For the children who walk the halls of Bruce, Gordon, Rozelle and
Springdale elementary schools, few know they follow in the footsteps of
13 of the smallest pioneers of Memphis civil rights history.
On Oct. 3, 1961, 13 African-American first-graders entered these four
schools as the first students to desegregate Memphis City Schools.
Today, historical markers will be placed at the four schools
commemorating the steps of these children and the courage of their
families to enroll them.
It is an important acknowledgment of these contributions to our community.
Unlike school desegregation in Little Rock four years earlier, the
event in Memphis was orderly and did not make national headlines.
Perhaps as a result, the Memphis 13 do not hold the same place in the
national consciousness as do the Little Rock Nine. The Memphis 13 have
not been honored at the White House or appeared with Oprah; rather, they
have been recognized periodically, but have lived in relative anonymity
in our community.
View the full article here....
Showing posts with label Race in America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Race in America. Show all posts
October 02, 2015
September 24, 2015
"Rhodes Must Fall" and Memphis's Confederate Monuments
Cecil John Rhodes is both famous and infamous in South Africa. He is
famous as an arch-imperialist, involved in the colonial expansion in
Southern Africa in the late 19th century that generated much of the
economic infrastructure that still underlies South Africa today. He is
infamous also as an arch-imperialist, involved in the subjugation of
native Africans to help drive economic expansion, generating much of the
social division that has plagued this country.
When I arrived in South Africa two months ago, I didn't anticipate thinking much about Cecil John Rhodes, who died more than a century ago. Yet the local news was abuzz with coverage of a movement called Rhodes Must Fall.
Furious over a campus display of a symbol of a colonial and oppressive past, black students at the University of Cape Town organized to demand the removal of a Rhodes statue. After a month of protest, the statue was removed by the university. The Rhodes Must Fall movement has spread to other campuses and communities in South Africa and beyond, targeting not only Rhodes but also other figures from complicated pasts.
All of this resonated with a Memphian abroad because of our own experience with a statue of a long-deceased famous and infamous man. There was some comfort in seeing a society 8,000 miles from home grapple with the same difficult issues. Particularly in places with deep histories of division, a universal part of confronting that past is struggling with persistent symbols of it. Freed from my identity as a Memphian, I am able to follow the Rhodes story without my own local baggage and preconceptions.
Read the full article here...
When I arrived in South Africa two months ago, I didn't anticipate thinking much about Cecil John Rhodes, who died more than a century ago. Yet the local news was abuzz with coverage of a movement called Rhodes Must Fall.
Furious over a campus display of a symbol of a colonial and oppressive past, black students at the University of Cape Town organized to demand the removal of a Rhodes statue. After a month of protest, the statue was removed by the university. The Rhodes Must Fall movement has spread to other campuses and communities in South Africa and beyond, targeting not only Rhodes but also other figures from complicated pasts.
All of this resonated with a Memphian abroad because of our own experience with a statue of a long-deceased famous and infamous man. There was some comfort in seeing a society 8,000 miles from home grapple with the same difficult issues. Particularly in places with deep histories of division, a universal part of confronting that past is struggling with persistent symbols of it. Freed from my identity as a Memphian, I am able to follow the Rhodes story without my own local baggage and preconceptions.
Read the full article here...
December 16, 2014
New Yorker Letter: Thinking Fast and Slow in Ferguson
I recently had a letter published in The New Yorker (here it is). Here's the story of how I came to write the letter (which, in my opinion, is more interesting than the letter itself)....
I have been reading Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking Fast and Slow, which is about the way our minds work - specifically, biases in how we consider things. As the recent events in Ferguson unfolded, I was struck by the ways in which the book connected with the conversations about race that Ferguson was triggering - and how unproductive those conversations seemed to be. I wrote the following essay with some of those thoughts...
--> One thing observers of the ongoing drama in Ferguson seem to agree on is that there is a need for frank conversations about race and criminal justice. However, discussions about the decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson and the resulting riots in Ferguson have been largely unproductive. It seems at times that people are not even talking about the same event. The disconnect between the various perspectives – and the impact that disconnect has on our ability to honestly address the situation with the seriousness it deserves – reminded me of an experiment from the Nobel economist Daniel Kahneman’s book about our minds, Thinking Fast and Slow.
