Mediaboss Marketing

SACRAMENTO Throughout my life, conservatives have believed the U.S. Constitution means what its authors intended. While it can sometimes be challenging to apply the documents verbiage to modern times, conservatives know that when the founders wrote, Congress shall make no law they meant that, Congress shall make no law. Easy peasy, as the saying goes.

By contrast, liberals have often championed a living and breathing Constitution one that evolves with the times. They dont mean proper change via amendment, but through enlightened court interpretations. Like shamans, liberal justices dont obsess over the founders intentions, but on truths found in penumbras. Go figure, but their divinations usually conform to their own biases.

In a bizarre twist, conservatives are now sounding like liberal jurists rather than traditionalists on some key constitutional questions. Lets take the First Amendment, which the founders viewed with particular significance given that they placed it, well, first in the Bill of Rights. These days, conservatives are busy reinterpreting its meaning and have bene quite creative with their new interpretations and divinations.

For instance, Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed a law that applies governmental moderating standards to social-media companies. It fines tech companies if they suspend political candidates prior to elections, lets the state attorney general and even private citizens sue these companies if they believe theyve been treated unfairly, and gives online publishers a list of enforceable editorial conditions.

Thats obviously a government restriction on speech given that the government is mandating that private publishers behave in a certain way. Yet writing in American Spectator, the Heartland Institutes S.T. Karnick has discovered such a novel method of interpreting that law that he would have made former Justice Thurgood Marshall, the late justice who was known for his creative constitutional gyrations, quite proud.

Defenders of Big Tech routinely argue that these companies have a right to do whatever they want because they are not government entities. That is false, Karnick wrote. The fact that they are in the private sector does not change the definition of the word censorship. If we erase the distinction between private censorship (which we all do) and government censorship, however, we essentially erase the First Amendment.

The Constitution forbids Congress specifically from regulating private speech, but then the 14th Amendment applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states and their governments. Karnick also argues that the 10th Amendment gives Florida the right to exercise its authority on this basic-rights issue, which is a rather odd position for a conservative.

If the 10th Amendment, which vests many powers in the states rather than the federal government, can be justified to obliterate constitutionally protected rights, then California can ban firearm ownership, despite what the Second Amendment says. If you dont think rights should apply to tech companies whose decisions anger you, then they might not apply when your decisions anger others.

The Fairness Doctrine, which mandated equal time for political views on public airwaves, offers a template for what conservatives now are suggesting. Its elimination allowed for the proliferation of conservative talk radio, given that such imbalanced programming previously was verboten. What would happen if the Biden administration could force broadcast outlets to balance the views of Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson? Take a guess.

Many of these conservatives are like liberals in another important way. They seek to control private-sector companies because they dont like how they operate. For instance, David Marcus complained in a Fox News column last week about the medias Johnny-come-lately coverage of the theory that the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese laboratory.

Yes, the media mostly treated that story as a conspiracy when Donald Trump had postulated it but are treating it seriously now that Trump is gone. So what? Publications can print whatever they choose, some do a lousy job and all of them are biased. My conclusion is the media should learn from its mistakes, but Marcus take is more draconian.

Nobody is checking the fact checkers, and it is time that changed, he wrote. Its time for government to regulate the fact checking industry. He named Politifact and Associated Press as examples of organizations that need government oversight as they advise social media even though they are journalism organizations.

Marcus claims the First Amendment forbids regulation of in-house fact checkers, but he carves out the exception for independent checkers something he appears to have pulled from thin air just like the living-and-breathing jurists. This may seem antithetical to traditional conservative values of small government, he says, but we ought not be slaves to orthodoxy.

