Sundown Towns

Sundown Towns are defined as "a form of segregation, in which a town, city, or neighborhood in the United States was purposely all-white, excluding people of other races. These restrictions were enforced by some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence". As imagined, these towns were prominent starting in the 1890's all the way to the 70's. These towns usually had signs posted at the city limits like the one below or even the famous black mule painting  on a mountain by a main road in Tennessee, which held the same meaning. 

Photo Credit

With the end of slavery, town as a whole wanted a new way to keep colored people out of their towns so they gathered together and posted these signs in order to keep the colored people away. They also emphasized violence if a colored person was to be caught after sunset in those towns, saying that they would be killed, and many of them were in fact. These towns were not few and far but actually frequent. They were not just in the South either, sundown towns were spread equally across the country. These towns are not just a thing of the past, many people today grow up or willing still reside in sundown towns that are still prominent today. Sadly these sundown towns still do exist, signs and all. 

To see what towns are still possibly sundown towns click here

and to read more about sundown towns, click 

Chick-Fil-A Protests

Photo Credit

It is not a little known secret that the head of the moreover southern fast food chain, Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, is against marriage equality and homosexuals in general. In fact, Cathy has openly proclaimed his opposition to the subject proudly.
Obviously the proclamation caught criticism and resulted in multiple politicians (mostly north) putting up a fight about letting the closed-on-sunday's food chain from opening up shop in their cities.   Some took the protest about opening the chain as a violation of Cathy's First Amendment rights to free speech over religion. However, as stated in the CNN article, " The First Amendment protects you from government action suppressing your right to free speech. It does not protect you from private individuals' negative reaction to your speech." Meaning, if the government had actually gotten involved in the protesting of opening Chick-Fil-A's because of Dan Cathy's proclamation, he could argue that his First Amendment rights were being violated. However, there has been no government involvement, therefore no claim can be made.
Though politicians cannot simply stop a business from opening up in their towns or city's just because they don't like their ideals they do have ways to make the process more difficult by using zoning laws and claiming that the business would create "adverse secondary effects". Boston's mayor Thomas Menino, who is one of the many politicians against Chick-Fil-A opening up in their city put up a fight about the restaurant opening in the city. Along with Menino, a municipal council member, Joe Moreno is holding a strong stance on the subject and planning on making it extremely difficult for any Chick-Fil-A's to open in the city. Moreno defended his view by saying "You have the right to say whatever you want. but zoning is not a right" and has come up with many reasons including increased traffic as to why the chain should not open.
Though both Menino and Moreno both do not have the rights or power to stop Chick-Fil-A from opening a store, they do have the right to speak their opinions on why they would oppose such a place from restaurant from open in their cities. Menino said his reasoning for being opposed to Chick-Fil-A opening was due to the fact that because he welcomed equal rights marriage in his city with open arms and it would be insulting to those who are in same sex marriages to open a food chain that was openly anti-gay in a city that is so supportive of same sex marriages.

If you want to read more about the topic of Chick-Fil-A and their First Amendment controversy read here

Plessy v. Ferguson- The Dissenting Opinion

Photo Credit 

Justice Harlan's decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson was not one of the majority opinion. Otherwise known as a "dissenting opinion" he actually believed the opposite of the majority opinion, meaning that he believed that the ruling of the case was inaccurate, that the idea of separate but equal WAS in fact, a violation of the 14th Amendment; despite what the Court might have said. I believe Harlan wrote the argument to put his opinion out there; even though he was the only one in court that felt that way, there were probably others out there that felt the same way he did and maybe he wanted to show others that not everyone in the court room held the same opinions. Keeping his opinion to himself would've just covered his true feelings about the case and maybe he was thinking that by him not being afraid to show his true opinions on the case, other people would also get the courage to speak their minds about the situation as well.
Being from the era that I am from I believe he made a good argument and I believe that other people in the year 2016 would react the same as I did, the times have changed drastically since that era and I feel that if this verdict were to happen now there would be a massive outrage and that more people would side with Justice Harlan's opinion instead of the one that the majority originally chose. However in the year 1896, due to the fact that slavery had ended not too long before, I'm sure the public opinion would be different; especially if you were in the south.
As a country we have obviously come a long way from these days and I believe occurrences like this did nothing but help everyday people to see how wrong slavery and discrimination actually were and still are. Had Judge Harlan and others been too afraid to speak their minds, who knows how long it would've taken our country to get where it is today. I believe his opinion shed light on the path of the law because it brought up the fact that separate but equal was not in fact what it pertained to be- equal.