Try the experiment yourself. Begin at the top of a sheet of paper and draw a vertical line without using a ruler down to the point you think is 2 ½ inches from the bottom of the page. Next, without looking at the line you’ve already drawn, start at the bottom of the page and draw a line going up 2 ½ inches - you are aiming for the same point on the page, just starting from the opposite direction. If you are like most people, you did not stop at the same place in these two attempts. Most likely, you stopped too early in both cases, leaving a gap between your two lines. That gap can be called the zone of uncertainty. You have a general sense of where 2 ½ inches from the bottom of the page would be, but your tendency is to go no further once you get the feeling you are in the ballpark. When you are coming from two different directions, the lines do not meet.
What does the zone of uncertainty have to do with Ferguson? Think of the top and bottom of the page as stereotypes that may be at play in a situation where a police officer interacts with a black male: racist police officers and dangerous black males. Stereotypes like these are certainly not pretty, but they are part of how our minds work – pretending they do not exist or wishing them away only muddles an already difficult dialogue. How you evaluate any particular interaction between a police officer and a black male depends in large part on which stereotype you begin from.
Saying that you begin from a “racist police officer” stereotype does not mean that you actually think police officers are racist – rather, it means that if you are given no facts other than that a police officer interacted with a black male, your initial reaction (your bias) would be to take the side of the black male. You would have no facts upon which to make such an initial judgment, but you would make the judgment regardless. Fortunately, as new facts are provided, you would be able to move off of your initial reaction to evaluate a particular case more fairly. However, where the “true” answer is unable to be definitively ascertained, your movement is likely to stop at the edge of the zone of uncertainty closest to the side you began from. The same thing is happening for those who begin from the dangerous black male stereotype. The two types of people are thus stopping at opposite edges of the zone of uncertainty and their lines never meet.
Unfortunately, from what may be a small zone of uncertainty, a much larger chasm opens up as we grow increasingly frustrated that others aren’t seeing things as we do. Feeling that we have reached our own conclusion absent bias cleanses our own perspective and sullies disagreement as prejudiced. Rather than accept the zone of uncertainty, we instead form a negative opinion of those with whom we disagree and begin to harden our own beliefs – asserting them even more strongly than we initially felt them.
This, of course, is not a path to a constructive conversation about race. A first step toward a productive Ferguson conversation is acknowledging that there may be a zone of uncertainty between how this story is being experienced by different people. By accepting that we come to the conversation with some bias, we can unlock useful discussions about the undercurrents making a situation like Ferguson possible – and so explosive. We can even address how troublesome stereotypes like racist police officers and dangerous black males are formed. Those undercurrents run deep into our national history and have been persistent trouble spots in our evolution into a more perfect union.
Engaging with these topics – getting to that point 2 ½ inches from the bottom of the page – requires an open mind, an honest assessment of one’s own biases, and a willingness to accept that others may see things differently. Even though such conversations seem to be what many of us want, our fast thinking might be making that engagement slow to come by.
I submitted that essay to various places, but received no responses. Then, I saw the cover of the December 8, 2014, issue of the New Yorker. I was struck by how much it reflected the idea of the zone of uncertainty described in my essay...
...so I wrote a condensed version of the essay and sent it along. The relevant portion of the letter, as published is:
Perhaps the break in Staake’s arch is not a break at all but a reflection of the fact that people approach these discussions from different perspectives. As we move toward meaningful engagement, we are likely to stop at the edge of our own uncertainty. Connecting the arch requires an open mind, an honest assessment of one’s biases, and a willingness to accept that others may see things differently.
I have been reading Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking Fast and Slow, which is about the way our minds work - specifically, biases in how we consider things. As the recent events in Ferguson unfolded, I was struck by the ways in which the book connected with the conversations about race that Ferguson was triggering - and how unproductive those conversations seemed to be. I wrote the following essay with some of those thoughts...
