Instead of it taking place at an Ivy League school in Ithaca, New York, what would it look like if a national story concerning rape allegations from fraternity members took place on an HBCU campus in Atlanta, Washington, D.C., or Nashville?

Would President Donald Trump still feel “badly” for the alleged?

Do you think the Kappas, Sigmas, and Alphas would face the same scrutiny?

Might people use more compassionate language when discussing the case’s legalities?

We already know the answers to those questions.

Sunny Hostin from “The View” recounted a call she received from actress Cynthia Erivo, who said, ‘Sis, I know you, and I know your heart and your life’s work has been about protecting women and children. But the clip that I saw doesn’t reflect who you are.” Hostin’s initial remarks about the case focused on its legal aspects, lacking compassion for the alleged victims and other survivors who might have been affected. Hostin reflected, “Instead of leading with the law, I need to lead with empathy so that people can receive the message about the law. I was accused of defending these young men and victim-shaming, which is something I would never do since I spent the majority of my career prosecuting sex crimes.”

If you’re reading this, then you are already aware of the allegations against the “Cornell 7.” The news comes just weeks after 14 people were charged in connection with the alleged trafficking of kilos of cocaine on Penn State’s campus by members of white fraternities. A decade ago, the rape scandal at Baylor University dominated the news, which was around the same time as the Brock Turner case at Stanford.

I ask again: how would the news coverage, social media chatter, and podcast conversations differ if such incidents happened on HBCU campuses and included members of Black Greek-letter organizations?

Based on reporting by Atlanta Daily World.

Families across the country are opening their monthly utility bills with a growing sense of dread. Groceries cost more. Rent costs more. Now electricity has become one more expense pushing household budgets to the breaking point, and for many in the Black community – as usual – the squeeze is being felt hardest of all.

Residential electricity prices are expected to average more than 18 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2026, about 5 percent higher than last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. At the same time, demand for power is climbing fast as the nation adds data centers, factories, and other large energy users. And consumers remain exposed to a market rattled by global conflict and swings in fuel prices.

These costs do not land on everyone equally. For a family with little left over at the end of the month, even a modest jump in the light bill means less for food, transportation or medicine. Low-income households spend three times more of their income on energy than other households, and Black households spend 43 percent more than white households, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

The question every public official should be asking, then, is simple: How does America add the reliable electricity it needs while keeping costs down for the families least able to absorb them?

Instead, a group of state attorneys general has chosen a very different fight.

In November 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued three of the nation’s largest asset managers, BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, and was joined by a coalition of other states. The lawsuit claims the firms bought up large stakes in major coal producers and then used their influence as shareholders to pressure those companies to cut production in pursuit of climate goals. The attorneys general argue this restricted coal supply, raised coal prices and, in the end, raised electricity prices for consumers.

Paxton and his colleagues have presented the case as a way to bring down power bills. But when Paxton’s office announced its settlement with Vanguard, it billed the deal as an agreement “to protect the coal industry.” That wording tells us a great deal about whose interests are really at the center of this case.

Attorneys general have only so much time, staff, and money. Every hour spent on litigation against investment firms is an hour not spent on the problems that actually drive up household energy costs: transmission bottlenecks, permitting delays, an aging grid, energy efficiency and the shortage of new power generation.

There is actually an even deeper problem with making coal the centerpiece of an affordability strategy. Coal has been losing ground in the marketplace for decades.

Around 1990, coal supplied more than half of the nation’s electricity. By 2025, its share had fallen to about 17 percent. Most of that decline came from competition, chiefly cheaper natural gas, along with the growth of renewable energy and tougher environmental rules. In the first three months of 2026 alone, coal plant output fell 11 percent from a year earlier, while renewable generation grew. And this summer, Lazard’s annual analysis found renewables remain the lowest-cost option for new power plants, even as existing plants have become more competitive and continue to provide real value to the grid.

Coal’s decline did not begin with Wall Street, investment policies or the climate movement. It is the result of decades of change in America’s energy economy. Where a coal plant remains affordable and necessary to keep the lights on, utilities should keep running it. But keeping a useful plant open is very different from treating the survival of an entire industry as public policy. If other sources can provide power more cheaply, government has no business shielding coal from that competition.

