By Terri Schlichenmeyer

Author: by Mark Whitaker, c.2025, Simon & Schuster, $30.99, 448 pages

Who will remember you in fifty years’ time?

A handful of friends – at least those who are still around – might recall you. Your offspring, grandkids, and greats, maybe people who stumble upon your tombstone. Think about it: who will remember you in 2075? And then read “The Afterlife of Malcolm X” by Mark Whitaker and learn about a legacy that still resonates a half-century later.

Betty Shabazz didn’t like to go to her husband’s speeches, but on that February night in 1965, he asked her to come with their daughters to the Audubon Ballroom in New York. Did Malcolm X sense that something bad would happen on that night? Surely. He was fully aware of the possibility, knowing that he’d been “a marked man” for months because of his very public break with the Nation of Islam.

As the news of his murder spread around New York and around the world, his followers and admirers reacted in many ways. His friend, journalist Peter Goldman, was “hardly shocked” because he also knew that Malcolm’s life was in danger, but the arrest of three men accused of the crime didn’t add up. It ultimately became Goldman’s “obsession.”

Malcolm’s co-writer for The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Alex Haley, quietly finished the book he started with Malcolm, and a small upstart publishing house snatched it up. A diverse group of magazines got in line to run articles about Malcolm X’s life, finally sensing that White America “’needed his voice even more than Blacks did.’”

But though Malcolm X was gone, he continued to leave an impact.

He didn’t live long enough to see the official founding of the Black Panther Party, but he was influential on its beginning. He never knew of the first Kwanzaa, or the triumphs of a convert named Muhammad Ali.

Malcolm left his mark on music. He influenced at least three major athletes.

He was a “touchstone” for a president …

While it’s true that “The Afterlife of Malcolm X” is an eye-opening book, one that works as a great companion to the autobiography, it’s also a fact that it’s somewhat scattered. Is it a look at Malcolm’s life, his legacy, or is it a “murder mystery”?

Turns out, it’s all three, but the storylines are not smooth. There are twists and tangents and that may take some getting used-to. Just when you’re immersed, even absorbed in this book, to the point where you forget about your surroundings, author Mark Whitaker abruptly moves to a different part of the story. It may be jarring.

And yet, it’s a big part of this book, and it’s essential for readers to know the investigation’s outcome and what we know today. It doesn’t change Malcolm X’s legacy, but it adds another frame around it.

If you’ve read the autobiography, if you haven’t thought about Malcolm X in a while, or if you think you know all there is to know, then you owe it to yourself to find “The Afterlife of Malcolm X.”

For you, this is a book you won’t easily forget.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Tanya Dennis

Dr. Laura Dean Head, a Black Studies professor at San Francisco State University for 35 years, transitioned on June 19, 2013.  Aware of her imminent demise, Dr. Head appointed former student and friend for 28 years, Zakiya Folami Jendayi as trustee, executor, and sole beneficiary of her estate in front of several credible witnesses and a notary.  Head also gave Jendayi power of attorney and appointed Jendayi as her advanced healthcare agent.

Jendayi says, “Laura had two sisters but was estranged from them the entire 28 years we were friends.”Despite that fact, Head’s sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, questioned Head’s trust three times after Head transitioned, attempting to acquire Head’s estate, and three different attorneys told them they didn’t have standing. Dr. Head did not include either of her sisters in her trust or will. Dr. Head’s Trust included a disinheritance and no contest clause regarding her sisters.

In 2020, Dr. Head’s deceased mother’s abandoned property for over 20 years sold, entitling Head’s estate to one-third of the proceeds. Jendayi filed a petition for distribution rights on behalf of Dr. Head’s estate.  Head’s sisters responded, filing a lawsuit against Jendayi to invalidate Head’s trust, claiming Jendayi used undue influence and forgery, citing Head’s lack of capacity to make business decisions.

During trial, Della testified she had not seen Head since 1997 or 1998, and Helaine could not identify Dr. Head in a photo during her trial testimony. Head’s physician, Dr. Stephen Sarafian, wrote a letter and testified that Dr. Head lacked mental capacity, and her mental state rendered her unable to manage her own financial resources and/or to resist fraud or undue influence.

His letter had the wrong day, month, year and identified Dr. Head as a male. Jendayi filed a complaint against Sarafian with Kaiser’s grievance department and the Medical Board of California. Both agencies denounced Sarafian’s false letter.

