Op-Ed
Black Girls Carry Extra Burdens to Stay in School
By Lisa Gissendaner
NNPA Guest Columnist
Whitney Richards Callathes – a young person navigating the difficulties she confronts as a woman of color and an undocumented immigrant completing her education – has an added responsibility. She is the primary caretaker for her incarcerated uncle. Whitney shared her story about how this additional burden has affected her life at a town hall meeting held last October hosted by the African American Policy Forum (AAPF) and Girls for Gender Equity. She explained:
[This] adds undue pressure in our own lives, right? Potentially pushing us out of school, forcing us to get second, third jobs, and working late into the night, while we are still responsible for caretaking, right? And often times, it isn’t considered or looked at as a burden or gendered form of oppression because we are expected to do it, right? It’s women’s work. It’s supposed to be a labor of love…and even when we ask for help, there is often little help to be provided.
On top of experiencing racial inequities that parallel the ones confronting men and boys, women and girls of color face unique challenges because of their gender. Whitney’s story illustrates how gender-specific factors function to exacerbate the effects of systemic forms of racism. Yet, traditional conceptions of racial justice consistently ignore these sorts of concerns.
In response to the erasure of these concerns, AAPF released Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced and Underprotected last month. This report sheds light on the barriers to success that Black and other girls of color encounter in the New York and Boston public schools. Toward this end, it assesses the impact of excessively punitive disciplinary policies on girls of color. In so doing, it demonstrates that the racialized risks associated with unduly harsh disciplinary measures and the school-to-prison pipeline are real and substantial obstacles for girls as well as boys.
The report pushes back against the popular narrative that only boys of color are seriously at risk in this arena. It illuminates the gender-specific obstacles such as pregnancy, sexual harassment, and caretaking responsibilities that can disastrously undermine the performance of girls in school. These concerns, however, are largely absent from the public discourse on the challenges confronted by youth of color.
One of the greatest impediments facing girls trying to stay in school is pregnancy. Pregnancy and teen parenting often disproportionately affect the lives of teen mothers, and can dramatically alter how their teachers and fellow students treat them. One girl interviewed for the AAPF report noted that “you can be the father of three in the 9th grade, and at the end of the day no one really cares, but if you’re a girl, you know, those children are with you, they are seen.”
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that because of the additional responsibilities of childcare, only half of teen mothers finish high school by the age of 22, compared to 89 percent of girls overall. Moreover, the report reveals that there is a lifelong income gap for those without high school diplomas that is greater for women than for men.
Another major risk facing girls of color in and outside of school is sexual abuse. A 2011 study by Black Women’s Blueprint found that close to 60 percent of Black girls are victims of sexual assault by the age of 18. But, schools often fail to appropriately respond to or prevent this form of abuse.
Recently, two girls in sixth-grade in the Bronx alleged that they were sodomized for two hours; and no one had even bothered to look for them during that time, though they had missed two class periods. Afterward, rather than consent to the girl’s request, the school administrators decided they would not suspend the boys in question unless their accusers participated in a hearing where the boys would be present, a situation that would only further terrify them.
When even your teachers and school officials treat you with profound disrespect, Black and other girls of color may come to see themselves as unworthy of success. While White girls living in poverty may also experience some of the same societal ills, they do not face the same debilitating racial stereotypes. Our challenge, then, is to assure that all girls are viewed with respect and nurtured in a way such that they come to understand that they are worth investing in.
To accomplish this objective, we must lift up the voices of these girls, listen to their stories, and center their concerns at the heart of our vision of racial justice – a vision that should be inextricably linked to innovative large scale programmatic initiatives that target the concerns of our girls as aggressively as those developed to meet the needs of our boys.
Lisa Gissendaner is the Young Scholars Program Coordinator for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion at Ohio State University. She sits on the Board of Education for Canton, Ohio. Throughout her career, Gissendaner has worked to make education a positive, empowering experience for all young people.