For Black communities, the cost of coal does not stop at the utility bill. Burning coal produces air pollution and coal ash that must be managed, and the Environmental Protection Agency notes that coal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. A landmark NAACP study found that the roughly 6 million people living near coal plants had lower average incomes than the nation as a whole, and that people of color made up a majority of those living near the worst polluters. Too many of our neighborhoods carry both burdens at once: high energy bills and a greater share of the pollution. Any policy that claims to help consumers should account for both sides of that ledger.

The truth is that families do not much care whether the power running their refrigerator comes from a coal plant, a natural gas facility, or a wind farm. They care that it is there when they need it and that they can afford to pay for it.

Critics of environmental policy often complain that government should not pick winners and losers in energy markets. That principle should apply evenly. Financial firms should not be allowed to break antitrust laws in pursuit of climate goals. But government should be just as cautious about using its power to guarantee coal a permanent place in the market. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, battery storage, and new technologies should all compete on cost, reliability, and what the grid needs.

The real challenge before the nation is building enough reliable power, and building it quickly. Clinging to coal’s past, especially through the courts, does nothing to solve that.

At a time when so many Americans are struggling just to pay bills, it is fair to ask why state officials are pouring so much energy into protecting one industry. Attorneys general should be working to make power more plentiful and more affordable. Families facing economic hardships deserve more than to be invoked as props in a political fight between government officials and some of the world’s largest financial institutions.

Based on reporting by Our Weekly Los Angeles / Our Weekly Antelope Valley.

“We want an end to the robbery by the CAPITALISTS of our Black community.” That was our position in October 1966 and it is still our position … However, many people have offered the community Black capitalism as a solution to our problems. We recognize that people in the Black community have no general dislike for the concept of Black capitalism, but this is not because they are in love with capitalism. Not at all.”

The Black Panther Party, as we begin to carry out the original vision of the Party. When we coined the expression “All Power to the People,” we had in mind emphasizing the word “Power,” for we recognize that the will to power is the basic drive of man. But it is incorrect to seek power over people. We have been subjected to the dehumanizing power of exploitation and racism for hundreds of years; and the Black community has its own will to power also. What we seek, however, is not power over people, but the power to control our own destiny. For us the true definition of power is not in terms of how many people you can control. To us power is, first of all, the ability to define phenomena, and secondly the ability to make these phenomena act in a desired manner.

We see then that power has a dual character and that we cannot simply identify and define phenomena without acting, for to do so is to become an armchair philosopher. And when Bobby and I left Merritt College to organize brothers on the block, we did so because the college students were too content to sit around and analyze without acting. On the other hand, power includes action, for it is making phenomena perform in the desired manner. But action without thinking and theory is also incorrect. If the social forces at work in the community have not been correctly analyzed and defined, how can you control them in such a way that they act in a desired manner? So the Black Panther Party has always merged theory and practice in such a way as to serve the true interests of the community.

In merging theory with practice, we recognized that it was necessary to develop a theory which was valid for more than one time and place. We wanted to develop a system of thinking which was good anywhere, thus it had to be rather abstract. Yet our theory would relate to a concrete analysis of concrete conditions so that our actions would always be relevant and profitable to the people. Yet, at the same time, it had to advance their thinking so that they would move toward a transformation of their situation of exploitation and oppression. We have always insisted on good theory and good practice, but we have not always been successful in carrying this through.

‘When the Black Panther Party defected from the Black community, we became, for a while, revolutionary cultists. One of the primary characteristics of a revolutionary cultist is that he despises everyone who has not reached his level of consciousness, or the level of consciousness that he thinks he has reached, instead of acting to bring the people to that level. In that way the revolutionary cultist becomes divided from the people; he defects from the community. Instead of serving the people as a vanguard, he becomes a hero. Heroes engage in very courageous actions sometimes, and they often make great sacrifices, including the supreme sacrifice, but they are still isolated from the people. Their courageous actions and sacrifices do not lead the people to a higher level of consciousness, nor do they produce fundamental changes in the exploitation and oppression of the people. A vanguard, however, will guide the people onto higher levels of consciousness and that way bring them to the point where they will take sterner actions in their own interests and against those who continue to oppress them. As I’ve said previously, revolution is a process, not a conclusion. A true revolutionist will not only take courageous actions, he will also try to advance the people in such a manner that they will transform their situation. That I, by delivering power to the people the true revolutionist will help them define the social phenomena in their community and lead them to the point where they will seize the time and make these phenomena act in a desired manner.

