Race and Colorblindness

I have been extremely busy but David has a link and post up on racial views of children that have implications for the way we treat race in society and i wanted to discuss it.

It is a very good piece, particularly because it explodes a lot of myths. One is that diverse schools are not a panacea that will lead to cross-racial friendship and understanding. Apparently not: students in integrated schools still tend to self-segregate dramatically. Of course, they do that in segregated schools too -- the article claims that only 8% of White kids and 15% of Black kids have a "best friend" of the opposite race -- but integrated schools don't seem to help.

Second, the article takes aim at what I have elsewhere called colorphobia: the fear of race as a conceptual category. The article opens by noting the failure of a study which sought to measure the effect of multicultural and egalitarian messaging by parents to young children. The problem was that the parents resisted engaging in specific race-talk as required by the study parameters. Some dropped out entirely, others just didn't say anything beyond extremely vague bromides like "everyone is equal". And, unsurprisingly, this had very little effect on the attitudes of young children.

The first step in treating a problem is admitting that you have a problem. This post goes directly to the heart of a major problem in contemporary politics and American Society--the failure to acknowledge race as a legitimate factor in decisions. The recent trend among conservatives and the public at large seems to be in favor of a colorblind system akin to that exacted in france where race and ethnicity data wasnt even collected until recently.

We see strains of this thought most often in reverse discrimination cases where the majority is discriminated against. Personally im not really in favor of protecting the majority with the 14th Amendment in the way that prevents all considerations of race. reading the 14th Amendment to prevent racial considerations is a way to prevent direct action aimed at eliminating systematic discrimination. While it makes sense in theory to treat equally qualified people with no regard for skin color in truth there is no complete equality in two candidates. Each will be better than the other at certain things and racial diversity itself has value.

The study David cites shows that children who are not given serious information on race pick up the generally negative and seperational tendencies of our society at large. By not recognizing that the differences need to be addressed and not papered over we are locking in the traditional systematic views that regard racial differences as being important. It typifies the problems of the colorblind system. Existing problems cannot be ignored and they dont work themselves out.

Im sure there is a ton of literature on this out there but i just wanted to make the colorblind legal connection explicit

Read more...

Ricci and the Courts Race Neutral Desires

By now im sure those who read this are well aware that the SCOTUS reversed the lower courts decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The Ricci decision couldnt have been all that surprising given the result of the Seattle Schools Cases. Its clear that at this point in time a majority of the court is of the belief that racism has been largely solved in this country, at least as it pertains to overt acts of discrimination in employment. Ricci sits squarely at the center of the conservative view that race conscious measures are simply not acceptable.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion holds that an employer may not use race-conscious measures to try to avoid "disparate impact" liability under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act unless it "can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute." cite link

The problem of course is deciding what "a strong bases in evidence means". The Court shifts the traditional burden from one on employers to show they weren't discriminatory to a new burden on those who fear disparate impact suits to explain why the disparate impact arose. Marcia McCormick, who blogs at Workplace Prof Blog explains

The majority’s legal analysis starts from this premise: The City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race, and that this was express race based decision making which Title VII prohibits. Considering the race-based effects of the testing and rejecting the test on that ground was taking an adverse action because of an individual’s race. . . .

As a doctrinal matter, I think that the initial premise is troubling. To say that concern over the possibility of a discriminatory effect is itself a discriminatory motive seems to create a terrible theory of discrimination, a moral equivalence, that automatically pits groups against one another in competition for jobs. It’s also an implicit rejection of the basis for the Court’s early decisions on Title VII, that discrimination in employment was common, that absent some other good explanation for an adverse action, discrimination was a reasonable explanation for it, and that without incentives, employers would not have to look critically at what was really required to perform a job and whether this individual could do that. Instead, they could rely on old proxies for fitness without examining them critically. Now it seems that the Court is concluding that discrimination is rare and assertions of discrimination are suspect, and that the continued lack of attainment by people of color (and women, likely) is because of limitations in those people, not obstacles in the system. (emphasis added)

This is a very old fight. The question of whether the problem between races in our society is in the people or structural. Liberals find the problem to be structural, poor education, lack of a nurturing environment etc. The difference is that the conservatives now have a majority of the Court. The conservatives now have the ability to impress the ideology -- the theory of race -- that they hold onto reality. As much as i would love to believe that we are beyond race and that everyone has an equal start at this point in time that is simply not the case.

The failure to accept that there are structural inequities that have created minority underclasses and that creating this underclass is a negative for America is problem. Conservatives have a view that everyone operates as individuals and that the creation of the poor minority underclass has no effect on them or their lives or the greater future of America. This clearly isnt true.