--> One thing observers of the ongoing drama in Ferguson seem to agree on is that there is a need for frank conversations about race and criminal justice. However, discussions about the decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson and the resulting riots in Ferguson have been largely unproductive. It seems at times that people are not even talking about the same event. The disconnect between the various perspectives – and the impact that disconnect has on our ability to honestly address the situation with the seriousness it deserves – reminded me of an experiment from the Nobel economist Daniel Kahneman’s book about our minds, Thinking Fast and Slow.
Try the experiment yourself. Begin at the top of a sheet of paper and draw a vertical line without using a ruler down to the point you think is 2 ½ inches from the bottom of the page. Next, without looking at the line you’ve already drawn, start at the bottom of the page and draw a line going up 2 ½ inches - you are aiming for the same point on the page, just starting from the opposite direction. If you are like most people, you did not stop at the same place in these two attempts. Most likely, you stopped too early in both cases, leaving a gap between your two lines. That gap can be called the zone of uncertainty. You have a general sense of where 2 ½ inches from the bottom of the page would be, but your tendency is to go no further once you get the feeling you are in the ballpark. When you are coming from two different directions, the lines do not meet.
What does the zone of uncertainty have to do with Ferguson? Think of the top and bottom of the page as stereotypes that may be at play in a situation where a police officer interacts with a black male: racist police officers and dangerous black males. Stereotypes like these are certainly not pretty, but they are part of how our minds work – pretending they do not exist or wishing them away only muddles an already difficult dialogue. How you evaluate any particular interaction between a police officer and a black male depends in large part on which stereotype you begin from.
Saying that you begin from a “racist police officer” stereotype does not mean that you actually think police officers are racist – rather, it means that if you are given no facts other than that a police officer interacted with a black male, your initial reaction (your bias) would be to take the side of the black male. You would have no facts upon which to make such an initial judgment, but you would make the judgment regardless. Fortunately, as new facts are provided, you would be able to move off of your initial reaction to evaluate a particular case more fairly. However, where the “true” answer is unable to be definitively ascertained, your movement is likely to stop at the edge of the zone of uncertainty closest to the side you began from. The same thing is happening for those who begin from the dangerous black male stereotype. The two types of people are thus stopping at opposite edges of the zone of uncertainty and their lines never meet.
Unfortunately, from what may be a small zone of uncertainty, a much larger chasm opens up as we grow increasingly frustrated that others aren’t seeing things as we do. Feeling that we have reached our own conclusion absent bias cleanses our own perspective and sullies disagreement as prejudiced. Rather than accept the zone of uncertainty, we instead form a negative opinion of those with whom we disagree and begin to harden our own beliefs – asserting them even more strongly than we initially felt them.
This, of course, is not a path to a constructive conversation about race. A first step toward a productive Ferguson conversation is acknowledging that there may be a zone of uncertainty between how this story is being experienced by different people. By accepting that we come to the conversation with some bias, we can unlock useful discussions about the undercurrents making a situation like Ferguson possible – and so explosive. We can even address how troublesome stereotypes like racist police officers and dangerous black males are formed. Those undercurrents run deep into our national history and have been persistent trouble spots in our evolution into a more perfect union.
Engaging with these topics – getting to that point 2 ½ inches from the bottom of the page – requires an open mind, an honest assessment of one’s own biases, and a willingness to accept that others may see things differently. Even though such conversations seem to be what many of us want, our fast thinking might be making that engagement slow to come by.
I submitted that essay to various places, but received no responses. Then, I saw the cover of the December 8, 2014, issue of the New Yorker. I was struck by how much it reflected the idea of the zone of uncertainty described in my essay...
...so I wrote a condensed version of the essay and sent it along. The relevant portion of the letter, as published is:
Perhaps the break in Staake’s arch is not a break at all but a reflection of the fact that people approach these discussions from different perspectives. As we move toward meaningful engagement, we are likely to stop at the edge of our own uncertainty. Connecting the arch requires an open mind, an honest assessment of one’s biases, and a willingness to accept that others may see things differently.
September 17, 2014
Director Daniel Kiel Shares Lessons of the Memphis 13
Director Daniel Kiel Shares Lessons from the Memphis 13 from Daniel Kiel on Vimeo.
At a program marking the opening of a new exhibit at the Ned McWherter Library at the University of Memphis, law professor Daniel Kiel shares lessons learned from The Memphis 13, the first students to desegregate Memphis schools as first graders in 1961.
