision, and stated that the NAACP's arguments did not present strong evidence.

Elman has been criticized for offering a self-aggrandizing history of the case, omitting important facts, and denigrating the work of civil rights attorneys who had laid the groundwork for the decision over many decades.

Public officials in the United States today are nearly unanimous in lauding the ruling.

In May 2004, the fiftieth anniversary of the ruling, President George W. Bush spoke at the opening of the "Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site", calling Brown "a decision that changed America for the better, and forever."

Most Senators and Representatives issued press releases hailing the ruling.


Brown II

In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In their decision which became known as "Brown II" the court delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation to district courts with orders that desegregation occur "with all deliberate speed," a phrase traceable to Francis Thompson's poem, The Hound of Heaven.

Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with this decision. The language “all deliberate speed” was seen by critics as too ambiguous to ensure reasonable haste for compliance with the court's instruction.

Many Southern states and school districts interpreted "Brown II" as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated "private" schools, and "token" integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools.

For example, based on "Brown II," the U.S. District Court ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia did not have to desegregate immediately. When another court case in 1959 ruled that the county's schools finally had to desegregate, the county board of supervisors stopped appropriating money for public schools which remained closed for five years, from 1959 to 1964. White students in the county were given assistance to attend white-only "private academies" that were taught by teachers formerly employed by the public school system, while black students had no education at all unless they moved out of the county.

Brown III

In 1978, Topeka attorneys Richard Jones, Joseph Johnson and Charles Scott Jr. (son of the original Brown team member), with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, persuaded Linda Brown Smith—who now had her own children in Topeka schools—to be a plaintiff in reopening Brown.

They were concerned that the Topeka Public Schools' policy of "open enrollment" had led to and would lead to further segregation. They also believed that with a choice of open enrollment, white parents would shift their children to "preferred" schools that would create both predominantly African American and predominantly European American schools within the district.

The district court reopened the Brown case after a 25-year hiatus, but denied the plaintiffs' request finding the schools "unitary". In 1989, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit on 2–1 vote found that the vestiges of segregation remained with respect to student and staff assignment. In 1993, the Supreme Court denied the appellant School District's request for certiorari and returned the case to District Court Judge Richard Rodgers for implementation of the Tenth Circuit's mandate.

After a 1994 plan was approved and a bond issue passed, additional elementary magnet schools were opened and district attendance plans redrawn, which resulted in the Topeka schools meeting court standards of racial balance by 1998.

Unified status was eventually granted to Topeka Unified School District #501 on July 27, 1999. One of the new magnet schools is named after the Scott family attorneys for their role in the Brown case and Civil Rights.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps