Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Race Still Matters

September 3, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Does race matter? As rhetorical as it seems, this question continues to emerge as a topic worthy of debate. In the wake of electing the first black American as the 44th president of the United States, many people had a sigh of relief that America had proven to be post-racial. For many others, however, particularly many people of color, their excitement about electing Barack Obama was muted by the awareness, reinforced daily, that race still matters greatly in America, and that the election was diminishing the perception of this reality, particularly for the non-minority population.

Six months into President Obama’s term, we now celebrate the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. In between these two historic events, we also witnessed the unfortunate debacle in Cambridge, Massachusetts involving Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Police Sergeant James Crowley, of the Cambridge police department. In varying ways, each of these scenarios has raised numerous questions about race and its prevalence in today’s society. Does race matter? Inarguably, yes! Even Barack Obama’s election last November reflected this unfortunate tradition, with an increase in ugly racial incidents both on-campus and off, surrounding that momentous occasion.

As colleges and universities nationwide start the semester, the events of the past six months, especially the two occurring this summer, present exceptional opportunities for our postsecondary institutions to actively engage and critically examine where their respective campus communities – faculty, staff, and students, new and old – currently stand regarding issues of race. Yet, even without such an examination, we know from years of research that racial/ethnic gaps persist in almost every corner of our nation’s campuses.

  • There are racial disparities in college enrollment and college completion. Over the last three decades, undergraduate enrollment rates for racial/ethnic minority students have increased, nearly doubling. Minorities have also made gains in completion rates at the high school and collegiate levels; however when compared to Whites, gaps in student achievement remain for nearly all minority groups.
  • There are racial disparities in fields of study and graduate education. Fewer racial/ethnic minority students graduate in fields like science and engineering; fewer receive post-baccalaureate training and attain master’s, doctorate, and professional degrees.
  • There are racial disparities in perceptions of campus climate. Racial/ethnic minority students are less likely to express satisfaction with their overall undergraduate experience. They also are less likely to feel a sense of belonging, interact with faculty/staff, and hold leadership positions in clubs/organizations.
  • There are racial disparities in hiring, tenure, and compensation policies. Post graduation, racial/ethnic minorities earn less, with the same credentials, as their White counterparts. Even within the ranks of our liberal-minded institutions, Blacks and Hispanics are grossly underrepresented in our faculties. And where people of color do find positions within our institutions, it is too often in adjunct faculty positions, bereft of the pay and benefits appreciated by regular faculty, and in our service departments, perpetuating the inequalities that we so often condemn in society in general.

Certainly, there are those who firmly embrace the belief in the achievement ideology, which considers American society to be fair and meritocratic. For them, success and failure are based on individual differences in ability and motivation, and not societal or economic barriers. And while they strongly hold to their beliefs, there is a mountain of evidence to show that our society -- including some of our campuses -- is filled with longstanding, persistent barriers that fall along a color line.

Many have been saying that we need to have a national conversation on the issues of race in America. Some have said we need this because race issues are being swept under the carpet; others because the election of President Obama provides the most comfortable segue into such discussions in recent times. Whatever the reason, now seems like the opportune moment.

The discussions surrounding Justice Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court provide a unique opportunity for conversation about the lines between pride in heritage and pride in race. Many responded to Justice Sotomayor’s personal characterization of herself as a “wise Latina” as evidence of her inherent racism. Yet, many of the same people found Justice Samuel Alito’s espoused proud heritage as the son of Italian immigrants as enduring and humanizing. Why the difference? It is because we all see the world from our own worldview, and that worldview is shaped by our race and ethnicity?

As Eugene Robinson states so eloquently in his July 14, 2009 op-ed in The Washington Post, the dominant perception has often been that “being white and male is seen ... as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any ‘identity’ -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever – has to be judged against this supposedly ‘objective’ standard.” His observation offers a true learning opportunity – a moment to explore in open dialogue how our past defines our present; a moment to challenge assumptions based on a world view that we almost always perceived as legitimate, but which is almost certainly biased, whoever we are, by our own experience.

The case involving Gates and Crowley also gives us a moment to explore critical questions about race. Was race an issue in the arrest of Gates, in his home? Where you stand on this issue seems to depend on where you sit. Some clearly argue this as a case of racial profiling, while others consider it an issue of belligerence leading to arrest. Even after their meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden, these two gentlemen resolved the issue by agreeing to disagree. This situation also provides us with a great opportunity for dialogue around issues of race, individual worldviews, and differing perceptions of reality. This is a particularly powerful case for discussion because it raises so many critical questions about race and power, and as we have seen, offers no definitive resolution.

