Union Matters

Dr. King: Still making the impossible happen

Gregory Floyd

President, Teamsters Local 237 and Vice President at-Large on the General Board of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Around this time of year, many people pause to consider the true legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Some will conjure up his nearly endless wisdom-packed, insightful words as evidence of his greatness: “You can kill the dreamer but not the dream,” “The impossible just takes a little longer,” or perhaps the most prophetic of his words, uttered at the Mason Temple in Memphis 54 years ago, where he spoke on behalf of striking sanitation workers protesting their meager wages of $1.65 an hour and deplorable working conditions. It was there that he said: “I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.” He was assassinated the next day.

Indeed, civil rights, voters’ rights and workers’ rights are intertwined. Dr. King knew this and ultimately died fighting for equality and dignity in the workplace. As we celebrate his birth and prepare for February Black History Month commemorations, we must consider the obvious question: How far have we really come in turning Dr. King’s momentous 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech at the National Mall into a reality? Some would say the answer is just as obvious as the question—not far enough. One newspaper headline sums it all up: “MLK family asks for no celebration until lawmakers pass voting rights legislation” (Amsterdam News, Jan. 11, 2022). And there have been many other telling insights. For example, during the April 3, 2018 commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King, an adorable little 9-yearold girl came to the mic, standing on a box to reach it. She was greeted with thunderous applause as an overflowing crowd waited to hear what she had to say. Little Yolanda King, standing in the very same spot her grandfather stood 54 years before, did not disappoint. Referring to her grandpa’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech, she told the crowd that she had a dream of her own. She said: “This should be a gun-free world. PERIOD!” From the stage, she could see thousands of people, most of them not too much older than her. They carried signs reading “Enough Is Enough” and “Stop Killing Us.” Yolanda then went on to lead the crowd in the roaring chant: “Spread the word. Have you heard? All across the nation, we are going to be a great generation.” Later, in an interview on CNN, Yolanda was asked what her grandfather would have thought about other current protest movements such as “Black Lives Matter,” “Me Too” and “DACA.” She said her grandfather would be so amazed to see all these people coming together.

It is interesting to note that with all three major TV networks at the time (ABC, CBS and NBC) airing Dr. King’s speech, and although he was already a national figure by then, it was the first time many Americans—reportedly including President John F. Kennedy—had heard him deliver an entire speech. Kennedy was assassinated less than three months later, but his successor, Lyndon Johnson, would go on to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, marking the most significant advances in civil rights legislation since Reconstruction.

With so many challenges confronting us today—some new, others lingering for decades, from COVID to gun violence to voting rights, an analysis of Dr. King’s true legacy is made even more difficult to accurately define. But one theme seems to bind all his accomplishments together: an inspiration to ingrain in people the commitment to do what’s right when you’ve been wronged, and to draw upon the best instincts of each generation. Dr. King still brings people together. Yolanda was right. He’d be amazed at how many people—from so many different backgrounds—are tuned in and turned on to trying to make the impossible happen.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has set the deadline date of Monday, January 17, when the nation observes Dr. King’s birthday, for the passage of the new voting rights protection legislation, The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Advancement Act, both keys to fulfilling Dr. King’s magnificent legacy.

CUNY staff members sue to leave union, cite ‘anti-Semitism’

Six CUNY professors sue to leave the union citing the First Amendment and alleged anti-Semitism. (Photo courtesy of PSC-CUNY)

By STEPHON JOHNSON

Amsterdam News Staff

Six City University of New York (CUNY) professors (Michael Goldstein, Avraham Goldstein, Mitchell Langbert, Maria Pagano, Jeffrey Law and Frimette KassShraibman) have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the union representing CUNY’s faculty and staff citing “anti-Semitic” actions and a violation of their first amendment rights.

With this lawsuit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC-CUNY), they hope to overturn New York State’s “Public Employees Fair Employment Act” that allows public sector workers the legal right to representation and collective bargaining.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the lawsuit also names New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and New York Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) Chairman John Wirenius.

According to Lax, in a separate case, he had already gotten a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Communion. According to the complaint, “CUNY and PSC leaders discriminated against him, retaliated against him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of religion.” Prof. Lax “has felt marginalized and ostracized by PSC because the union has made it clear that Jews who support the Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, are not welcome.”

Last June, PSC-CUNY passed a resolution supporting Palestine. In August, CUNY President James Davis said in response to the resolution, “We opposed the original resolution forwarded by committees to the Delegate Assembly, and that we also voted against the resolution that passed. We each found the resolution as adopted problematic for our own reasons, but together we believe that any position the union develops on Israel and Palestine should be preceded by conversation among the members in our chapters.”

The six-member lawsuit also cites the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME that ruled forcing employees to fund union activities to keep their jobs was a violation of their first amendment rights.