Simply put, to maximize the potential of the American population we cannot allow a permanent poor minority underclass. Its a waste of talent and resources. As a country we need doctors, nurses, scientists etc and we need more and more brain power to compete in a global economy. What sense does it make to restrict actions in such a way as to prevent us from closing achievement gaps and increasing equality in our society?

I would prefer to carry out most of affirmative actionesque policies on an economic basis but its not always going to be convenient or helpful to do so. Cases of employment discrimination where minorities arent able to advance because of ostensibly neutral tests that create disparate impacts are such instances. If you have a test that consistently allows white people to advance over minorities by huge margins there are only a couple of possibilities for this. One is that the white people are simply better for that job. another is that there is something in the test that is advantaging whites. If whites were consistently better for the job wouldnt we need to specifically target the minorities to rectify what was making them so much worse on the test? Conservative reasoning about race conscious policy would seem to suggest that we cant. We should continue to let the minorities fail to advance and the whites to succeed and that no problems come from this. The SCOTUS probably agrees with that right now.

Read more...

"Barack the Magic Negro"

I am not sure how many people have seen the movie Holiday Inn with Bing Crosby. It is famous for the song White Christmas. It also famous for a different song, Abraham. to give you an idea of this song and scene here is a review of the dvd,

Still, there are a few duds, the most notorious being a shockingly dated minstrel-show ode to Abraham Lincoln. As Crosby and Reynolds sing "Abraham" in blackface, Holiday Inn's African-American mammy (Louise Beavers) serenades her two small children in the kitchen: "When black folks lived in slavery / Who was it set the darkie free? / Abraham! Abraham!" The scene is a jaw-dropper, alright, but at least it's memorable.

It was that scene which put in a mind to discuss the recent racial flap. Racial discussions are always difficult because of the heated passions they arouse. The controversy surrounding the offensive song "Barack, the Magic Negro" has generated similar passions on both sides of the fight. "Magic Negro" is really a cringe worthy phrase on par with the Abraham number from Holiday Inn. Everyone is well aware that it is not ok to go around referring to african americans as "negros" just as its not ok to go around performing in black face for minstrel shows.. Those who do are trying to make a point that our society has become to "politically correct". This is not one of those phrases that straddles the border between ok and not ok. Negro is as dated as black face.

"Magic Negro" might as well be replaced by what it really means, Uncle Tom. In the outrage over the distribution of the song many people have not looked at exactly where the phrase comes from. It is a cinematic terms for a kind, older, non-sexualized black man who plays a mentor role to a white protagonist. Think Will Smith's character in "The Legend of Bagger Vance". There is no legitimate defense of the phrase applied to barack obama. To label him thusly as the right does is deeply offensive to blacks and whites a like.

Would these same people be happy to have a song written about their wives calling them a "happy whore"? no. That would be completely out of bounds and offensive. Each of the labels Uncle Tom, Magic Negro, Happy Whore are all offensive to those who are characterized as such and should not be allowed. Its not funny. That RNC chair candidate Chip Saltsman thought that not only was it funny but that it was a great Christmas gift says a lot about where the Republican Party is.

"I think most people recognize political satire when they see it," Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. "I think RNC members understand that."

The republican party is facing the challenge of covering up their lily white party. As the NYT reported when discussing this story,

The dispute illustrates a larger Republican challenge in the months ahead: how to oppose the first black president without seeming antiblack. There are no black Republicans in Congress, and a party spokesman could name only 2 blacks among the 168 members of the national committee. Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, resigned from an all-white country club in preparing for his campaign to be party chairman.

There is a deeply unsettling racist tinge to the republican party right now. Im not sure if this is a symptom or a cause of their relegation to a southern party but if they hope to grow back to a national party they need to rethink their racial attitude. Otherwise they risk looking just as dated as the black face minstrel show from Holiday Inn.

Read more...

Todd Incident Reveals Media's Race Beliefs

If we have learned one thing from this election cycle it is that race has not gone away. the racial fault lines of our country have simply been covered over with a thin veneer of media and societal denial. Race is an important topic for discussion in this country and it needs to be addressed. One of the areas of particular importance is in the media. the coverage different events receive based on the color of the protagonist or antagonist in the story.

From The Debate Link

As the echo of Ashley Todd's false claim of being assaulted by a Black Obama supporter fades into the political background, I found in interesting to observe how the incident was racialized. There did not seem to be any doubt amongst the commentariat that this was an effort to spark a racial response in the electorate. But Ms. Todd's actions were not seen as a signifier or example of White character as a whole. Her accusation was not something "they" (White people) do. It was a "callback" to a bygone era, or it was an aberration from general White practice.