We in higher education have an opportunity – a unique teachable moment in which to engage our students about race matters on our campuses and in our communities. Though the both of us work in the higher education policy community, not in the campus environment, our work does provide ample evidence that race matters in America and in American higher education. We want to encourage those of you who lead our colleges and universities to use these unique circumstances to begin a dialogue on race in your institutions -- and not just in orientation and freshmen seminars, but also in faculty senate meetings, staff retreats, board meetings, and the like. We also strongly encourage faculty and administrators to engage students, inside and outside the classroom, to have deliberative dialogues on topics of race. Certainly, many institutional leaders would state that they already have a commitment to racial justice and equity on their campuses.

Some faculty and administrators may suggest that courses and activities focusing on race only draws those who are already have an expressed interest and passion. In other words, they may feel as if they are preaching to the choir. Other institutional leaders are simply cautious about invoking race and discussions of race in fear of being personally attacked for their beliefs and values. Regardless of where you or your institutions currently stand in this respect, we strongly encourage you to take advantage of this unique moment.

Some institutions have already begun such efforts. For example, leaders at Ithaca College’s decided to use President Obama’s Dreams from My Father as the text for freshman convocation preceding the beginning of classes. For campuses that have already begun their semester, and thus cannot adjust class schedules, one possibility would be to devote a day to discussions – certainly this topic is as important as a reprieve from snow or storm. Alternatively, faculty should participate in and establish an extramural seminar for their own benefit and/or for their students. Many options and resources exist for faculty and administrators interested in pursuing this path. We do not advocate any particular strategy; we simply want to urge institutional leaders and faculty to capitalize on the moment and consider the benefit it could yield for students and campuses.

It is indeed the right time to start the conversation, and the events of the summer provide a unique avenue into this discussion.

Michelle Asha Coooper is president of the Institute for Higher Education Policy. David A. Longanecker is president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Race Still Matters

  • What about these poor folks?
  • Posted by Carlos on September 3, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • From "The New York Times" --

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/fashion/30genb.html

    "Unemployment for middle-aged workers like Mr. Blattman is the highest it’s been since data was first collected 60 years ago. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, joblessness is worse for men over 45 (7.7 percent in July) than women the same age (6.9 percent). And while the middle-aged are still more likely to have jobs than younger workers, once people Mr. Blattman’s age are laid off, finding a new job is harder. In 2008, laid-off people over 45 were out of work 22.2 weeks, versus 16.2 weeks for younger workers."

    Where is the sympathy for these for guys? Ivory towers can't see reality?

  • Posted by Mavprof , PhD on September 3, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Since their article is ostensibly about race in general as a factor in higher education success in the US and the urgent necessity of national "dialogue" about race vis a vis higher ed, Cooper and Longanecker's silence about the educational "plight" of various Asian-American groups (South-Asian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) speaks much.

  • Oh, cheer up
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on September 3, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • To suggest that there are those who believe that race no longer “matters” in American society, or that American society is entirely meritocratic with no “societal or economic barriers,” is to create disingenuously a straw man. No sane person denies racial discrimination still exists, and of course we still feel the effects of past racial discrimination; we will always be able to trace those effects and there will always be racial discrimination (because there will always be some bigots, of all colors).

    The real disagreement is about *the extent* to which race still matters and, more importantly, what to do about it. The fact is that racial discrimination is, thankfully, a fading shadow of what it was just a few decades ago; that such discrimination is socially unacceptable and illegal in almost all public transactions; and that, while the discrimination that remains a problem, it is no longer the principal problem facing the African American community—rather, the biggest reason for continuing racial socioeconomic disparities is the fact that 7 out of 10 African Americans are born out of wedlock.

    We can have a dialogue if you like, but there’s really not that much more to say. Racial discrimination is bad; it should remain socially unacceptable and the laws prohibiting it should continue to be enforced. But continued progress will also require changes in culture and family structure that will have to be undertaken by African Americans themselves and their little platoons. (Oh, and dividing Americans in our increasingly multiracial and multiethnic society by skin color and national origin, and treating some better and others worse depending on which box they check, is a really bad idea.)

    Oh, and cheer up: This is the greatest country in the history of the world, and there are unparalleled opportunities for all, regardless of skin color. Race relations in the United States are really most excellent, have inarguably never been better, and are certain to improve even more. Did I mention that our president had a black father and a white mother?

  • IQ Disparities
  • Posted by ACF on September 3, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • The "outcome" disparities in the article could flow from disparities in IQ and choice of lifestyle. See the following for a review of the literature on IQ:

    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

  • And another thing ...
  • Posted by Roger Clegg , President and General Counsel at Center for Equal Opportunity on September 3, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Actually, two other things. The problem with Justice Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark was not, of course, that she expressed ethnic pride, but that she said wise Latinas were more likely to reach the right decision than white males; Justice Alito never said anything like that. And to the predictable objection that the playing field is not level: That's true, but there are players of all colors at both ends of the field--so anything you do to help those at the low end should be available to anyone there, regardless of color, and you shouldn't give advantages to those at the high end just because they share the color of someone at the low end.

  • A bad comparison...
  • Posted by ADD on September 3, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Comparing Alito's pride in his heritage to Sotomayor’s comment is a bit of a stretch. She didn't just characterize herself as a wise Latina. She claimed that being a wise Latina would lead her to make better decisions than a white male. That was a racist statement, no matter how she tried to justify it.

  • My 2 cents
  • Posted by Jameel A. Scott , PhD Student at University of Maryland on September 3, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • · I applaud the efforts to have a discussion-surrounding race, for it is a topic, which is most times, avoided and misunderstood. Yes it is true that race will always matter in America, for to take away the tainted strings of racism and its disastrous effects here and abroad would mean to unthread the carpet of America. The underpinnings of racism in America are forever present even if they don’t present themselves as they did 60 years ago.

    · To the first comment “What about these poor folks?” – I have to first say, one of the major problems when addressing an issue such as race, is to dilute it by bring up another issue. The authors of this article decided to address race--- lets stay focused. Furthermore, to answer your question about poor people, ironically, you ignored the fact that most of the poor minorities, and the unemployment rate is higher for minorities then whites- so again it is about race!

    · To the second comment, “Mavprof”, the article attempts in my view to start a dialogue about race in general and the exclusion and affects that it has on marginalized people. Therefore, I don’t believe that Asians and other minorities are excluded- or would be excluded from a race conversation. However, I understand your point. Conversations surrounding race, has at times been limited to black and white- which excludes others, we need to broaden the conversation.

    Lastly, to the 3rd comment, “ Oh, cheer up” – I believe that your assumption that people believe that racism is still alive and well is a grouse over statement. There are many who believe that racism is gone and that all people need to do is “pull themselves up, by their boot straps.” Furthermore, to look deeper into the topic, one has to remember that racism reinforces privilege. Which means that as a white man, there are certain privileges you have on account of racism, such as- you can drive and not be racially profiled, and if you are pulled over you don’t have to keep both hands on the steering wheel as you ask the officer what have you done to be pulled over, and your two children and wife are silently looking forward. They then hear the officer say, there was a robber and you fit the description, and what is racing through your mind, as you are dressed in a dark blue suit and your wife and children are dressed for you all are going to church, is “this is America and this is normal.” Would a white man want that? NO! Would anyone want that? NO! As you mentioned- we need to go beyond talking, but lets ask our selves- are we willing to give up some privileges? Do we really want a fair society, where hiring, education attainment are equal? If so, are we willing to fight for that, and be willing to give up certain privileges? Lastly, you are absolutely correct that there are many issues facing African-Americans, and that cultural and family structure needs to be changed. Everything is not a result of racism and should not be a scapegoat for the ills of a people. We must also keep in mind that there are systemic issues surrounding education systems, health care, etc. which impedes progress- and makes working towards a goal harder for one race then another. This is true very much so in education.

  • Little behind the times...
  • Posted by Carson Byrd on September 3, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Roger, espousing colorblindness as a reality does not make it a social fact in our society. I can say the sky is green, but that does not make it so. It's been readily shown in research, both qualitative and quantitative, that the form of racism that exists in American society has changed since the Jim Crow-era. Overt racism is looked down on and that form has declined significantly over the years, but that does not simply mean that racism has faded in significance or influence, especially within an institution that has been protected by racial interests since the first institutions were founded. Your view of black families as being a cause of the disparities seen in higher education is short-sighted and has been addressed numerous times since Moynihan proposed that the cause of racial inequality were black families. Why commence victim blaming? It's equivalent to kicking a little kid when they're down. The issue of racial disparities in higher educaiton is the result of institutional racism found in the such aspects of our nation's schools such as the tracking and curriculua of our K-12 system, the culture of schooling, and the lack of willingness to address such issues with more than a simple band-aid. If you want to hide behind the fact that this nation has its first nonwhite president just remember that simply because some people who hold racist views voted for Obama because of some of his policies, doesn't mean they discounted their racist views.

    ACF, lifestyle choice can have some impact on learning and achievement, but there is no one way that allows for academic success to occur. The use of IQ tests as part of the explanation is troubling as many reseachers have noted that there are many forms of "intelligence" and a single test cannot accurately predict success. We also have to avoid speaking ahistorically relating to such measures of "intelligence" such as IQ tests or the tests we require our children to take in high school to gain college admissions (SATs and ACTs). These tests were originally developed for different purposes than accurately gauging "merit." The argument that the disparities result because higher education is a meritocracy is simply flawed and ignores the facts of the college admissions process.