Therefore, as revolutionaries we must recognize the difference between what the people can do and what they will do. They can do anything they desire to do, but they will only take those actions which are consistent with their level of consciousness and their understanding of the situation. When we raise their consciousness, they will understand even more fully what they in fact can do, and they will move on the situation in a courageous manner. This is merging your theory with your practices. Point 3 of the original Ten-Point Program of the Black Panther Party is “We want an end to the robbery by the CAPITALISTS of our Black Community.”

That was our position in October 1966 and it is still our position. We recognize that capitalism is no solution to the problems we face in our communities. Capitalist exploitation is one of the basic causes of our problem. It is the goal of the Black Panther Party to negate capitalism in our communities and in the oppressed communities throughout the world.

However, many people have offered the community Black capitalism as a solution to our problems. We recognize that people in the Black community have no general dislike for the concept of Black capitalism, but this is not because they are in love with capitalism. Not at all. The idea of Black capitalism has come to mean to many people Black control of another one of the institutions in the community. We see within this characteristic the seeds of the negation of Black capitalism and all capitalism in general. What we must do then is increase the positive qualities until they dominate the negative and therefore transform the situation.

In the past the Black Panther Party took a counter revolutionary position with our blanket condemnation of Black capitalism. Our strategy should have been to analyze the positive and negative qualities of this phenomenon before making any condemnation. Even though we recognized, and correctly so, that capitalism is no solution or answer, we did not make a truly dialectical analysis of the situation. We recognized that in order to bring the people to the level of consciousness where they would seize the time, it would be necessary to serve their interests in survival by developing programs which would help them to meet their daily needs. For a long time we have had such programs not only for survival but for organizational purposes. Now we not only have a breakfast program for schoolchildren, we have clothing programs, we have health clinics which provide free medical and dental services, we have programs for prisoners and their families, and we are opening clothing and shoe factories to provide for more of the needs of the community.In a way our new position has the simplicity and completeness of a mathematical formula.

When the Black capitalist contributes to the survival programs and makes a contribution to the community, the community will give him their support and thus strengthen his business. If he does not make any contribution to the survival of the community, the people will not support him and his enterprise will wither away because of his own negligence. By supporting the community, however, he will be helping to build the political machine that will eventually negate his exploitation of the community, but also negate his being exploited and victimized by corporate capitalism.

So we will heighten the contradiction between the Black community and corporate capitalism, while at the same time reducing the contradiction between the Black capitalist and the Black community. In this way Black capitalism will be transformed from a relationship of exploitation of the community to a relationship of service to the community, which will contribute to the survival of everyone.

Original publication: Huey P. Newton, “Black Capitalism Re-Analyzed,” The Black Panther: Intercommunal News Service, June 5, 1971 (supplement). Archival scan: https:// cdn.filepicker.io/api/file/Mum1pt7RZ6jYSUs1kh2v?fit=max

The post BLACK CAPITALISM RE-ANALYZED I: JUNE 5, 1971- HUEY NEWTON appeared first on San Francisco Bay View.

Based on reporting by SF Bay View.

By Oakland Post Staff

The Alameda County Democratic Party has voted to endorse Measure EE, the Oakland Charter reform measure on the November 2026 ballot. The party’s endorsement is announced alongside a broad coalition of organizations spanning labor, business, faith, and community advocacy, including Oakland Rising Action that are also supporting the measure.

Those supporters include:

• League of Women Voters of Oakland
• AFSCME Council 57
• SPUR
• Bay Area Council
• Black Women Organized for Political Action
• Faith in Action East Bay
• Oakland Chamber of Commerce
• Oakland Rising Action
• Revitalize East Bay
• Empower Oakland

Measure EE would reform Oakland’s hybrid governance system by establishing a strong-mayor structure, making the mayor the city’s chief executive, responsible for delivering effective, efficient services.

The measure would also reform and expand responsibilities of City Councilmembers.

Measure EE would create clearer lines of responsibility for the performance of city government, allowing voters to evaluate the mayor based on how effectively the city delivers services and produces results.

Along with clearer executive responsibility, the Charter reform would also create new checks and balances, including an independent Budget and Legislative Analyst office, City Council confirmation of key appointments, expanded council hearing and subpoena authority, and give the council the ability to override a mayoral veto with six votes. 