Perhaps the Biden administration should appoint a regulator to fact-check Marcus writing for the next few weeks and then he can report on the experience. Thanks to First Amendment orthodoxy that wont happen, but its time for conservatives to grow a thicker skin and stop attacking the constitutional protections all of us enjoy.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

More:
Anti-tech regulation turns Constitution on its head - Redlands Daily Facts

The United States Supreme Court issued on April 9 a decision in Tandon v. Newsom that struck down California's covid pandemic-related rule that limited the size of all events held in private homes, including religious gatherings, to three people per household. In an unsigned, four-page opinion, the high court's right-wing majority radically altered the law governing the First Amendment's free-exercise clause claims for special religious exemptions from otherwise generally applicable laws.

Since the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the free-exercise clause has been understood to require religious exemptions only to laws that discriminate against religionthat is, government cannot target religion for worse treatment. The California covid pandemic-related rule easily passed this test, for it limited the size of all gatherings in private homes, religious and secular alike.

In Tandon, however, the court flipped that rule. Under its new "most favored nation" approach, the government must provide a religious exemption if a law contains any secular exemption for "comparable" activities. Because California allowed larger groups to shop in supermarkets, it had to let larger groups pray indoors. The only way out was if California met a "strict scrutiny" standard by showing the law's application to religion was absolutely necessary to meet a compelling government interest.

In lower court proceedings, California public-health officials provided testimony that should have met that standard. "When people gather in social settings," they stated, "their interactions are likely to be longer than they would be in a commercial setting," with participants "more likely to be involved in prolonged conversations." They added that "private houses are typically smaller and less ventilated than commercial establishments," and that "social distancing and mask-wearing are less likely in private settings and enforcement is more difficult." But the Supreme Court's five conservatives, who have no apparent public health expertise, ignored this testimony.

Tandon is an enormous expansion of the government's obligation to provide religious accommodations to countless statutes and regulations. It's also questionable public health policy. But the most serious problem with what the Supreme Court's conservatives did in Tandon can be summarized in four words: They made it up.

That is, the Constitution does not mandate the "most favored nation" rule. The First Amendment prohibits government from either establishing religion, or prohibiting its "free exercise." But on what basis does the Supreme Court decide "free exercise" licenses such a searching judicial examination of public-health laws? The text doesn't say that. And neither history nor precedent command that approach.

At bottom, what the Supreme Court did in Tandon isn't law. It's politics. Which may help explain why the Supreme Court created this sweeping new rule through its shadow docketwhich is to say, those cases decided with minimal briefing and no oral argument outside the court's normal procedure. In doing so, the court broke its own rules that bar it from changing the law in a shadow docket opinion.

None of this should surprise us. As I've written previously, Republicans have built their recent political strategy around stocking the federal bench with right-wing partisans. As a consequence, we are approaching a level of ideological conflict where politicians might start thinking about defying the court's rulingsespecially rulings rooted in highly politicized readings of the Constitution, as Tandon was.

Which led me, on the morning following the opinion's release to tweet out a question:

The answer to this question, I think, is that Joe Biden, or any president, is free under the Constitution to decline to enforce any order of the Supreme Court that he or she believes to be unconstitutional. Why do I think this? There are three reasons.

First, as Alexander Hamilton candidly admitted in The Federalist Papers, the Constitution does not even directly establish that courts have the power to make definitive declarations regarding the Constitution's meaning.

"[T]here is," Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81, "not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State."

Hamilton believed judicial review was implied even if not explicitly provided. But that doesn't mean judges are the only actors empowered to interpret the Constitution's meaning. A better view is actors in each branch of governmentall of whom have taken the same oath to "support and defend" the Constitutionhave a duty to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to act, in discharging their duties, in accordance with that interpretation. Hamilton suggests as much in Federalist 81, where he wrote of the Supreme Court's "total incapacity to support its usurpations by force."

Hamilton argued the court's utter dependence on the executive branch to enforce its judgments meant the court was no real threat to liberty. But for that argument to make sense it must also be true that, at least in cases where a court ruling provokes some disquiet, the president will make an independent assessment before enforcing it.

If the President were required to enforce the court's every order, and without independent assessment of its fidelity to the Constitution, he would effectively be dragooned into enforcing even the court's "usurpations." That would make the court every bit as dangerous as Hamilton's Anti-Federalist antagonists feared it to be.