  • Posted by Sick of Race on September 3, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • No one who watched the last presidential election would conclude that race doesn't matter. Obama was elected in part because African Americans voted for him as a block. When African American voters split along the same lines as the nation when an African American candidate is running, I would accept that race no longer matters. When someone like Obama gives the same speech to white audiences as he does to black, I will believe that race no longer matters.

    Our students already have diversity issues taught at every opportunity. I do not have any sense that they want to hear more about race. I have found that they dislike being preached to and condescended to by ideologues who use the classroom as a pulpit to advance political agendas -- Obama supporters in our department experienced vandalism when they tried to promote Obama from the classroom. I do not believe we are ready to talk about race from the classroom when our idea of race means favoring someone for political office solely because of the color of his skin, without examining his experience and qualifications, or considering whether he is likely to follow through on the promises made to get elected.

    If we truly want to have a dialog on race, we might discuss whether it is appropriate to support a person for president who abandons gay rights, includes homophobes on the podium with him, ignores women's issues and makes Asian Americans invisible in his campaign in order to maintain his solid African American support. Catering to the cultural hatreds of one solid voting block in order to secure their votes is no different than what white politicians have done to gain Southern votes for decades. Obama could have transcended race during his campaign but he chose not to.

  • To Roger Clegg
  • Posted by Curro Romero on September 3, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Good points. As hard as it is to discuss race, there is one thing we take for granted: class, as when you write, "and you shouldn't give advantages to those at the high end just because they share the color of someone at the low end." True, we all have differing talents, energies and aptitudes. Why can society not benefit from those without unduly rewarding innate ability? We should remunerate ourselves instead based on effort and sacrifice, not use talent to leverage a market. (We must therefore also question "the market" and devise better modes of allocation.) Without gross inequalities of wealth we might get less self-sabotage. Also, all children "illegitimate" or not would have a much improved conditions for growing up to develop talents and contribute to society. Cornell West has said that we are all responsible for our choices, yes. It's just that under certain circumstances it becomes harder and harder to make good choices. If we assume economic classism as an unassailable given, there's only so much we can do to further alleviate racism and its dehumanizing effects.

  • ....but IQ predicts outcomes...
  • Posted by ACF on September 3, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Carson Byrd,

    Setting aside the origin of IQ, or how it might have been used in the past, note that IQ strongly predicts the level of education that one will attain, the level of income that one will achieve, and also the IQ, education, and income of one's biological children (but not their adopted children). Empirically, one would expect different outcomes for populations that have different IQ's (even if this fact is "troubling.").

    ACF

  • Sotomayor's Comment
  • Posted by cts on September 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Justice Sotomayor did not say that a wise latina would make better decisions than white men. She said that she hoped that a wise Latina, with her range of experience, would, more often than not, arrive at better decisions concerning discrimination cases than a group of white men.

    Come on; this is a website for educated persons, particularly for academics. Can we not observe the same standards of precision and clarity - especially in quoting a source - that we require of our students?

  • Adding Diversity to the court
  • Posted by WV , Professor/Sociology at UWMilwaukee on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I second what CTS said about Sotomayor's ability to reach decisions on discrimination cases. What we need in the Supreme Court is more diversity, including more females. All of us are formed by our previous experiences, so there is no neutral, blank slate we can apply to any candidate to the Supreme Court. What Sotomayor adds to the Supreme court is a female and Latina perspective, which means it would reflect better the population of this country.

  • Posted by Something's missing on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • An exhortation to discuss race that avoids any mention of this country's most racially-divisive policy, affirmative action?

  • to "Sick of Race"
  • Posted by Jameel A. Scott , PhD Student at University of Maryland on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • 1) Many of my classmates how attended majority Traditional White Colleges and Universities, have often stated to me that they have not had conversation about race in their classes in undergrad. There are classes to help teachers talk about it in class, because many teachers have attest that they have a hard time addressing race in their class. I think that it is very fair to believe that race is not a topic in many class rooms in America, exspecially not for STEM classes, and those classes out side of the humanities. So your arguement that students are sick of it, is has little ground- because its likely that they have not talked about it in class.

    2) To what basis is these comments? What solid proof do you have to confirm these comments- "...president who abandons gay rights, includes homophobes on the podium with him, ignores women's issues and makes Asian Americans invisible in his campaign in order to maintain his solid African American support."

