New York Today: Our City’s Rosa Parks

Claudette was a minor and pregnant. Not someone that the NAACP wanted as a model in their fight for Civil Rights.

I learned about Claudette Colvin's case perhaps 25 years ago. At first, I was shocked, but now, middle-aged, mature me understands why the NAACP did not want to select a teenager who was pregnant or had a child and unwed. The many opponents of rights for black people would have focused on her background, an enormous distraction. The same concerns apply today when anyone becomes the face of a movement. PR matters. But I didn't know Colvin was from New York, so thanks.

Thomas Murray, the museum at the African Burial Ground is a great place to start learning more about this history. And the New-York Historical Society has many online educational resources from its big Slavery in New York exhibits.

When I read the name, I thought it sounded familiar. It turned out I was thinking of Elizabeth Keckley, who worked as Mary Todd Lincoln's servant.

Hi Dean, yes, I agree, but have been thinking (always dangerous, I guess, LOL) The Times had announced last year that a computer system was doing some of its comment moderating, which I’d understood to mean that comments that scanned OK could get on almost right away, and others had to be reviewed by more skilled eyes, since it seemed once comments were up and responded to, the online paper didn’t like to take them down after the fact. I do find it frustrating sometimes, especially when a column usually stops getting read by early afternoon, But I’ll confess that even I, a loyal hard-copy Times lover for decades, have actually found myself thinking “hmm, I could really use that extra $600 a year I spend on the print edition for a new [whatever].” I never end up stopping my print subscription, since I always decide I’d miss it terribly, but I have to assume with more and more people going online-only, sales must be down even if readership isn’t. My long way of saying if the Times can save money (without losing reader interest) by the computer comment-scanning system, maybe it’s important overall that they do so, to help make sure the Times is still around years and years from now. I see so many outlets just closing down due to costs. (For example, where would growth in the arts and political accountability be if the Times just became too costly?)_ I will stop being controversial and go back to tax returns, still 2017 returns under the non-Trump system. :)

My understanding was that the Times was using an algorithmic system (which is far from perfect) to screen comments. But maybe there still is a human element, I don't know. Over the past two weeks, I have twice submitted comments about the late appearance of comments but they were not posted. I thought that maybe if I slipped in a remark at the end of a comment discussing other topics it might be accepted. The failure to approve comments that were clearly relevant was disappointing and belies the Times's statements about transparency.