Arch anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson, for his part, derided the idea that judges were "ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions." This was, to Jefferson, "a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." The Constitution "has erected no such single tribunal," and the plan of government, Jefferson wrote, admitted no supremacy in judges:

Enforcement of court judgments is an executive act, not a judicial one. And in carrying out his duties, the president, Jefferson argued, must decide for himself what the Constitution requires. Which means that a president may decline to enforce a court order that he or she independently concludes is unconstitutional.

The second reason presidents are free under the Constitution to decline to enforce any order of the Supreme Court that he or she believes to be unconstitutional is history provides examples of presidents declining to enforce Supreme Court orders.

In 1832, the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia struck down a Georgia criminal statute prohibiting non-native Americans from residing on Native American lands without a license from the state. Only the federal government, the court held, had the power to regulate tribal lands. The court's ruling ordered the release of two missionaries imprisoned under the statute, but Georgia's courts refused to order the release, and President Andrew Jackson declined to enforce the Supreme Court's order on the recalcitrant state. Writing two decades later, journalist Horace Greeley quoted Jackson (probably apocryphally) giving the court's order the back of his hand: "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." The order was never enforced. A year after the court's decision, Georgia repealed the law and the two men were pardoned by Georgia's governor and released from jail.

Then there is President Lincoln's defiance of Chief Justice Taney's 1861 order in Ex Parte Merryman. That Civil War-era case involved a Maryland secessionist arrested in connection with attacks on federal troops in Baltimore and imprisoned in Fort McHenry. Shortly before Merryman's arrest, Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia in a bid to allow federal troops to quell secessionist rioting without judicial interference. Days after Merryman's arrest, Taney issued an order stating that Lincoln lacked the power to suspend the writ; the Constitution, Taney held, permitted suspension only by Congress.

Lincoln ignored the order. In a message to the Congress he made clear his view that the president had his own responsibility to act according to the powers that he independently understood the Constitution to provide him:

Third, there is the matter of America's current reality. In normal politics, it makes sense for presidents (and for Congress) to cede to the court's final authority to interpret the Constitution's meaning. The ordinary expectation, whether a Democrat or a Republican, is that you'll win some at the court and you'll lose someand that's OK because there is value in finality, especially if the court is seen as an institution that is doing something more principled than simply imposing its own political preference. But these are not normal times. This is not a normal Supreme Court.

That was the point of my tweet: at some point, the perception that the court is doing politics and not law may lead to a political response. We see that already in proposals to limit judicial terms, to impose Supreme Court supermajority voting requirements, to strip courts' jurisdiction, and, most prominently, to pack the Supreme Court.

But perhaps the simplest way for Biden to push back against a right-wing Supreme Court is to follow his own oath to uphold the Constitution and refuse to enforce Supreme Court orders that he concludes fail to do so.

So imagine that California Governor Gavin Newsom decided to ignore the court's order and continued to enforce public health laws as written without religious exemption. What would happen? Would Biden send in federal troops to enforce the court's order? Or would he give California the same room to defy the court that Jackson gave Georgia in 1832? To me, it's at least imaginable that if California pushed back, Biden would have allowed California to enforce its law over the Court's order.

The covid vaccine means the crisis passed quickly enough that the court's order soon lost its practical public-health significance. But that was happenstance. Which means we may soon see another opportunity for politicians to test the limits of judicial power.

See the original post here:
The Supreme Court radically altered the meaning of the First Amendment this year in an unsigned opinion - Raw Story

It is an unfortunate truth that First Amendment rights have become increasingly politicized. Subsequently, there are more misconceptions about the First Amendment and a reluctance around exercising these rights.