When Jendayi subpoenaed Sarafian to testify a second time, Sarafian testified he had not performed a mental assessment on Dr. Head, had not diagnosed Dr. Head’s lack mental capacity, and had not determined if she could manage her own financial resources and/or resist fraud or undue influence,

During the 18-day trial, the sisters’ attorney, Daniel Leahy, stated that Jendayi named herself Head’s beneficiary. No one testified to that claim, nor was there any evidence. When Jendayi objected during the trial, Judge Sandra Bean stated, “it’s only argument.”

However, Bean accepted the “only argument” lie from Leahy, a court attorney who never met Dr. Head, over Dr. Head’s attorney, Elaine Lee, who testified that Dr. Head named Jendayi as her beneficiary after she met with Dr. Head privately. Bean ruled that Jendayi named herself beneficiary and unduly influenced Dr. Head.

Zendayi says “Trial transcripts show Bean’s extreme bias and discrimination against me, how Bean lawyered from the bench, abused her discretion, changed a witness testimony on the record and exhibited blatant racism.”

The Appellate Court upheld Bean’s ruling, They also ruled that Jendayi named herself beneficiary and relied on Sarafian’s invalid letter three times to uphold Bean’s ruling.

Jendayi then petitioned to the Supreme Court of California for justice, but the Court denied hearing her case. Jendayi is now headed to the Supreme Court of the United States seeking justice. Judge Bean has been contacted for comment, but thus far there has been no response.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Ken Epstein

After 20 years under state control, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) will regain local authority over its budget and day-to-day decision-making, emerging from an era of austerity when the district was forced by state-appointed overseers to close more than 40 mostly flatland schools, eliminate educational programs, and cut millions of dollars in services for students and classrooms.

After making its final payment on a $100 million state loan at the end of June, the district in July will again be under the authority of the local school board, like other districts statewide.

The decades of direct intervention by state officials, Alameda County education officials and a powerful, state-funded regulatory agency, the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT), will finally come to an end in July, according to the office of State Superintendent of Schools Tony Thurmond.

The official narrative of the state takeover is a simple one: the district overspent its budget, and the state altruistically stepped in to rescue it.

But the truth behind the takeover is far different. It’s a story of raw power, greed, and racism.

When the state declared the district insolvent in 2003, OUSD had a $39 million deficit, and funds in a reserve account sufficient to loan itself funds to cover the deficit, a practice that was common in other districts. However, the state would not allow Oakland to use its own money to cover the shortfall.

The state stepped in, fired Supt. Dennis Chaconas, eliminated the authority of the Board of Education, forced the district to take a $100 million loan that it neither needed nor requested, and appointed a receiver, Randolph Ward, who reported to the state schools’ superintendent, making all the decisions related to the operation of OUSD, including how to spend the $100 million loan.

Not only did the district have to repay the loan, it had to pay the salaries of the various overseers it was required to hire.

Involved in the drive to take control of the district and sell school properties was Oakland’s then powerful State Senator Don Perata, who had been pushing for several years to take control of the district, unsuccessfully attempting to sell the district’s Second Avenue headquarters to real estate developers.

Other local business and political leaders, including State Supt. of Schools Bill Honig, were determined to eliminate the power of the Black majority school board, which was seen as an impediment to the agenda for business as usual.

Among recent interventions by Oakland’s outside overseers was in 2021, when the district, with broad community support, was about to adopt a resolution for “Reparations for Black Students.” The outside trustee spoke at a school board meeting to block the passage of the measure until the board removed wording that would have protected predominantly Black schools from being closed.

In 2024, during district negotiations with administrators, the trustee did not allow the board to approve more money unless it agreed to guidelines to close and merge schools.

In a letter to the district, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Alysse Castro agreed that the district has done what is necessary to regain local control but that challenges remain.

“These improvements co-exist with ongoing concerns that OUSD must still confront its structural deficit and address the long-standing overinvestment in small schools,” she wrote.

“However, these are challenges of local policy and the domain of a locally elected board of education, not of mismanagement or financial misconduct,” Castro wrote.

“Continuing to require a trustee to backstop them risks continued delay in local ownership and accountability and reinforces a counterproductive narrative that feeds resistance and undermines the board’s willingness to engage their community in making necessary tradeoffs.”

Going forward, the district still faces financial difficulties. According to reports, the board must make $73 million in cuts to the 2025-2026 budget and an additional $17 million from the 2026-2027 budget.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post