At a program marking the opening of a new exhibit at the Ned McWherter Library at the University of Memphis, law professor Daniel Kiel shares lessons learned from The Memphis 13, the first students to desegregate Memphis schools as first graders in 1961.
February 16, 2014
Lessons from the Memphis 13
Lessons from the Memphis 13: What 13 First Graders Have to Teach About Law, Life, and the Legacy of Brown
Abstract: Fifty years after desegregating schools in Memphis as first graders, the pioneering students shared their stories for the first time. The resulting film, The Memphis 13 (2011), brought a largely overlooked episode in the civil rights movement into the broader movement narrative. In this essay, the film’s director – who also happens to be a law professor – combines a first-person account of the intellectual journey involved in meeting the pioneering students and their families with a scholarly analysis of the implications of the students’ stories. Specifically, the essay describes the intense isolation the students experienced both during their experience desegregating schools and in the decades that followed and questions the responsibility that lawyers and movement leaders have to foot soldiers who are participating in a social movement through no choice of their own. Looking back, the students took widely divergent lessons from their experience, demonstrating the complexity of crafting a meaningful remedy even for individuals in the post-Brown era. The essay thus utilizes these personal narratives to critique the choices made during the desegregation effort. This real world testimony provides a fresh perspective on longstanding debates that too often discount the experiences of those most directly affected.
This article appeared in the Thurgood Marshall Law Review of Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law. The full article is available here.
Abstract: Fifty years after desegregating schools in Memphis as first graders, the pioneering students shared their stories for the first time. The resulting film, The Memphis 13 (2011), brought a largely overlooked episode in the civil rights movement into the broader movement narrative. In this essay, the film’s director – who also happens to be a law professor – combines a first-person account of the intellectual journey involved in meeting the pioneering students and their families with a scholarly analysis of the implications of the students’ stories. Specifically, the essay describes the intense isolation the students experienced both during their experience desegregating schools and in the decades that followed and questions the responsibility that lawyers and movement leaders have to foot soldiers who are participating in a social movement through no choice of their own. Looking back, the students took widely divergent lessons from their experience, demonstrating the complexity of crafting a meaningful remedy even for individuals in the post-Brown era. The essay thus utilizes these personal narratives to critique the choices made during the desegregation effort. This real world testimony provides a fresh perspective on longstanding debates that too often discount the experiences of those most directly affected.
This article appeared in the Thurgood Marshall Law Review of Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law. The full article is available here.
July 06, 2011
An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure
An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure:
Abstract: Written as an invited response to Prof. Richard Sander’s “Class in American Legal Education,” this piece argues that the debate about affirmative action in higher education has overemphasized the admissions process without focusing a sufficient amount of energy on addressing longer-term strategies that would make controversial admissions interventions unnecessary.
This essay appeared in the Denver Law Review. The full article is available here. Links to the other articles in the volume are available here.
Abstract: Written as an invited response to Prof. Richard Sander’s “Class in American Legal Education,” this piece argues that the debate about affirmative action in higher education has overemphasized the admissions process without focusing a sufficient amount of energy on addressing longer-term strategies that would make controversial admissions interventions unnecessary.
This essay appeared in the Denver Law Review. The full article is available here. Links to the other articles in the volume are available here.
May 24, 2011
C-SPAN: Memphis School Desegregation at 50
Memphis School Desegregation at 50
University of Memphis Law school professor Daniel Kiel has spent years
collecting stories of the original desegregation of the Memphis City
Schools in October 1961. His work takes a look at the history of
desegregation and its legacy fifty years later. He presented video clips
from oral histories of people who were part of the first desegregated
class, when two separate communities combined as one. He talked about
the lessons that apply as the community moves toward unifying the city
schools of Memphis with the Shelby County school systems. Professor Kiel
talked with Ms. Peiser and offered a long-view look at public education
in Memphis and Shelby County.
“Memphis School Desegregation at 50” was a program of the Downtown Neighborhood Association’s conversation series. It was held at the University of Memphis law school.
Video available here...
“Memphis School Desegregation at 50” was a program of the Downtown Neighborhood Association’s conversation series. It was held at the University of Memphis law school.