Only 30% of college students know that most hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, according to a Knight Foundation survey. And the situation, it appears, is not improving. Heterodox Academy found that the percentage of students who reported they were reluctant to discuss politics went up from 32% in 2019 to 41% in 2020. Misconceptions compounded with reluctance to speak out serve only to deepen political divides and create further confusion about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment only pertains to stopping government censorship. Its main role is to protect citizens from institutional censorship and allow them to debate and find truths for themselves instead of being told by those in power what to believe. Because public universities are extensions of the government and most private schools commit themselves to upholding free speech rights, this intent should carry over to most college campuses.

In theory, preserving First Amendment rights should be a main priority for all students and a touchstone of bipartisan actions.

Contrary to this, the organization I work for, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), sees cases of students calling on their universities to step in and censor other students and to institutionalize what is and is not allowed to be discussed on campus.From student governments denying recognition of controversial groups to students calling for speakers of every political background to be disinvited, we have seen it all. While the censorship direction may change from case to case, a common theme involves students leaning on their administrations to regulate speech they disfavor rather than embracing opportunities for discourse.

While there should be a larger push among high school educators to teach more about civics so that students do not enter college without a foundational knowledge of their rights (and, in fact, there are many resources to help with this), this does not leave universities off the hook.

To ensure an open and robust campus climate for free expression, incoming students need to understand the importance of exercising their First Amendment rights and respecting the rights of others from day one. Fortunately, there is a venue already in place where this education can occur: first-year student orientations and other first-year experience programming.

By utilizing some time during these programs, schools can get ahead of any future speech-related controversies and make sure their students have the correct understanding of their rights and tools for expressing themselves within the bounds of the First Amendment.

FIRE saw requests for assistance from students and faculty alleging rights violations increase from 654 in 2018 to 1,001 in 2020, and in 2020 our output of letters in support of faculty and students more than doubled from 2019. We know firsthand that this kind of education is desperately needed and will help to mitigate this new wave of censorship.

In fact, the legislatures of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia already require some amount of free speech education to be presented to new students. These requirements span from explicitly requiring first-year student orientations to directly address free expression (like in North Carolina) to only requiring students be given a copy of the schools policies (like in Texas).

Any such programming should have a strong emphasis not only on clearly communicating what is and is not protected under the First Amendment, but why the First Amendment is a tool for those on all parts of the political spectrum and programming should give students tools for expressing themselves.

While the First Amendment and the law should be taught in this venue, browbeating students with facts only goes so far. Universities should offer solutions students can utilize instead of asking their administrations to censor uncomfortable ideas. New students are typically much more eager to participate in campus culture, so offering them ways to use their voices such as writing op-eds, holding counter-protests, hosting round table discussions, and forming their own student groups during orientation programming is the perfect way to help channel their excited energy.

Additionally, while discussions about censorship on campus are often framed as Conservatives vs. Liberals, this framing does not capture the full picture of censorship on campus, and frankly, is not particularly helpful to students. Universities should be mindful of this when discussing free speech. The First Amendment is important to all political identities (even apolitical students), and schools should look to highlight instances of students coming together through bipartisan coalitions for common goals.

For example, in FIREs orientation materials (which were developed in partnership with New York Universitys First Amendment Watch), one story we chose to highlight is a case from the University of Rhode Island in which the universitys student senate refused to fund political or religious student groups because they were under the false impression that funding them would endanger the student senates tax-exempt status.This policy was abandoned only when five separate student groups who had been denied funding, including the campus chapters of the College Republicans and College Democrats, came together to challenge the discriminatory funding methods. These kinds of examples show how First Amendment rights allow students on all sides to stand up to those in power and prove that standing in solidarity with those you vehemently disagree with can be a powerful tool.

Given that most universities had to scramble to operate their orientations and first-year experience programming remotely or semi-remotely last year and given the hopeful atmosphere around being able to return to greater normalcy next fall, this is the perfect time to revisit these programs. Reinventing orientation to teach students to exercise their rights and foster a campus culture that values diversity of thought will help students not only get the most out of their college experience but create empowered citizens.