Contrast that to how, for example, the fictive claims in the Duke Lacrosse case, or Tawana Brawley, were treated. They were racialized as well, but unlike Ms. Todd they were used to make broad, sweeping statements about what "they" (Black people) do with regards to putative racism -- namely, just make stuff up. It was not seen as exceptional, or aberrational. It was a valid measuring stick from which to look at all claims of racialized White-on-Black violence.

The instinct, I feel, in Ms. Todd's case was the proper one. Take note of how race is being used by the perpetrator of the fraud to create a certain reaction, and condemn those who exploit that sentiment without proper verification. But don't impute the event wholesale onto the entire race. White folks do not want Ms. Todd's frame-up to become the standard by which we are measured. But fair is fair -- if we want the benefit of the doubt, we have to give it when faced with parallel situations on the other side of the racial divide.

Pay close attention to the discussion going on in countdown. Fast froward to the 2:05 mark to hear the historical argument straight from Eugene Robinson.



One of the reasons that this became so linked to the historical acts is that it fit the narrative too perfectly. It was readily apparent to anyone who read to kill a mockingbird in high school. Of course in real life there were precious few people willing to stand on the side of african americans accused of such crimes. Instead there would be lynchings, mob "justice".

When David makes the comparison between this case and the Duke Lacrosse case he is revealing one of the major racial faults in the country. White people really dont see racism as such a societal problem anymore while african americans do. A Gallup survey from July found

About two-thirds of white Americans (63%) say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way society treats blacks, while more than one-third of black Americans (35%) say the same.

Gallup dug deeper into race relations in August with a poll that found 51% of whites ,59% of Hispanics, and the vast majority of blacks 78% view racism as widespread against blacks in the United States. These numbers, as striking as they are barely scratch the surface. Looking at four issues in particular the divide is clear,

On all four issues, blacks are more likely than whites and Hispanics to see racial discrimination as a major factor. In fact, a majority of blacks say racial discrimination is a major reason each problem is occurring.

Among Blacks the percentages of those who thought racism was a major problem was 64% for education, 71% for income levels, 57% for life expectancy, 80% in prison rates. If you throw in the people who thought it was a minor factor you get 89% education, 92 income level, 85 life expectancy and 91 percent of blacks who think racism is a problem in prison rates. Compare this to whites where only 32% 35% 25% and 44% found racism to be a major problem. Aggregated the number of whites who perceive racism as a problem climbs to 68 76 62 and 77 for the four categories. The numbers are clear, whites dont think racism is as big an issue as blacks. There was of course big split in partisan id with dems perceiving more racism indys less and republicans the least. this corresponds with the higher levels of african americans in the dem party.

The reason that these numbers matter is that the people who control the media and determine story lines cover things generally from a white perspective. The white narrative is the dominant one in the media. The media is aware that black people perceive high levels of racism and this conflicts with their own views that there is much less racism and that where it does exist it is less of a problem. Thus they will tend to discount black claims of racism just as the villagers did in the boy who cried wolf.

I agree with David that we should not generalize from one incident and apply that broad brush to the larger racial groups. Race is a nuanced an volatile issue. the media's handling of it is a disaster in that it generally discounts black and liberal views on the racial issues in this country. Black people perceive racism in this country and instead of simply dismissing the claims and assuming the voting rights act took care of it the issue should be addressed head on and the concerns evaluated. that is the only way to move forward.

Read more...

racism is alive and well

i think we can put behind us the idea that discriminating or hating on the basis of race in america is no more.

Surprise, shock and some fear in a local neighborhood, after an anti-Obama display is hung from a tree. The display is at a home at Symmes and Hicks Road in Fairfield.

And the person who put it there says the message isn't political, it's racist. Shawn Ley spoke with the man who isn't shy about his views.

There it is, right above the "McCain-Palin" sign: a make-shift ghost, hanging from a noose. A Barack Obama sign attached upside down. Obama's middle name: "Hussein" spray painted and misspelled above.

Mike Lunsford hung the ghost in his yard. He spoke to us off-camera, saying his views could hurt his employers business ... but he says make no mistake: He doesn't want an African American running the country.

Lunsford says he believes Barack Obama is not a "full blooded American." And he says the United States is a white, Christian nation - and only with white Christians should be in power.

This is so unacceptable. His reason for doing this was to respond to a cartoon of mccain in kkk robes chasing obama. Explain to me exactly how this is meant to respond to that? If anything it only reinforces the idea that mccain supporters and the gop is racist.

I look forward to hearing Sen McCain condemn this but i look forward to hearing gov palin condemning this as well. That is one of the big points is that mccain is playing good cop bad cop with this topic and this is not a situation where games need to be played. So McCain get your house in order because this is what you tolerate, out and out racism.

Read more...