Search

From 1900 to 1902, the General Federation of Women's Clubs' official commitment to "unity in diversity" was tested to the limits when an explosive debate over the admission of African American women's clubs deeply, and in some cases irreparably, divided individual clubs and state federations and nearly resulted in the loss of half of the organization's burgeoning membership. The controversy reveals a captivating, complicated, and at times bizarre struggle between Northern and Southern white members of the General Federation to defend their particular views of race and, in many cases, to obfuscate their own deep-seated racial prejudices. Most members ultimately sacrificed principle for the sake of federation unity, albeit a unity without racial diversity, and thus squandered the opportunity to combine the talents and energies of all organized women in an effort toward social justice and humanitarian reform.

The Women's Service Section (WSS) investigated federally controlled railroad stations and yards at the end of World War I. Few women worked in car cleaning before the war, and railroad management preferred to block women workers, especially African Americans, from gaining any kind of foothold in railroad work. African American women were the single largest group of railroad car cleaners during this period but they were routinely denied adequate facilities, including toilets, locker rooms, and dining facilities throughout the railroad system. By raising the issues of facilities, workers' rights, and public health, these women shaped federal policy and widened the agenda of the WSS to include a direct attack on segregated workplaces. This article argues that African American women car cleaners launched an industrial campaign that wove together concerns about racism, sexism, and health issues, and successfully removed barriers to women working in a predominately male industry.

King v. Smith, the first welfare case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, overturned the Alabama substitute father law. Such laws directed or allowed welfare officials to use the sexual behavior and reproductive capacity of poor African American women to alienate this population from "cash-money"; to reassert political and bureaucratic control over the intimate relationships of African Americans, demonstrating that this population was unprepared for civil rights and full citizenship; and to shore up white supremacy in the civil rights era. The context for this case which originated in Selma, Alabama in 1966 illustrates that even if poor African American women had had access to contraception and legal abortion at that time, they would still have lacked reproductive autonomy and dignity as the state surveilled their sexual behavior and enforced laws making sex, itself, as well as reproduction, and the right to define their own intimate relationships and families, a race and class privilege.

African Americans in the United States are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. We focus in this paper on the structural and contextual sources of HIV/AIDS risk, and suggest that among the most important of these sources are drug policy and the corrections system. In particular, high rates of exposure to the corrections system (including incarceration, probation, and parole) spurred in large part by federal and state governments' self-styled war on drugs in the United States, have disproportionately affected African Americans. We review a wide range of research literature to suggest how exposure to the corrections system may affect the HIV/AIDS related risks of drug users in general, and the disproportionate HIV risk faced by African Americans in particular. We then discuss the implications of the information reviewed for structural interventions to address African American HIV-related risk. Future research must further our understanding of the relations among drug policy, corrections, and race-based disparities in HIV/AIDS.

America's children are stalked by race- and income-based inequities that demand our attention. Health care reform efforts that respect the needs of the entire child can diminish these inequities. Six prescriptions will help: universal early childhood education; comprehensive health and family life education; parental support; reinforcement of male responsibility; comprehensive school-based clinics; and opportunities for higher education.

To protect the interests of underserved Americans, fair and rational health care reform must embrace 10 principles. These include universal and comprehensive coverage; mandatory cost containment; equity; freedom to change jobs or to relocate; high quality; reduced paperwork; primary care; help for the underserved; consumer-oriented care; and fair financing.