“Going as far back as the 1944 Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. decision, the Supreme Court has recognized that union bosses misuse their governmentgranted monopoly bargaining powers to take offensive positions that are directly contrary to the interests of many employees who are forced under a union’s so-called ‘representation’ against their will,” stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix.

All six professors have resigned their union memberships and have attempted to cut off dues.

Frank Clark, PSC-CUNY spokesperson, said that the lawsuit was a waste of time.

“This meritless lawsuit, brought by faculty who are not members of our union and funded by the notoriously right-wing National Right to Work Legal Foundation, is just another attempt to erode the power of organized labor to fight for better pay and working conditions and a more just society. PSC members—and non-member freeriders such as the plaintiffs—have good health insurance, benefits, due-process rights, contractual raises and salary steps because of the union’s contract negotiations. The ‘Right to Work’ agenda is rooted in white supremacy; it will find little purchase at CUNY, the nation’s largest, most diverse urban university system.”

Clark said that PSC members’ feelings about Israel and Palestine have been distorted in service of an “anti-union agenda.”

Safety and justice for all

By DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALVIN BRAGG

For 20 years, I have dedicated my life to keeping New Yorkers safe and ensuring that all my neighbors are treated fairly by our justice system.

I’ve prosecuted people who caused serious harm, and removed those individuals from the community to keep our families safe. And as a son of Harlem, I’ve also seen the profound harm that results from over-reliance on policing and prosecution—the families needlessly separated, the wasted human potential, and the broken trust between communities and law enforcement that makes successful prosecutions of serious violence vastly more difficult.

I know these issues personally and professionally. Growing up in Harlem, I had a knife to my neck, a semiautomatic gun to my head, and a homicide victim on my doorstep. I never want anyone to experience this trauma. That’s part of why I became a prosecutor and did armed robbery and assault cases.

I was elected Manhattan district attorney to deliver safety and justice for all. The two goals of justice and safety are not opposed to each other. They are inextricably linked. We deserve and demand both, and that has been the focus of my career, and indeed, my life.

So let me be clear: safety is paramount. My mission as district attorney is keeping every single person in Manhattan safe. Your No. 1 civil right is to walk around your neighborhood and ride the subway without fear. No New Yorker should walk our streets in fear of an assault or robbery.

In particular, guns will be a priority of my administration. We have lost too many loved ones to gun violence in this city. We need to hold accountable those who carry guns, and we also need to focus resources on tracing where illegal guns came from so we can go after the traffickers who profit from the sale of deadly weapons. We will also increase our long-term investigations that directly address street crime: human trafficking, gun trafficking, and drug trafficking. We will ramp up money-laundering and white collar crimes that finance violent crime. Following the contraband and following the money lead us to the most culpable people. Holding these people accountable is key to disrupting criminal enterprises and will lead to significant public safety benefits. Let me also be crystal clear that there is a lot more to keeping us safe than incarceration. Every person who breaks the law must be held accountable, but accountability does not always mean incarceration.

We must work to earn the trust of the community. We know we lose the community’s trust if people who commit shootings or sexual assaults are not held accountable. But we also lose the community’s trust when they see us throwing the book at someone who just needs a job, or drug treatment, or mental health treatment.

We will invest more in diversion and alternatives to incarceration: well-designed initiatives that support and stabilize people—particularly individuals in crisis and youth—can conserve resources, reduce re-offending, and diminish the collateral harms of criminal prosecution. Studies also indicate that incarceration, in and of itself, can create public safety risks.

And we will actively support those reentering; supporting those returning to community and helping them overcome barriers to housing and health care reduces recidivism and thereby makes communities safer.

These policy changes not only will, in and of themselves, make us safer, they also will free up prosecutorial resources to focus on violent crime. It will also allow my office to work closely with Mayor Adams and other agencies to invest in services for the mentally ill people on the streets, including supportive housing, and ensuring the seriously mentally ill folks receive the help they need.

Incarceration is one tool in our toolbox. We, of course, will use that tool. But we must be smart about how we target our prosecutions, and when prosecution isn’t going to make us safer, and make sure we’re providing resources to address people’s needs so they don’t cycle through the system time and again.

That is how we improve public safety and make our justice system fairer.