  • IQ and Class
  • Posted by Curro Romero on September 3, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • "Empirically, one would expect different outcomes for populations that have different IQ's (even if this fact is 'troubling.').ACF"

    There is no way to test IQ tests for perfect objectivity because of the little problem of history itself. History appears to infuse all human endeavor. One would also expect different outcomes for populations that have served as scapegoats for the larger population. Such selective and historical use of IQ patterns may itself show an unspectacular IQ ("even if this fact is troubling").

    Mr. Scott, To be sure, bringing in other issues (as I do with "class") can be a way "to dillute" a much-needed focus on race. I hope, however, that my class analysis (see Curro Romero above) might actually intensify such a focus. Societies that believe in and most grossly act out social stratification would appear to have the strongest need for scapegoats. You are right to point out that racism is a spectrum, not just black and white. Of course all immigrants to the the U.S. endure(d) racism and ethnic denigration. They also learned, as soon as they got off the boat, who was the group most dumpted on: the only group that didn't immigrate but was brought in chains.

    Nor, I hasten to add, is a just mode of production (not feudalism, not capitalism, not any of the TOP-DOWN socialist experiments heretofore) a sufficient condition for racial justice. It is merely necessary.

    On privilege: It is invisible to those who have it, which can be exasperating to those who can see it (including a few whites). The one price to pay for privilege in the U.S. is that it tends to entail a loss of identity, hence the envy and "lack of social support" white men can feel when they see racial others (and women) joining together in identity politics and solidarity (Fredric Jameson's insight). But again I think this phenomenon is exacerbated in a society based on gross inequalities of weath and power, even if a few women and people of color become corporate CEOs or one happens to be elected president.

  • Sotomayor quote
  • Posted by ADD on September 3, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • cts - I was obviously paraphrasing, but you didn't quote Sotomayor accurately either. She said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It was dishonest of her to say that , “I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.” How was that a flourish? Either, she meant what she said or she didn't. Clearly, she realized that what she said was offensive and racist, so she tried to explain it away.

    The main problem with discussions on race on college campuses is that there is rarely any real discussion. Expressing ideas that aren't politically correct (e.g. - being opposed to affirmative action or being for enforcement of existing immigration laws) isn't allowed or worse is labeled racist.

  • Thank you for making my point
  • Posted by Carlos on September 3, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • " .. To the first comment “What about these poor folks?” – I have to first say, one of the major problems when addressing an issue such as race, is to dilute it by bring up another issue .."

    And to ignore the immediate, real anguish of unemployed males over 45 shows how obviously insensitive many "community organizers" are. And how unwilling they are to give up the clear advantages they have had for nearly 50 years.

    They have sown their discord. That's on them. Let them live with it and stew in the poison within.

  • Posted by Joseph Jones , Manager, RACE Project at American Anthropological Association on September 3, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • "Whatever the reason, now seems like the opportune moment."

    The American Anthropological Association agrees that now is the time for informed discussions of race, and that any such discussion must begin with the question: "What is race?". To answer this question -- and to promote and help frame a national dialogue -- AAA has developed the public education program RACE: Are we So Different?.

    To learn more about RACE, visit www.understandingRACE.org.

  • Race as a topic outside of the humanities?
  • Posted by John S , n/a at n/a on September 3, 2009 at 9:45pm EDT
  • Jameel,

    You observe that race is rarely raised as an issue outside of the humanities. Okay, so perhaps you can explain to me the relevance of race to particle physics, or electrical engineering, or calculus, or kinesiology.

    Your idea is, frankly, daft. Most Americans are SICK of the "discussion" on race, because the discussion today essentially amounts to blacks blaming whites for something (slavery) that NONE of today's blacks experienced in America and NONE of today's whites were a part of. As for Jim Crow, the majority of blacks today never lived under it, nor did the majority of whites.

  • Courageous Conversations
  • Posted by Steve Fox , Associate Professor of English at IUPUI on September 4, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • These comments themselves reveal the need for continued dialogue about race. I recommend the book Courageous Conversations About Race, by Singleton and Linton. It focuses on the achievement gap in U.S. schools, a topic quite important to higher education, I would argue. The book provides conditions and principles for conversations about race that will not end up stymied, as this one online clearly has ended. Singleton can facilitate such discussions (for a price, of course), but many universities have folks on staff who can do such facilitation. If everyone is sick of talking about race, perhaps it's because they don't want their views, institutions, or behaviors to change. And young people--whoa, they are cool in many ways in their openness to diversity, and I applaud that, but they are also quite uninformed about history. When they read about not only slavery but the 20th century manifestations of racism in the U.S. and the world, their eyes are opened. I finally read The Autobiography of Malcolm X this summer, and with all I have read and learned, I was still surprised, shocked, moved, and challenged.