This article is part of Divided We Falls Constitutional Questions series, covering a range of political topics fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and democratic institutions. Through this series, we ask constitutional scholars, journalists, elected officials, and activists to discuss how these ideals are and are not implemented today. If you liked this piece, you can read more like it here.

Jackie Farmer

Jackie Farmer graduated in 2015 magna cum laude from Drexel University with Bachelor of Science degrees in political science and environmental studies. She began working for FIRE in 2014 as a Program Assistant via Drexels cooperative education program. She now serves as the Outreach Officer for FIREs Targeted Advocacy department. Jackies interest in free speech stems from her love of political satire and previous involvement in student activism.

See more here:
Universities Must Lead with First Amendment Education - Divided We Fall

Just over 47% of Hawaii is fully vaccinated. This is not herd immunity not even close.

Wearing a mask has proven globally to work in the fight against COVID-19. We also know that the honor system of vaccinated people going maskless will not be respected and that the unvaccinated will exploit this, as there isnt a way to determine who is or isnt vaccinated.

Therefore, please get vaccinated and please continue to wear a mask so that we dont have to ever shut down our economy again. We are very close to beating back this pandemic. Lets do it together.

Amy Day

Makiki

Clean-energy batteries pose disposal problem

Scott G. Gier brought up some good points (Clean energy creates a mountain of waste, Star-Advertiser, Letters, May 4).

With more electric vehicles and photovoltaic systems coming, in the future there will be an enormous number of batteries that need to be disposed. How will governments and industry handle this problem? Is there a plan? Arent environmentalist concerned about this? Will it just create a different environmental nightmare?

I am sure there are many municipalities just like Honolulu with very serious waste-disposal problems. If the batteries cant be burned in a facility like H-POWER, how will they be disposed?

Gier also brings up the point that mining the metals to make the batteries will affect Third World cultures and environments, and usually not in a good way.

Phil Alencastre

St. Louis Heights

Let seniors continue mail-in license renewals

I read that Honolulu County will suspend mail-in drivers license renewals for license holders 72 and up whose gold star documents are already on file, effective June 1 (Why is Honolulu County scrapping popular by-mail renewal for certain drivers licenses?, Star-Advertiser, Kokua Line, May 27).

The reason for the change reportedly is that it was tying up staff needed to serve customers in person. What? I could turn that argument around and say we should encourage renewal by mail to reduce the waiting line for renewals, and to avoid wasting time and gas to get to the renewal locations.

This very popular option should be continued. I hope the city Department of Customer Services rethinks its decision.

Louis Faulkner

Hawaii Kai

Estimate all cost factors in rail wheel, track issue

In regards to the rail cost estimates of between $2 million for wheel changes and more than $5 million for new frogs, the big picture should be considered (Search continues to fix Oahu rails too-narrow wheels and too-wide tracks, Star-Advertiser, May 16).

If Hitachi will be paid $130,000 for each day of delay, that means for every month that delay amounts to about $4 million. An explanation of that delay cost with avoided operating costs would help the public understand the situation.

New wheels create a heavier car that costs more to operate. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation has mileage projections for the first 20 years of operation, and knows how much energy it takes to propel the current trains down the track. HART can determine the additional costs of operating heavier cars.

Probable long-term energy costs could be another factor. Cost forecasts are available from Hawaiian Electric.

If these costs are presented, it would help the public appreciate the factors HART will consider in this decision.

Jon Yanagida

Mililani

First Amendment allows for Trumps many lies

What exactly is the right to free speech granted by the First Amendment? Does it give any citizen the right to say anything about anybody at any time?

Can you say, in public, that you will kill the president of the United States, or the speaker of the House of Representative or majority leader of the Senate, or the governor of your state, and walk free? I dont think so.

Can you repeatedly make a false statement such as former President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii and walk free? The simple answer is yes. It was repeated over and over by Donald Trump and was accepted as fact. A lie repeated and repeated will finally be accepted as true. Unfortunately, this same person kept repeating, from August 2020, that if he lost the election it was because of fraud. Millions of Americans actually believe this today.

