To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Carla Thomas

San Francisco’s Third Baptist Church hosted a rally and meeting Sunday to discuss hatred toward African American students of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).

Rev. Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco NAACP and pastor of Third Baptist Church, along with leadership from local civil rights groups, the city’s faith-based community and Black community leadership convened at the church.

“There has been an epidemic of racial slurs and mistreatment of Black children in our public schools in the city,” said Brown. “This will not be tolerated.”

According to civil rights advocate Mattie Scott, students from elementary to high school have reported an extraordinary amount of racial slurs directed at them.

“There is a surge of overt racism in the schools, and our children should not be subjected to this,” said Scott. “Students are in school to learn, develop, and grow, not be hated on,” said Scott. “The parents of the children feel they have not received the support necessary to protect their children.”

Attendees were briefed last Friday in a meeting with SFUSD Superintendent Dr. Matt Wayne.

SFUSD states that their policies protect children and they are not at liberty to publicly discuss the issues to protect the children’s privacy.

Parents at the meeting spoke of their children as no longer feeling safe in school because of bullying and discrimination. Parents also said that reported incidents such as racial slurs and intimidation are not dealt with to their satisfaction and feel ignored.

Trending

Keeping Count: Robert A. Pelham Jr.’s Remarkable Census Work Collecting U.S. Black Population Data

Some parents said they have removed their students from school while other parents and community leaders called on the removal of the SFUSD superintendent, the firing of certain school principals and the need for more supportive school board members.

Community advocates discussed boycotting the schools and creating Freedom Schools led by Black leaders and educators, reassuring parents that their child’s wellbeing and education are the highest priority and youth are not to be disrupted by racism or policies that don’t support them.

Virginia Marshall, chair of the San Francisco NAACP’s education committee, offered encouragement to the parents and students in attendance while also announcing an upcoming May 14 school board meeting to demand accountability over their mistreatment.

“I’m urging anyone that cares about our students to pack the May 14 school board meeting,” said Marshall.

This resource was supported in whole or in part by funding provided by the State of California, administered by the California State Library via California Black Media as part of the Stop the Hate Program. The program is supported by partnership with California Department of Social Services and the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs as part of the Stop the Hate program. To report a hate incident or hate crime and get support, go to CA vs Hate.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Magaly Muñoz

The Alameda Board of Supervisors unanimously accepted the certification of the results of the valid signatures submitted for the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price on Tuesday evening. The Board will set the election date at a special meeting on May 14.

Before the meeting, recall proponents and opponents held separate press conferences to plead their cases to the Board and residents of Alameda County.

Price, who up until this point has made little public comment about the recall, held her press conference in Jack London to announce that the California Fair Political Practices Commission has opened an investigation into the finances of the Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE) recall campaign.

The political action committee (PAC), Reviving the Bay Area, has been the largest contributor to the SAFE organization and has allegedly donated over half a million dollars to the recall efforts.

“Between September 2023 and November 2023, [Revive the Bay Area] donated approximately $578,000 to SAFE without complying with the laws that govern all political committees in California,” Price said.

Price accused the recall campaigns of using irregular signature-gathering processes, such as paying gatherers per signature, and using misleading information to get people to sign their petitions.

SAFE held their own press conference outside of the Alameda County Administration Building at 1221 Oak St. in Oakland, once again calling for the Board to certify their signatures and set a date for the recall election.

Trending

Biden Announces Federal Action on Marijuana Reform

Their press conference turned contentious quickly as Price’s “Protect the Win” supporters attempted to yell over the SAFE staff and volunteers. “Stop scapegoating Price” and “Recall Price” chants went on for several moments at a time during this event.

Families of victims urged the Board to think of their loved ones whose lives are worth much more than the millions of dollars that many opponents of the recall say is too much to spend on a special election.

The Registrar of Voters (ROV) estimates the special election could cost anywhere from $15 to $20 million, an amount that is not in their budget.

The Board was presented with several options on when and how to conduct the recall election. They have to set a date no less than 88 days or more than 125 days after May 14, meaning the date could fall anywhere from late July to September.

But the County charter also states that if a general election takes place within 180 days of their scheduling deadline, the Board could choose to use the November ballot as a way to consolidate the two events.

In the event that Price is recalled, the Supervisors would appoint someone to fill the vacancy, though neither the County nor the California charter specifies how long they would have to pick a replacement.

The appointee would serve as district attorney spot until the next election in 2026. Afterwards, either they, if they run and win, or a newly elected candidate would serve the rest of Price’s six-year term until 2029. Price is unique as the only district attorney wo serves a term of six years.

The Board acknowledged that they knew last fall that this recall would come with its own set of complications when Measure B, which changed the local recall charter to match California’s, was first brought to their consideration.

Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert opposed discussing the measure, stating that the public would think that the Board was attempting to influence the recall campaign that had already taken off months prior.

“I think ultimately this feels like it’s going to end up in court, one way or the other, depending on who files what,” Haubert said.

Price’s legal team told the Post that the district attorney intended to consider all legal options should the recall election take place.

Miley stated that while he was in support of the amendment to the charter, he did not think it was right to schedule it for the March ballot as it would ultimately cause confusion for everyone involved.

“It has produced some legal entanglements that I think, potentially, could’ve been avoided,” Miley said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post