  • Comments so far...
  • Posted by Common Sense on September 4, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Several Points I would like to make:

    To Jameel: One problem with your assumption on the poor rests in the absolute clear cut fact that there are more poor whites than any other race in the United States. Whites still make up the majority of the U.S. population (for now), and therefore, by absolute count, have more poor as a percentage of the total U.S. Populace. This is not a statistical measure of percentage of poor within a certain race, but nonetheless, is also an important meausure. You also talk about the 'white privilege', but based on the information I just provided, that's a flawed assumption as well. You also have to consider that according to the department of justice statistics, blacks commit an atrocious amount of violent crime in huge disproportion to their population, and also embrace a 'thug culture'. If blacks commit most of the crimes, it makes sense that police would profile blacks to prevent crimes. The same is true of terrorists. If all terrorists are islamic that attack the Unites States, then why profile other groups? Isn't this common sense?

    I use 'whites' because to define a person with ancestery that dates back to Russian, Chilean, South African, Israeli, or Austrailian by the Caucus Mountain [i.e. Caucasian] range is silly. Each continent of peoples has a distinct set of cultural and ethnic differences; for the sake of race, and not ethnicity, I use 'white' because it is easier. To define race by ethinicty would certainly make more sense. If black history and culture is important and worth preserving, then so are other cultures and ethnicities, including white. The problem lies in the fact that liberal education often encourages whites to shun their entire culture and heritage, due to the 'white guilt' they must endure now becuase of the sins of someone's forefathers other than their own. The fact is, most whites cannot trace their lineage to slave ownership; very, very, very few whites in the 19th century could afford the costs of owning a plantation or the costs of the slaves themselves, or were still in the midst of paying off their own endentured servitudes. As Roger Clegg has often put it: "The Slaves are all dead. The Slave Owners are all dead." In an increasing multiracial and multiethinic society, does division on race and continued blame and subsequent guilt bashing over slavery make sense anymore?

    Which brings me to the philosophical question of times: Who commits the great sin and atrocity? The person who sells a free human being into slavery and makes a profit [African Tribal Leaders], or the person who agrees to buy the slave? [European Colonialists and Egyptian Pharos]

    About the IQ issue brought up, there is a rapidly increasing volume of empirical data that suggests that there are genetic and biological differences between the races. After all, is it so far a stretch to think that inherent physical differences that define the races may also account for other differences as well? Blacks, on average tend to have more free testosterone, more dense bones, a smaller cranial capacity, and lower IQ's than asians, whites, or latinos; however this difference is not absolute. There are some blacks who are smarter, by far, than some whites. There are some whites who are better athletes, by far, than some blacks. According to our founding documents, in the Framer's context, "All men are created equal", but during the discourse between policital freedom and tyranny at the time, the founders most likely are talking about blood born nobility; you cannot be born with certain rights and privileges due to monarchy alone. I do not believe they were speaking about differences and equalities between the races.

    Lastly, Affirmative Action, IS the most defining policy which divides us; and its just plain wrong. Some people will always be more driven, have more ambition, have more natural talents, than others. I'm all for gurantees of equal treatment, but I don't believe its possible to believe in equal results.

  • the debate continues
  • Posted by Jameel A. Scott , PhD Student at University of Maryland on September 4, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I heard a teacher say “Americans are growing to be anti-intellectual” a comment I found to be interesting, but argued against vehemently. However, after reading these comments, knowing the context of this discussion on race, I am puzzled by some of the responses.

     

    To reduce my arguments to slavery is appalling because we can talk about racist issues in America without talking about slavery. I did not mentioned slavery, nor have I denied its existence. YOU brought up this topic. Earlier in this debate we talked about other races, so why must we assume that talking about race in America simply means “talking about what Whites have done to Blacks, and how the benefited tremendously- and how whites are sick of being blamed for what has happened.” Racism presents itself in many facets and therefore should be deconstructed- I encourage you all to think.

     

    But let me answer some of the concerns, which were present here:

     

    “One problem with your assumption on the poor rests in the absolute clear cut fact that there are more poor whites than any other race in the United States. Whites still make up the majority of the U.S. population”

    ---- We are not talking about total amounts we are talking about percentages. Saying that there are more poor whites- What does that accomplish or mean? A study done at Princeton shows that minorities with no criminal back round has a lower chance a getting a job then whites with a criminal back round. Would you consider this a disparity or would you say- they are getting more jobs because there are more whites in America. Think

     

    “You also talk about the 'white privilege', but based on the information I just provided, that's a flawed assumption as well.”

    ---- I ask that you provide your definition of privilege, or better yet- look it up in a dictionary, see if it applies.

    "About the IQ issue brought up, there is a rapidly increasing volume of empirical data that suggests that there are genetic and biological differences between the races".