I must give Trump credit, as his lies and generalized statements not backed by facts have his supporters hoping that he will enter and win the 2024 presidential election.

Gilbert Horita

Ala Moana

Name McKinley after the composer, not president

To solve the school name controversy, my suggestion is to rename the school William T. McKinley High School after the American composer, William Thomas McKinley, who passed away in 2015. His many compositions of symphonies and concertos spanning 40-plus years are known in the classical music world. His Elegy for Strings is to me most notable.

My suggestion solves several problems.

>> It eliminates the tainted President William McKinley High School name.

>> The name William T. McKinley High School would celebrate someone from the arts. McKinley High School has had a solid music program.

>> It preserves the tradition of eight generations of alumni who proudly call themselves McKinley grads.

Von Kenric Kaneshiro

Downtown Honolulu

Unrest and guns lead to violent confrontations

Russias plan is a simple one.

Step 1: Continue to promote political divisiveness through social and other media, then wait until other states follow Texas lead with no-permit-needed open firearms carry.

Step 2: Just sit back and enjoy the action while every road rage incident, political argument and perceived slight sets off a self-generated population reduction scheme among the most well-armed civilian population in history.

Harold Senter

Aina Haina

EXPRESS YOURSELF

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.

>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.

>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210 Honolulu, HI 96813

>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter

Read the original here:
Letters: Get vaccinated, and keep wearing that mask; First Amendment allows for Trumps many lies; Unrest and guns lead to violent confrontations -...

The original cover of Jewell Parker Rhodes' novel, Magic City. Courtesy of Harper Collins hide caption

The original cover of Jewell Parker Rhodes' novel, Magic City.

In the early 1900s, Greenwood a Black neighborhood in Tulsa, Okla. was a thriving, successful, independent town. But on May 31, 1921, a mob of white people stormed the town, killing an estimated 300 people, burning down homes and businesses, and leaving thousands homeless. There are competing theories as to what ultimately incited what came to be known as the Tulsa Race Massacre but author Jewell Parker Rhodes says it was likely related to the perception that Black people "shouldn't be educated, shouldn't be uppity, shouldn't be, enjoying this kind of success."

Parker Rhodes is an acclaimed novelist and children's book author whose work often involves African American history. Her adult novels have focused on Antebellum New Orleans (Voodoo Dreams) and the secret life of famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass (Douglass' Women). Her young people's fiction (Black Brother, Black Brother; Towers Falling; Ninth Ward) tackles nightmarish subjects, like racism, violence and disaster, without giving children nightmares.

Parker Rhodes had wanted to write about the Tulsa Race Massacre for years, but because the subject made some people so uncomfortable including publishers she had to wait for several years to finally publish her novel on the topic, Magic City. It's a fictionalized retelling of the events surrounding the massacre, and it's been reissued in recognition of the Tulsa Race Massacre's centennial observances.

So ahead of the 100 year anniversary of the tragic events in Greenwood, I spoke to Parker Rhodes about why the story still resonates, and how Tulsans are coping with the aftermath of a century-old trauma. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

What was Tulsa, Oklahoma like in 1921?

Tulsa in particular was anti-union, anti-Black, anti-Native American, anti-Communist. And just before the Greenwood massacre, there was an incident in which a young Jewish man was lynched and burned. So this was a truly lawless city where people who held power and money ruled.

One theory for why the massacre happened is that the city actually wanted to put a railroad through Greenwood. So they figured, "What's the best way? Give me an excuse so we can destroy your community."

Using infrastructure to debilitate Black communities has gone on through the twentieth and the twenty-first century so far.

The incident that allegedly started all this violence was a rumored assault of a white teenager by a Black teenager. Except the young woman in question, Sarah Page, did not press charges against Dick Rowland; she insisted there was no assault.

Right. She was a white woman who said, "No, you are not going to use my gender, my body as an excuse to assault a black man." And as far as I know, in terms of history, that was a rarity.