Dred Scott v. Sanford Court Case

Photo Credit

In March of 1895 Dred Scott and his owner, John Sanford moved to Illinois which was a free state at the time. Due to the fact that Dred Scott was a slave in a free state he believed that he should have been able to declare emancipation from his owner. Dred brought his case to court to try to gain the freedom he believed he deserved. It was also argued on the side of Dred Scott that the North West Ordinance proved that he should be a freed slave. On the side of Sanford, it was argued that yes, he may have been a slave in a free state but the fact of the matter was that he was still a slave and was purchased therefore he is property. In the end Chief Justice Roger B. Taney decided in favor of John Sanford on the basis that no pure blooded African person, or their descendants, would ever be citizens of the United States and there for could not successfully grant him freedom.

Should the "Slender Man" Creator Be Held Accountable?

On Saturday March 31st, 2014 in two girls stabbed a girl of the same age after luring her into the woods and stabbing her a number of times; 19 to be exact. The victim manages to drag her body out to a road sidewalk where a cyclist found her, called 911 and was rushed to the hospital, dangerously close to death. Their motives claimed to be to satisfy the fictional character, Slender Man who often lured his victims into the woods who often targets children. When put on trial they said that their motives were to impress the believed to be true, Slender Man by committing an act for him to prove that they were worthy. During the case trials it was brought up that the creator of Slender Man, Eric Knudsen should be held accountable for the attack as he is the one who created the fictional character in the first place.

photo credit

The two girls charged as adults for attempted murder

 The answer was a hard no as that directly violates his first amendment principles of free speech. In this case there was no proof whatsoever that Knudsen intended for this type of action to ever occur in real life. Another reason Knudsen could not be convicted is because this is something out of the norm. The Huffington Post states, "out of the many thousands and thousands of people who follow Slender Man, we know of only two girls who allegedly committed a violent act. In brief, it simply is not at all likely that any fan of Slender Man will commit violence because of him." In conclusion, there is no possible way Eric Knudsen could be held accountable for his creation as it was never his intention for this  horrible crime to be committed.

To read more about how the Slender Man induced murder is not in violation of the creators first amendment rights, click here

"Ghetto Party' Backfires

Photo Credit

About a month ago, Fairfield University students decided to host a off campus "Ghetto Party". Obviously, the aftermath of the party was not pretty once word got out about the theme. Many students were outraged that students chose to participate in the theme of the party, some students put brown makeup on their face and perpetuated racial stereotypes as to go with the theme of the party. It hit close to home as offensive by the members of the community that were from the area and lived in the town over, Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is often considered the ghetto. However, some other students felt "neutral" about it and claimed it was harmless fun, like "dressing up on halloween". Fairfield University is a predominantly white university located in Fairfield, Connecticut; the University has never been a very diverse campus, 78% of the students identify themselves as white. In the past months the University has been working towards a more diverse community, they began offering a "Black Lives Matter" class that filled up quickly. Despite their efforts, after this controversy it does not seem that their attempts to diversify the campus are working as well as they had hoped.

Father von Arx sent out a letter to all students dressing the matter and stating that it is a sensitive subject to some students and that students should hold the utmost respect for their fellow students. He also stated how though this was an off campus party, the students are still held to the same code of conduct that on campus students are held to. Continuing, he said how this effected the their efforts to make the campus a more diverse, comfortable for all campus and how the students should have thought twice about their actions and the reaction it could have before going fourth with the event. The director of Urban Initiatives, Carolyn Vermont, claimed that it didn't come as a surprise that this had happened. The administrators at Fairfield University are taking this occurrence as a huge sign that they have much more work to do to get the campus to where it needs to be. 