    After reading your comment, you seem to be arguing not that racism is over- but that it is justified. After all, people are only prejudiced against the genetically/intellectually inferior. The smart minorities are, therefore, an exception to this rule. Are you saying that education and environment do not play a role in how high students score on IQ tests? We know that it does. Black students that have had access to better training and education score higher on the SATs. Am I to believe that this is because they are genetically more suited for this work rather than the fact that they got the education they deserved? It seems to me this argument is a slippery slope to denying the responsibility education has in education our youth.

     

     

    “You also have to consider that according to the department of justice statistics, blacks commit an atrocious amount of violent crime in huge disproportion to their population, and also embrace a 'thug culture'.”

    ---- This is flawed on many levels, because you are not accounting for crimes not told, and the nature of the crimes. However, to stereotype all blacks as thugs or racially profile them and consequently, harass and treat them unfair is egregious. Should I not trust whites and treat them with grave suspicion, when I learn that white CEOs have robbed billions of people and are getting hauled off to jail. No! Furthermore, to treat people unfairly is wrong! Why are we making excuses for wrong actions? By the way “what is a Thug Culture?

  • "In Los Angeles there's a hotline for people in denial.
  • Posted by Curro Romero on September 4, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • So far no one has called." --George Carlin

    To Common Sense: Where to begin? "If blacks commit most of the crimes, it makes sense that police would profile blacks to prevent crimes."

    After the recent Wall Street and Banking mess, I think the Bureau of Stats might do well to correlate BOTH the crimes of the so-called legitimate economy and the underground economy. In ancient Rome the plebeans commited a good deal more crimes (in the underground economy, needed for survival), including street violence, than did the Patricians. I say again (review my comments above) it's a class thing as well as a race thing. As far as the bulk of those incarcerated in our privatized, for-profit prisons, these are very largely drug-related and inmates are mostly Black and Latino because they are under surveillance more than whites who are doing drugs on a comparable scale. That's racial profiling based not on "sense" but, well, racism. Put white working class neighborhoonds under the same level of survelliance and see what you get.

    Consider that the recent science you cite may have regressed into the same 19th c. reasoning that Stephen J. Gould critiques in "Women's Brains."
    It is clear that you have adopted the 18th c. limitations of Thomas Jefferson. I adore Jefferson, but were he alive today, continuing to read and think as I know he would, I imagine he would come closer to his contemporary (white man) Philip Freneau whom he thought "too radical" in his own day. (Read Freneau.) I see lots of potential in guys like Franklin and Jefferson. I also see the limits on their thinking within the lesser information and ideological constraints (their own self-centered experience) of the times.

    African chiefs selling their servants into European slavery: Read King Leopold's Wars and consider that European imperialsm did not conquer militarily so much as economically, putting the screws to the leaders in the colonized countries to encourage a new, more brutal kind of servitude called chattel slavery.

    Both the industrial North and the agrarian South benefitted enormously from chattel slavery. The vast capital raised then became the legacy that white privilege has been able to share for advantaged sectors of the economy (predominantly) ever since. It is possible, therefore, for whites to have no direct lineage from slaves or slaveholders and still to have benefitted historically from that atrocity. What's wanted is an acknowledgement of that benefit. But that feels oppressive? I never said that your present-day betters were not screwing you over beyond those old slavery benefits. Who's your real enemy?

    The European heritage has been well preserved and remains available for study. I don't understand your complaint that it's not. Maybe because the invention of the term "white" is precisely what gave earlier American workers the feeling their identities had been lost: Irish? Slav? Italian? German? poor English (once called "persons of mean and vile condition" by their higher class kin?) Also these poor English were thought inferior because they were committing a higher level of street crime than their better off kin, and had to serve as that society's scapegoat prior to contact with people of color. Respectfully, I think your indignation is misplaced: Your oppression is not coming from people of color. It would be better to learn their heritage as well and be allies. But it's tough because "whiteness" is not an identity group per se, and that kind of hurts, which leaves you vulnerable to the strife of the class system as a whole.

    Indeed much African and American indigenous culture was destroyed by European colonizers. Some was merely buried. We need to dig it up, the good and the bad and cherish it alongside the European heritage (good and bad). Then we all need to call George Carlin's hotline and be honest with ourselves. That's the precondition for a better world.

  • Equality Of Opportunity
  • Posted by Medbob on September 8, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • does not equal equality of outcome. There are so many variables in these equations, you can not achieve an end result. In our conversation about race, there are so many landmines and taboos that it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion that even considers all the variables. You can make some observations about various races, but that leads to stereotyping. Even the mere mention of some subjects leads to the inevitable assumption of bigotry.