Giuliani subpoenaed, great! EDITORIAL As we await President Biden’s first news conference since November, excuse us from gloating that Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, has been subpoenaed by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on the Capitol. Giuliani, along with three other members of Trump’s legal team that fomented baseless claims of election fraud and promoted efforts to overturn the election, must now face a battery of questions about their anti-democratic behavior. New York City’s former mayor joins several other Trump surrogates, including Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Bernard Kerik, a former New York City Police Commissioner subpoenaed by the committee, headed by Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi. Alvin Bragg Jr. is the New York County district attorney,

Our guess is that Giuliani will defy the subpoena and then be held the first African American elected to serve that office. in contempt of Congress. Unlike what Biden will say later today during his press conference about voter suppression, we have no idea the ultimate outcome of all those Trump minions called before the committee. When DA Bragg speaks about second chances

One thing for sure, citing Giuliani brings the committee a little bit By ASSEMBLYMAN AL TAYLOR closer to Trump and another opportunity to delve deeper into the plans of disrupting the final count of the last presidential election. When a young Black man is arrested for carrying a

In effect, the Big Lie continues to be of considerable importance as the weapon, the only potential that many people see is midterm elections loom ever larger on the horizon, just as the issue of the potential for murder and mayhem. Their kneejerk passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021 passed impulse is to lock him up for as long as possible. So, by the House and the troubling filibuster are major impediments to as- I wasn’t surprised by the outrage in some quarters suring the franchise for many Americans. when Manhattan’s new district attorney, Alvin Bragg,

Few current and political issues have been as divisive as the immi- announced that he would not automatically seek innent Senate vote on voting rights, which appears dead on arrival. Given carceration in every case of illegal weapons possesthis defeat, and we can applaud all we want about the Trump folks sion. But my perspective is different. When I hear DA being summoned by the select committee, the DNC, the White House, Bragg speak about second chances for young men and coterie of Democrats, whether devoted or fringe, will have to mar- caught with weapons, I hear him talking about me. shal every bit of political muscle in the nation to intercept the spread When I was 16 years old, I was arrested for possesof voter suppression—and more than 19 states have already passed a sion of a deadly weapon—in my case, a machete. If I number of measures to make those obstacles a reality. were growing up today it very likely would have been

Yes, we got Giuliani in the crosshairs, but his boss remains at large, a gun. It was my first arrest, but I was facing a felony and so do the lies he continues to tell that have infected the very demo- conviction and a lifetime of severely constrained opcratic process now at risk. Watch out Trump, the committee is circling. portunity. As a Black man with no high school diploma and a felony record, my odds of experiencing homelessness and repeated incarceration would have been high. Fortunately, the judge assigned to my case saw more potential in me than I saw in myself at the time. Judge Bruce Wright—derisively dubbed “Turn ‘Em Loose Bruce” by the police union—told me to write a report on why I was doing what I was doing. At the time I was working at the National Council of Negro Women and my boss spoke in court on my behalf. In the end, Judge Wright dismissed the charge, and my life followed a different path. I joined the Army and served my country as a military police officer in Germany. I finished my GED. When I returned to the States, I went to college. I got an internship with a young assemblyman named Denny Farrell, and I have stayed in public service ever since. Today, I have the honor of serving in the assembly seat that was formerly held by my mentor. I’ve passed laws to keep our community safe from gun violence and support victims of crime. But I’ve never forgotten that I was almost a victim of a legal system that too often defaults to harsh punishment without seeing the potential in a young person of color to be something other than a threat or a number in the system. I don’t want to come off as boastful. The point is not that I’m special—quite the opposite. My point is that unless someone like DA Bragg (or in my case, Judge Wright) is willing to examine each charged person as an individual and consider what safety, accountability, and fairness truly require in each case, we risk wasting the potential of thousands of young people who could otherwise contribute positively to our community. Neither I nor DA Bragg believes that incarceration is never necessary or appropriate, including for weapons possession. As lifelong uptown residents, we know all too well the pain suffered by victims of violence. Sometimes it’s necessary to separate someone from the community to keep our families safe. But a district attorney’s responsibility is to examine each case and each accused person holistically and decide—knowing the tremendous human and financial costs of incarceration—whether that is truly the best option, or if there is a better way to hold someone accountable and protect the community in the long term.

See BRAGG on page 23

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the New York Amsterdam News. We continue to publish a variety of viewpoints so that we may know the opinions of others that may differ from our own.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS

President Biden’s latest attempt to modify Senate filibuster rules is abysmal and politically naive, and it demonstrates his short-sightedness and failing political acumen. In simple terms, a Senate filibuster is a procedural tool that opponents of a proposed legislation can use to prolong debate on a bill by indefinitely holding the floor of the Senate. As a result, the law would be unable to be brought to a vote at any point until the filibuster ends. It is currently possible to end a filibuster in the Senate by obtaining the support of three-fifths of all senators—or 60 senators out of 100—who vote to end the filibuster. This is a rule that has been in effect for more than 100 years. However, in spite of this long-standing rule, Democrats are once again seeking to alter the rules in their favor by amending the filibuster rules to only require 50 out of 100 Senators to end it. What’s worse, the proposed change would supposedly only apply to two pieces of legislation.