After rumors of an assault spread, Dick Rowland was taken into protective custody. A mob of white men descended upon the jail; they wanted to lynch him on the spot. But something stopped them. What?

Black men who knew what it was to defend civil rights and civil liberties, most of them veterans, came to the courthouse and said, "Oh, no, you have to give him due process." And apparently somebody asked a young Black man, 'what are you doing with that gun?' And the fellow responded, "Well, I'm going to use it if I have to." Somewhere in there a shot was fired no one knows by whom and boom! That started the violence and the rioting.

But we should point out that the rioting was one-sided, right? It was whites rampaging through Greenwood, looting, then burning Black families' homes.

Yes. With no consequences. Interestingly enough, I remember being in Oklahoma when Timothy McVeigh was sentenced for his white terrorism action, for bombing the Murrah Federal Building in 1995; 168 people died in Oklahoma City. [McVeigh was tried and executed in 2001.] And now I've lived through the January 6 attack on the Capitol, and it seems as though the Justice Department is really pursuing the white terrorists who were involved in that. But the terrorists who, 100 years ago, destroyed Greenwood have never, ever been brought to justice. They have never even been named. And it's so typical that, in terms of getting justice for African Americans and other oppressed groups, that your story can go untold, ignored, not brought to justice until it affects more directly, you know, the master community.

Part of the reason Tulsa had so much racial tension was because Oklahoma, and Tulsa in particular, had a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity. I've been told that the Klan had been on the wane, but when Black World War l veterans returned home with firearms skills and a determination to press for their full citizenship, suddenly Klan membership quickly increased?

The only time I've seen the Ku Klux Klan was in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when I was doing research for Magic City. This was about 1984. I was so appalled!

My young daughter was with me. I did point out to her that there were men, women, white and of color, police officers who were protecting the right of assembly of the KKK. And that that was our country, you know, showing its commitment to the First Amendment. But we still need to show our commitment to uncovering the legacy of all the things that have happened to people.

You've mentioned that initially, this book had a hard time being placed with a publisher. And that when it was published in 1997, a glowing review that was slated for a Tulsa paper suddenly...disappeared?

That review never, ever was published. Later, when I met the editor of the Tulsa World, she said to me, "Oh, it's not personal." And I thought it was very personal, because we had had great evidence that Tulsa was still not ready to reckon with its racial history. A dear friend of mine who actually did a book review in the Arizona newspapers, she confessed to me after about a year that she had gotten hate mail. People were threatening her simply because she wrote a review about a fictional retelling of an actual incident that happened in Tulsa.

Some white people just wanted to forget or ignore that the massacre in Greenwood had ever happened. But we've also heard from some Black people who say they grew up in Greenwood and had never been told that story. Why?

The updated cover of Magic City, by Jewell Parker Rhodes. Courtesy of Harper Collins hide caption

I think Greenwood is just now coming out of that sense of trauma. If you can imagine in the 1920s how vulnerable the community felt and not only did they have the massacre to contend with, but afterwards, the White House put them in a tent city and made them have I.D. cards in order to go back and forth to work. They had an internment camp. So some people did not tell their story. Some told it in whispers. And some tried to bury and forget. All are natural responses to trauma.

We can't judge the trauma that people felt in the 1920s. Do you know what I mean? So that's why you had a lot of Black kids being raised in Greenwood who didn't know about the Tulsa massacre. They weren't told. It was harder to speak truth to power in the 1920s. Some did it, but we can't begin to guess at the trauma and the fear.

Does this centennial help or hurt people still coping with the aftermath of Greenwood, generations later?

If it could be fixed with one memorial, one celebration, we would have all of our problems fixed so easily. I think it's going to take a lot more hard work. But I think now that the voices have been raised, that art is being created, we will at least be able to say that Greenwood will never, ever be forgotten. That it is a story that has had its time to be felt and heard, and it will continue to resonate.

Follow this link:
In Both Fact And Fiction, The Truth Of Tulsa Is Hard To Stomach - NPR