“Oakland voters deserve a City Hall where they know exactly who’s responsible when something goes wrong and exactly who to credit when it gets fixed. Measure EE puts that responsibility squarely with the mayor, backed by real checks and balances, so Oakland can finally move as fast as its problems demand. That’s why the Alameda County Democratic Party is proud to stand behind it,” said Igor Tregub, chair of the Alameda County Democratic Party. 

Oakland Rising Action, a collaboration of racial, economic, and environmental justice organizations, has also issued a press statement explaining its support for Measure EE.

Measure EE “represents a critical opportunity for residents to clarify the governance role of the Oakland Mayor and City Council, so we, as residents, know who to hold accountable for the execution of voter-approved and budgeted services within city departments,” the statement said.

Measure EE would reform Oakland’s Charter, which is the city’s Constitution, strengthening “the role of the mayor as the CEO of Oakland, with the city administrator being hired and managed by the mayor explicitly.”

The measure would also strengthen oversight of city departments by mandating reporting directly to the City Council and provide the mayor with veto power in approving policies and the budget.

Measure EE was placed on the ballot by the Oakland City Council in June 2026. For more than half a year, the mayor’s working group on Charter reform engaged residents and elected officials on the options for governance of Oakland, which led to Measure EE. 

“Oaklanders need clarity about who is responsible for the management of our city departments, our tax dollars, and our voter-approved ballot measures,” said Pecolia Manigo, executive director of Oakland Rising. 

“The average resident believes that we already have a strong mayor system,” she continued. “However, this is simply not the truth in our City Charter. It is time for us to stop talking about the Charter changes Oakland needs. This is the first of many Charter reforms that are needed to improve conditions in Oakland, especially the flatlands. It’s time all voters start paying attention to who is making decisions for Oakland. This election allows us to say how we believe Oakland should be governed.”

By Ken Epstein

Mayor Barbara Lee, speaking this week to Oakland residents and elected leaders in City Council chambers, delivered the annual mayoral State of the City Address, highlighting the city’s accomplishments as well as the challenges Oakland is facing going forward.

Lee began her remarks praising city workers, who picketed outside City Hall before the meeting, and are currently negotiating with the city for a wage increase and ending understaffing that leaves many departments shorthanded.

“We are working very hard (not) just to get a contract, but to get a fair contract,” she said. “I know that our City Council and myself are working constantly toward that end.”

The mayor also praised Councilmember Carroll Fife for her legislation for a 45-day moratorium on data center construction, which passed unanimously at the council meeting Tuesday following Lee’s presentation.

Speaking bluntly, she said, “Oakland continues to be a city on the move, (but) I want to tell you the truth about the state of our city.”

“We have made real progress, and we still face real challenges.”

She said the city has balanced its budget but has a structural deficit, which is decreasing, and must operate within the context of federal funding cuts.

“Too many Oaklanders are unhoused, too many families are struggling with the cost of living, and too many neighborhoods still need basic services that they deserve, and too many people are living in fear,” Mayor Lee said.

“We’re not sweeping these realities under the rug,” she continued. “We are being intentional and transparent about how we must face these challenges, but we will not ignore our progress.”

Substantial progress includes:

• Bringing crime down;

• Building affordable and deeply affordable housing;

• Cleaning the streets and fixing the roads;

• Helping small businesses.

“We are bringing new investment to Oakland,” she said. “We’re making City Hall work better. There’s more to do, but make no mistake, Oakland is on the move.”

Speaking broadly about the city’s public safety initiatives, she said that crime continues to decline. Burglaries fell by 26%, and violent crime fell by 17%.

In recent years, homicides and shootings have fallen by double digits, and gun violence has dropped by more than 50% in the last 33 months.

“These aren’t just statistics: these are lives. These are families. These are people who never made it home,” Mayor Lee said.

She talked about what to expect now that federal court oversight of the Oakland Police Department ended last week after 23 years. “Ending federal oversight does not mean ending accountability; quite the opposite,” she said. “Accountability and civilian oversight must remain our standard. Community trust must be our standard.”

Mayor Lee also emphasized that Oakland remains a city of refuge.

“We do not work with ICE; we do not cooperate with ICE; our police do not cooperate with ICE; we will not be militarized,” she said.

The mayor also emphasized that investing in youth is a top priority of her administration and should be considered a public safety strategy.

“We advocated for almost $2 million to restore the mayor’s youth summer employment program,” she said. “We connected youth with Oakland businesses to develop skills that will support them for years to come, and that’s a big deal.”

