The Seattle School Boycott and Death of John Williams - Assignment Example

Discrimination: The Seattle School boycott and death of John T. Williams due: Part A: What was the Seattle School Boycott of 1966? Seattle School Boycott was the students’ way to express antipathy to the school system on racial segregation. This was triggered when the student realized that African America history was not taught in public school system; excitement was all over. For two days in the year 1966, the student of Seattle School moved to the street to protest racial segregation in the school system. They poured out of Seattle’s public school and attended ‘Freedom schools (Clark, 2005). Who was responsible for organizing the boycott & why? Civil activist groups were the organizers of the boycott. They included; Civil activist organizations National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NNACP), Congress for Racial Equality (CORE) and Central Area Civil Rights Committee (CACRC). These groups had tried to persuade the school management to address the pressing issue, but it was all in vain. CORE, a civil rights group, submitted an analysis of school segregation that had a formulated plan to eliminate segregation in public school system. The study from CORE would have eliminated all forms of segregation by matching white schools with black’s schools (Clark, 2005). Church leaders also had a hand in planning of the boycott. Some of the elementary schools were based on church premises. For instance, A.M.E. Church, Madrona Presbyterian Church, YMCA, Goodwill Baptist Church, St. Peter Claver Center, and Cherry Hill Baptist Church were used to plan for elementary schools. This use of church premises showed that the church leaders were actively involved in the planning and organization of Seattle’s school boycott. These unsuccessful trials by civil activist group had either directly or indirectly organized the Seattle’s school boycott. The reason as to why they organized the boycott was to pressure the schools’ board to eliminate segregation in the public school system. They had fruitlessly tried all other possible avenues to convince the school management in vain. After years of futile discussion, the boycott was the next best option. (Clark, 2005) What was the outcome of the boycott? The boycott resulted to- a. Formation of numerous freedom schools: CORE, a civil right group to dramatize the racial inequalities in the public school systems, established eight of these schools. White college students, who eliminated the use of outdated reading material by teaching black history and leadership skills, staffed the schools. They also tried to incapacitate poor funding in public school system. b. Elementary schools, junior high centers and senior high school sites were planned where volunteers served as doctors, resource people and general assistant on call. These schools had black history and civil rights as the focus. c. Increase in the number of freedom schools due to the tremendous turnout that resulted in crowding. This resulted to children being sent to nearby locations. More freedom schools were needed to cater for the increasing number of children. d. Reduction in the rate of segregation: Approximately thirty percent (30%) of the students attending the freedom schools were white. This was a substantial number of whites who were sympathetic to the plight of blacks. e. The boycott resulted to lawsuits: Activists civil group had to go to court to obtain a court order, which would need the school district to present a plan for the eradication of racial segregation in the schools. For example, NAACP, filed suit on 18 March on behalf of black students. f. Students changed opinion: Most students had strong opinions regarding the boycott. One of the students, Barbara Crocker said that “the only way for anything to be done is for us kids to take action” (Clark, 2005). Part B: Racially restrictive covenants I currently live in Everett, Washington. I once lived in the Greater Seattle and there were racially restrictive covenants. To be more specific, these racially restrictive covenants applied to Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, and Mexicans. They were restricted from selling or renting of property. This effect became very apparent when Supreme Court invalidated public usage of such restrictions. This formed the basis of communities forbidding Jews, blacks and Asians American from selling or renting of property. Even after the Supreme Court altered its earlier decision in 1948, the informal structures of segregation continued to practice racial restrictions. For realtors and property owners the practice remained legal to victimize on the basis of race. In the North part of Greater Seattle, neighborhoods restricted races were hampered from finding housing except in the central neighborhood of Seattle. Language restriction was also specified, and neighborhoods were reserved for “whites” while other neighborhoods enumerated the limited racial groups. In 1920’s – 1940’s language restriction terminologies were used. “Hebrews” was used to refer to Jews, “Ethiopians” referred to African ancestry, “Malays” meant Filipinos. Adolph Hitler greatly contributed to racial concept. This practice was later abolished in 1968 after Congress passed the Housing Act that had measurable openings in Seattle’s system of housing segregation (Silva, C. 2009). Part C: The shooting death of John T. Williams Why did John Williams die? Was it because of race, class, and/or discrimination? John Williams was a 50-year-old seventh generation Nitinaht carver, originating from the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations. Ian Birk, a Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer, used excess use of force and ignorance, thus shooting John four times on August 30 2010. John’s perceived crime according to the police officer was carrying a carving knife and a cedar chunk, while walking across the street; a regular sight as per his carving profession. The officer ordered saw John approaching him, he felt threatened and acted by shooting John; this was after ordering John to drop the knife, as he thought it was for ill motive, which John did not do thus, costing him his life. Furthermore, at age of 50 years, a physical problem such as hearing is very common; and for the two years that Ian Birk had been with Seattle Police Department (SPD), he must have the faintest knowledge that the carving knife was not for ill motive. I tend to believe that John death was as a result of racism; clearly if a white man was in the place of John, I do not think that the officer would have shot him. Being from another race made the officer see John’s act of carrying his carving knife as a threat (Kershner, 2013). King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s (February 2011) decision King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s judgement (February 2011), not to bring charges against Officer Ian Birk who had a hand into Williams’s death was a clear evidence of bad judgment. Even the residents protested this, evident from the immediate protests. According to the protest, it was clear that Williams was killed under unclear circumstances. For instance Miss Jeanine Grey, said "We are angry and outraged that his life was interrupted for seemingly no reason, and so callously disregarded” (Kershner, J. 2013). Therefore, I do not agree with King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg’s (February 2011) decision not to bring charges against Officer Ian Birk. Basing my argument on the people who knew John T Williams well it was clear that he had a hearing problem. The Officer Ian Birk would have only recollected his thoughts before taking action. According to me, he hurriedly used excess force. Dan Satterberg being a county prosecutor only meant he had all medical services at his disposal he would have performed medical checkup on John’s body to prove peoples claims either true or false. The fact that, at his (John T. Williams) demise, he was carrying a carving knife and a cedar chunk was enough to tell that he was on his daily duty. By use of common sense, one does not to ask such questions to individuals who are fifty years and above. Logically this age bracket hardly involves itself with some activities. The police officer, Ian Birk, had the intention to kill John, as he fired four shots. At most, the first two shots were enough to show that Mr. Williams was harmless. After the Officer killed Mr. Williams, he later claimed that Williams turned towards him, a claim that was refuted by several witnesses who were at the scene of the incidence. King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg interrogated none of these witnesses. Moreover, the Seattle Police Departments Firearms Board, in their preliminary finding after investigation on October 4, 2010 they concluded that the shooting was unjustified. Having this information what led King County prosecutor not to pursue criminal charges against Birk is unfair ( Mapes, 2010). References Clark, B. (2005). Seattle School Boycott.Seattle School Boycott. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/school_ Kershner, J. (2013). Seattle police officer Ian Birk fatally shoots Native American woodcarver John T. Williams on a downtown Seattle sidewalk, on August 30, 2010.. http://www.historylink.org/. Retrieved January 18, 2013, from http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=10296 Mapes, L. (2010, September 1). Police-shooting victim struggled with a lot of things. The Seattle Times. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/201 Silva, C. (2009). Racial Restrictive Covenants. Racial Restrictive Covenants. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants. Read More