If you want to read more about the event click here and if you want to read more on Father von Arx's letter and the effects that this had click here. 

State v Mann

In the case of State vs Mann a woman named Elizabeth Jones lent her slave, Lydia, to John Mann for a year who then abused her by shooting her in the back when she tried to escape a prior beating. When brought to court, a five-dollar fine was issued which Mann refused to pay for. When the case finally reached the Supreme Court, State argued that this went against the party’s religious beliefs as well as arguing not that slavery should be abolished, as it was legal in North Carolina at the time, but that slaves are human and should be treated as such. Mann on the other hand argued that the slave was property therefore he had the right to do whatever he wanted with her and that he should not have to pay the fine. In the final ruling, Supreme Judge Thomas Ruffin stated that while personally he ruled in favor of Lydia he had to remain impartial to the law and therefore ruled in favor of Mann from the lawful standpoint, and the fine was overruled.

Cross at Ground Zero

If one were to go to New York City and visit the Ground Zero memorial site they would see two beautiful memorial pools in place of where the towers used to be adorned with the names of loved ones lost. If you were to look further around the memorial you might run into a “statue” of sorts of a figure that seems to be a cross. In recent past months this cross has been causing quite the controversy especially from groups like the American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation who believe that any display of a religion in a public setting is in violation of the Constitution. This controversy ended up being brought into court and was ruled multiple times not to be in violation of the first amendment due to the fact that it is not stated that there has to be separation of public life and religion.

Photo Credit

Amongst all of the fighting it seems that people are forgetting what the real meaning of the cross-shaped beam. The beam was pulled from the rubbish of the actual site after the attack and stood as a sign of hope for many people, not a way to cram a religion down people’s throats. It represents history and stands as an actual artifact from the attack site and can be seen as an educational aspect as well. I believe that people need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture that the memorial in its entirety represents, honoring those who lost their lives on September 11^th 2001.

To read more about this seemingly controversial topic here. 

The Chain of Events That Lead To A President's Resignation

The beginning of this year at the University of Missouri was one that was unforgettable due to the array of events that led up to the resignation of the University’s System President, Tim Wolfe in November. The racial controversy actually began in 2010 when two white students spread cotton balls out side of the University’s Black Culture Center. Though they might have claimed that it was a harmless joke the University took it as much more than that. Picking up in the beginning of this year Payton Head, the President of the University’s Student Government cast his fed up emotions on social media about the subject of discrimination in all forms, after being verbally attacked with racial slurs by people in the back of a pick up truck, claiming that he has been discriminated at the university more than once and often did not feel safe or included.

Photo Credit

            The University officials shorty after released a statement saying that these actions were not acceptable but never seemed to take any action after that, leading to multiple student protests like the “Racism Lives Here” rally. After further racist occurrences between students the University Chancellor ordered for all students and faculty to attend diversity and inclusion conferences which was acknowledged as a “step in the right direction” but the chancellor did catch heat for not acknowledging the work of the black students that worked extremely hard at the diversity programs. During one of the student protests, that continued to take place, President Wolfe’s car was surrounded with protesters which lead to him accidentally nudge one of them with his car- sending the protesters anger go up in flames with accusations such as the President laughing at the protesters and smiling through out the protest. A student group Concerned Student 1950 issued a list of demands including an apology and that president Wolfe step down from his position. Contrary to what the group requested Wolfe did not step down and other controversial attacks continued on campus. A month later, strikes continued, including student wide hunger strikes and football players and coaches refusing to play; which finally lead us to November 9^th, the day Tim Wolfe finally announced his resignation.

To read further about the events leading up to President Wolfe’s resignation, read here