To create a police force that better serves and protects Oakland, the city is working toward the goal of reaching 700 sworn police officers, she said. These steps include recruiting from Oakland, holding academies, reinstituting a cadet program, and increasing foot patrols.

The city also is strengthening other programs, including the Department of Violence Prevention and Ceasefire, she said. “We must have this comprehensive public safety strategy, because we must also prevent violence before it happens.”

Continuing, Lee said public safety is connected to unsanitary conditions in city neighborhoods.

“Illegal dumping is unacceptable, and it’s a moral disgrace,” she said. “No child should have to walk past piles of garbage on their way to school; no senior should have to live next to it; no small business should have to clean it up outside its door.”

She said the city is changing the way it fights illegal dumping, securing a $9.2 million investment to develop a new strategy. “We’re not just cleaning it up; we’re working to stop it before it starts. We have the three E’s – Eradication, enforcement, and education,” she said.

Focusing on the continuing crisis of Oakland’s unhoused residents, she said, “We consider housing a basic human right, and homelessness remains one of Okland’s greatest challenges.”

“There are two things we must do: keep people from becoming unsheltered and help people who are unsheltered get back into housing with services that they need,” Lee said.

Since 2024, homelessness in Oakland has fallen by 20%, she said. In the past year prevention programs helped keep 1,000 families in their homes, and over 1,300 affordable homes opened over the past two years.

Addressing community tensions over encampments, she said, “We should never have to choose between compassion for people experiencing homelessness and the health and safety of our neighborhoods.”

“A strong city has to deliver both,” she said. “That’s the work we’re advancing through Oakland’s new homelessness strategic action plan.”

Money will support small businesses, public safety, transitional housing, and community partners

Mayor Barbara Lee recently announced that the City of Oakland and local community partners will receive more than $14 million in direct investments from California’s new 2026-27 state budget.

Securing $4.25 million for city programs and $10 million for local community organizations, these state funds were backed by state Senator Jesse Arreguin and Assemblymembers Mia Bonta and Buffy Wicks, with support from Governor Gavin Newsom.

The goal of securing state and federal funding and bringing in outside resources to address the city’s most pressing needs continues to be a top priority for Lee.

Direct state investments in city programs can revitalize Oakland’s commercial corridors and foster economic growth, strengthen community violence prevention strategies, and expand transitional housing, while supporting cherished community spaces, according to a city media statement.

“Thank you so much to Senator Jesse Arreguin, Assemblymember Mia Bonta, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and Gov. Gavin Newsom for investing in Oakland,” Lee said.

“We are fortunate to have strong, dedicated leaders representing Oakland in Sacramento who consistently deliver for our residents and businesses,” she said. “This critical funding directly addresses some of our most pressing challenges, including supporting our small businesses, building vibrant neighborhood corridors, advancing violence intervention, and housing our unsheltered neighbors.”

How the $4.25 million will be spent for city projects:

• $2.5 million will be used for the Facade and Tenant Improvement Grant Program to support small businesses;
• $1 million for the Department of Violence Prevention to enhance staffing and program capacity; and
• $750,000 for the Holland transitional housing facility, providing resources to help unhoused residents.

• How the $10 million for Oakland community groups will be spent:

• $5 million for Children’s Fairyland for essential infrastructure, accessibility, and facility upgrades.;
• $3 million for the Juntos Fruitvale Cultural Arts Center to create a multi-use space for performances, exhibitions, workshops, neighborhood meetings in the Fruitvale neighborhood; and
• $2 million for Samuel Merritt University to grow its nationally recognized Human Trafficking Prevention and Response Initiative.

“State investments in Oakland’s nonprofit and educational organizations highlight their deep value not just to our city, but their importance to the entire state,” said Lee. “Oakland has long served as a hub for inclusive arts and culture and as a community that protects its most vulnerable members.”

Said Arreguin, “This investment is a commitment to Oakland’s health, safety, and future. In partnership with my state colleagues, Mayor Lee, and our community partners, we are strengthening our response to human trafficking and gun violence, to create safer neighborhoods, and improve the quality of life of all Oakland residents.”

“Investing in Oakland means investing in California’s future. I’m proud to be a voice for the beautiful people of Oakland in the State Capitol and to deliver real funding wins that ensure our shared safety, expand housing opportunities, and preserve the artistic and cultural legacy of Oakland,” said Bonta.