This effort to rewrite the rules in the short term will indeed backfire in the long term. A prominent example occurred when Democrats invoked the nuclear option to require just a simple majority vote to end the filibuster on judicial candidates other than for the Supreme Court in 2013. This was a political turning point. Republicans, miffed at this action by the Democrats, utilized the nuclear option in 2017 to confirm Supreme Court nominees with a simple majority. For as much as Democrats protested during the three Supreme Court nominees that Trump was successful in securing, it was precisely because of their prior actions that the Republicans felt justified in resorting to using the nuclear option in the first place.

And now we’re back where we began. Joe Biden and several Democratic senators are once again advocating for another—though short-term—nuclear option in order to serve their short-term objectives; which seems to be indicative of their shortterm mentality. There are several dangers associated with this sort of action; it creates a political game of tit-for-tat, which will eventually result in both sides getting the short end of the stick. After all, if the Democrats can change the filibuster for just two bills, what is to prevent the Republicans from doing the same when they are able to do so? Will Democrats cry foul when Republicans inevitably do the same thing? Probably.

The issue that remains in relation to this proposed change is—why now? It’s hard to understand why the Democrats would shift their focus from a major infrastructure package that they considered a “must pass” to modifying an inner-chamber rule that most people aren’t even aware of.

For such a consequential change to the Senate rules, it is odd that it would be used on a bill that the average American likely is not immediately concerned about. Currently, Americans are confronted with a slew of issues that have a direct impact on their daily lives, including increased difficulty in putting food on the table as a result of high inflation, difficulty in purchasing essential items due to empty grocery stores as a result of supply chain issues, and increased difficulty in filling their cars with gas without burning through their paychecks as a result of soaring gas prices due to the Biden Administration’s weak foreign policy stances.

Despite the average American being unaware and unconcerned about the filibuster or the voting rights issue, it is clear that the Democrats are attempting to utilize a common strategy of theirs. The Democrats seem to use this strategy on the majority of their extremely contentious legislation, in which they wrap one problem in the blanket of another wholly unrelated subject in order to portray the dissimilar issue as being linked to the other issue. Consequently, Democrats can now preach to their supporters about how using a shortterm nuclear option on the filibuster— which has absolutely nothing to do with voting rights—is critical to the preservation of voting rights for all citizens in this country. For the time being, the two arguments will remain intertwined because of this.

Oddly enough, then-candidate Joe Biden was the single voice of reason when his own party pressed him on the campaign road about the filibuster issue. Yet, for seemingly no good reason, he is suddenly folding like a cheap lawn chair. What would be the justification for him to act in this manner? He doesn’t have the votes to begin with, so what is he hoping to gain from this political maneuver?

The reason for Joe Biden’s shift in position on the filibuster is unclear at this point; however, one thing is certain: this was a poorly thought out and unnecessary decision that will not benefit him or his party, and if this goal is accomplished it will inevitably backfire, as these sorts of short-sighted and rash decisions always do.

MLK Day: Continuing the legacy

CHRISTINA GREER PH.D.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is an American and global hero. Each year we celebrate his accomplishments and the sacrifices he made on behalf of Black people, poor people, and marginalized people, not just in the United States but across the globe. In recent years Martin Luther King Day has been a call for the celebration to be a “day on” and not just a “day off.” However you spent the last MLK Day, let us try to continue his legacy throughout the rest of the month and even the year.

In many of my classes I teach King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and am blown away by the intellect and foresight of such a young man. I try to imagine the level of bravery King and his comrades had to face some of the most vile Americans throughout the South. I think of how worried King’s loved ones must have been each time he went on the road. I think of the dedication and bravery of so many people who supported King in the cities and towns he visited. He was determined to make America live up to her promise. He knew he would not likely live to see the day where America ever reached her potential, yet he persevered nonetheless.

This year I am going to try to take the teachings (and brilliant writings) of Dr. King with me on a more intimate level. So many people know King from his famous speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. However, King authored six books and several other works were published after his death as collections of his speeches and sermons.

If you are interested in some of King’s original works, you may have to hunt in used bookstores or online since not all are in circulation. However, his books are well worth it. His understanding and analysis of race, class, national and global politics are sadly still so relevant today. His original works are: “Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story” (1958), “The Measure of a Man” (1959), “Strength to Love” (1963), “Why We Can’t Wait” (1964), “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?” (1967), and “The Trumpet of Conscience” (1968).

In order to keep Dr King’s legacy alive, I am going to make a donation to Ebenezer Baptist Church, the church where he served as assistant pastor with his father until his death. No surprise, current Georgia Senator Rev. Raphael Warnock hails from the same church and continues King’s fight for equality.

So, how will you be a Drum Major for peace and change? How will you spend the remaining days in January upholding Dr. King’s mission? Whatever you choose, remember the words of Dr. King, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Christina Greer, Ph.D., is an associate professor at Fordham University, the author of “Black Ethnics: Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream,” and the co-host of the podcast FAQ-NYC.