Ernest Johnson of the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP laid out a simple and straightforward argument about how important it is to deploy broadband facilities to the underserved minority communities of Louisiana. What struck me as disturbing were the number of bigotry-laced comments included at the end of Mr. Johnson’s article, which you can find here at this link.

Could one of the barriers to broadband adoption be the perception that minorities want broadband handouts? That minority consumers want broadband for free? I can put that one question to rest with one word.

No.

Let’s keep it real. We are not naïve that there are citizens out there that live in the dark ages. I am not afraid of the comments. Quite frankly I’d rather they be aired so I know exactly where the cockroaches are lurking.

What would really be scary is if policy makers allowed this type of bias to enter into their broadband policy decisions.

Hilary Shelton, vice-president for policy and advocacy for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, wrote a short, sweet, and to the point letter to The New York Times that not only explained the civil rights group’s rationale for supporting the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA, but also responded to critics who have outright declared that civil rights groups are under the paid influence of AT&T.

Like I have said time and time again, it’s insulting that a bunch of primarily Johnny-come-lately organizations whose leaders were a far thought in their mama’s brain patterns could come along and declare that these groups are somehow on the take. Having sat on an executive board of a local chapter in North Florida, I can say with utmost authority that the last thing any member thinks about when advocating for the interests of minorities is whether some donor may be ticked off at the group’s position.

Mr. Shelton’s piece is a must-read and should put to rest the ramblings of these fake, birther-type detractors. Consider Mr. Shelton’s piece the birth certificate.