###
Alameda County
Council Approves Budget to Invest in Core City Services, Save Fire Stations, Invest in Economic Development
I am most proud of our ability to fund these critical city services without the use of one-time fixes. We are still suffering the consequences of last year’s budget, where a majority of the Council, myself not included, chose to incorporate anticipated proceeds from the sale of the Coliseum to fund essential services. Since the sale has still not yet been completed, the lack of funds led to drastic cuts in city services, including the temporary closure of fire stations, staff layoffs, and the cancellations of many service contracts.

By Janani Ramachandran, District 4 Oakland City Councilmember
On Wednesday, June 11, City Council took a bold step to prioritize investing in essential city services to get our beautiful Town back on track. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I am proud to have led a collaborative process, alongside Councilmembers Rowena Brown, Zac Unger, and Charlene Wang, to develop a set of amendments to the proposed FY 2025-2027 budget which passed successfully with a vote of 6 – 1. Despite facing a $265 million structural budget deficit, we were able to restore funding to ensure that all 25 fire stations remain open, fund 5 police academies, invest millions of dollars to combat illegal dumping and sideshow prevention, improve our permitting processes, fund a “business incentives” program to revitalize our commercial corridors, improve upon our homelessness prevention work, amplify the city’s anti-trafficking programs, re-instate our tree services division, staff up our Auditor’s office – all while preventing any layoffs of city staff, keeping our senior centers and after-school programs open, and crisis services like MACRO funded.
I am most proud of our ability to fund these critical city services without the use of one-time fixes. We are still suffering the consequences of last year’s budget, where a majority of the Council, myself not included, chose to incorporate anticipated proceeds from the sale of the Coliseum to fund essential services. Since the sale has still not yet been completed, the lack of funds led to drastic cuts in city services, including the temporary closure of fire stations, staff layoffs, and the cancellations of many service contracts. The budget that we passed this week proudly does not fund recurring expenses with anticipated one-time revenue – and moves our city towards being fiscally responsible with our taxpayers’ funds.
Our budget comes in response to the widespread and consistent calls from across Oakland’s diverse communities asking us to prioritize funding solutions to the issues that have most directly impacted our residents’ safety and quality of life. Our priorities are also inspired by our belief that Oakland is on the way not only to financial recovery, but also to global recognition. Oakland can attract and preserve businesses of all sizes with safer, cleaner streets. We can and will have more large-scale festivals that celebrate our culture, concerts that uplift our incredible local musicians, conferences that attract patrons from across the world, and award-winning restaurants that top national charts. We are on our way to rebuilding a thriving economy and having a cultural renaissance will create more jobs for Oaklanders while also generating more revenue for the City through sales and business taxes.
I am grateful for the close partnership with our new Mayor Barbara Lee, and know that she shares our values of ensuring we are prioritizing keeping Oakland’s residents safe, our streets clean, and our businesses prosperous in an open and fiscally responsible manner. I am also thankful to our City Administrator, Jestin Johnson, and former Interim Mayor Kevin Jenkins’ efforts to produce the initial proposal that our Council budget team used as a starting point for our amendments, and for their shared commitment to transparency and ethical government. I am especially grateful for every resident that took the time to make their voice heard throughout this rigorous budget process. I have no doubt that we are on the verge of true change, and that together we will bring Oakland back to being the world-class city I know it can be.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment
-
Activism4 weeks ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Barbara Lee4 weeks ago
WNBA’s Golden State Valkyries Kick Off Season with Community Programs in Oakland
-
Activism4 weeks ago
East Bay Community Foundation’s New Grants Give Oakland’s Small Businesses a Boost
-
Activism4 weeks ago
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Hosts Town Hall Addressing Lead Hazards in City Housing
-
Bo Tefu4 weeks ago
Gov. Newsom Highlights Record-Breaking Tourism Revenue, Warns of Economic Threats from Federal Policies