    If I mention that there appears to be a class of people that appear to have an aptitude for math, that is labeled as a racist comment. If I mention a class that appears to have a poor attitude toward education, and learning, that's labeled as racist as well.

    We always appear to grab a ruler to measure the outcomes, and assume that these equal the inputs. If one class of people has a lower representation in education, that automatically equals discrimination. What about problems with discipline and the family structure?

    Whoops! Just tripped a trigger! OK, I'm all in. How about personal responsibility?

  • Medbob
  • Posted by DFS on September 8, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • We hear you. But, it's all about 'studies.'

    We cannot lose the precious FTE, nor can we 'disenfranchise' previously unknown but now irrelevant people who insist on living in the past. They were told that's still the way it is, and therefore that's how it will always be, even in the light of any Second Coming.

    I had further thoughts, but I kept erasing them, because I anticipate the usual deluge of "how dare you challenge my raison d'etre!" In other words, "How dare you think we can progress/evolve?"

    Perhaps I got that 'French' term wrong, too. Oh, well.

  • The Irony Is Oozing From This Article
  • Posted by Constructive Feedback on September 9, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • It is quite astounding to hear about the impact of race on the daily lives of us Black people while at the same time referring to the election of Barack Obama.

    The irony is that Barack Obama received 96% of the Black vote around the country, this despite the fact that the political machine that Barack Obama resides atop of controls all of the key institutions (schools, mayor's offices and thus the police) in every single area around the nation where there is a high concentration of Black people.

    As I listened to the election coverage which asked the question "Will White people put aside their racism and vote for the person who best maps their interests" I was stunned that I never heard an "intellectually curious" journalist ask the question "Why does the African American Progressive illustrate a high rate of 'voter nullification' as they look past the failings of the local Democrats and are easily made to focus upon the National Republicans who have largely departed the districts where there was a conflict over resources?"

    It would do us good as a people to one day analyze how "Racism Chasing" as projected by the Black Establishment and for the benefit of the Democratic Party (ultimately) has given adequate forbearance to the necessary establishment of a human resource management regiment within our local communities that can translate this political control into more organically based solutions that are expressed in our community.

    The key question of "What is next, after Obama?" seems to be one that our community should be most fearful about.

  • "Constructive"
  • Posted by DFS on September 10, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • That is indeed the key question.

    But, it should not be feared -- instead, it should be anticipated and embraced.

    After all, using your illuminating comment, we should shine your light on that question, as proferred.

  • See "American Casino"
  • Posted by Curro Romero on September 11, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Medbob: The problem we inherit from history--once there's been an outcome there can be no equality of opportunity.

    Your key word is "appear." With what do literary characters struggle? Appearance vs.reality.

    Likewise, in the newly released documentary American Casino, about the subprime scandal (and various corporations' drive to externalize risk and cost, a great "flaw" of capitalism that even Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan acknowledged), African Americans "appeared" to be vulnerable and, so, were targeted by the creditor/predator class.

    It's possible, also, in a society supposedly far less racist than it used to be, that a not particularly racist intent can nevertheless exert very racist effects.

    I'm sorry but this is historical: "The past is the push of you," wrote Walt Whitman. (I.e. where did the watermelon stereotype come from? If you don't know that then you've been lied to about who African Americans are. The lies of history infect the present like an unknown computer virus.

    Once all these effects, intentional, less-than-intentional (of both classism and racism, as I argue above) have accumulated, then the "appearance/reality" problem arises again. Cornel West has argued that, yes, we are all responsible for our choices. Only, under certain conditions it becomes harder and harder to make good choices. Society, intentionally or not, is therefore responsible for creating adverse conditions among its populace. There is, therefore, no personal responsibility without a sense of social responsibility. Otherwise, we're all sociopaths.

    I would add, in capitalism, especially, it becomes harder for everybody to make good choices: Notice that the functionaries who perpetrated the subprime crime have not been labeled, racially, for as a "class" as susceptible to a lack of personal responsibility. On the contrary, the executives have been rewarded with massive bailout bonuses while ordinary people have lost their homes in the name of not being "personally responsible." As the documentary argues, it turns out they never had equality of opportunity in the first place, being perceived as a politically powerless group and therefore "ripe for the taking." Thus, "appearance" creates a reality: racism, classism. sexism.

    Finally, when so-called free markets create "good" externalities, we all rejoice in the capitalist system. But when they create externalities that adversely effect us we may blame our fellow sufferers instead of the market itself. We don't see how "private transactions" send pain onto us, evidenced by the increasing gap between rich and poor and the increasingly stretched and stressed middle class. We misperceive that some group less powerful (i.e. the working class of color) is somehow the culprit. Is there no better alternative? Consider Participatory Economics, Parecon, for short.