Video available here...
September 28, 2008
Wash Post OpEd: Obama's Subtle Hurdle
Just 46 years ago, riots erupted at the prospect of an African American
man enrolling at the University of Mississippi. The progress our country
has made on race was brought into focus Friday night when Barack Obama,
the first African American presidential nominee, arrived at Ole Miss,
where James Meredith's matriculation sparked clashes in 1962.
Unfortunately, instead of frank considerations of the racial issues that
persist in America, the discussions that have accompanied Obama's
candidacy have frequently unfolded in ways unlikely to foster progress
on interracial dialogue.
Undoubtedly, Obama's race is playing a role in this election. It has helped him generate enthusiasm among African American and white voters. Conversely, some people simply will not vote for him because he is black. Precise numbers will be known only within the voting booth, but social science research on racial attitudes in job candidate evaluations sheds some light on how race may be affecting our collective judgment.
Selecting a candidate to vote for, after all, is like making a hiring decision for the country's top job. Studies of " aversive racism" have shown that when reviewers compare identical résumés of black and white job applicants, white candidates are rated more highly than black candidates. Paradoxically, this discrepancy becomes more significant the more qualified the candidates are. While modestly qualified candidates of different races may be evaluated relatively equally, higher-qualified African American candidates are, on average, subjectively judged to be inferior to white candidates whose credentials are objectively identical. The discrepancy is exaggerated when the job to be filled is superior to the job held by the evaluator. Part of the reason is that while white candidates were considered "highly skilled," black candidates were considered "fortunate," the implication being that results based on skill are likely to be repeated, whereas those based on luck are not.
Commentators have not shied from citing the influence of race on Obama's prospects. Recently, some have argued that only racism is to blame when trying to explain why the Democratic nominee had not pulled further ahead in national polls. Others have called cries of racism an excuse for Obama's inability to assuage voters' genuine questions about his readiness for the job. But ignoring or minimizing the effect of race -- pretending that criticisms of Obama's readiness or elitism or good fortune are entirely independent of the color of his skin -- is to minimize the lasting impact of our nation's history of race relations.
The effect that race has on Obama's campaign is far more subtle, and powerful, than the ballots of those who reveal their closeted bigotries only inside the voting booth. Millions of Americans have been breathing the smog of racial stereotyping their entire lives; their decisions, like those of the evaluators in the studies, are unsurprisingly affected.
In Oxford, we could see how much progress our country has made. Rather than continuing accusatory conversations on race that only serve to thicken the smog, let's move forward recognizing both how far we've come and how far we have yet to go toward perfecting our union.
See the Washington Post version here.
Undoubtedly, Obama's race is playing a role in this election. It has helped him generate enthusiasm among African American and white voters. Conversely, some people simply will not vote for him because he is black. Precise numbers will be known only within the voting booth, but social science research on racial attitudes in job candidate evaluations sheds some light on how race may be affecting our collective judgment.
Selecting a candidate to vote for, after all, is like making a hiring decision for the country's top job. Studies of " aversive racism" have shown that when reviewers compare identical résumés of black and white job applicants, white candidates are rated more highly than black candidates. Paradoxically, this discrepancy becomes more significant the more qualified the candidates are. While modestly qualified candidates of different races may be evaluated relatively equally, higher-qualified African American candidates are, on average, subjectively judged to be inferior to white candidates whose credentials are objectively identical. The discrepancy is exaggerated when the job to be filled is superior to the job held by the evaluator. Part of the reason is that while white candidates were considered "highly skilled," black candidates were considered "fortunate," the implication being that results based on skill are likely to be repeated, whereas those based on luck are not.
In the majority of these evaluations, individual racism or racial
prejudice is not driving the evaluators -- each evaluator is earnestly
attempting to select the best applicant. Yet, the research pioneered by Jack Dovidio and Sam Gaertner,
among others, suggests that African American job candidates must be
objectively more qualified than white applicants to be subjectively
perceived as the best candidate. It seems reasonable, then, that the
same type of earnest but biased evaluation could be affecting Obama's
campaign.
Commentators have not shied from citing the influence of race on Obama's prospects. Recently, some have argued that only racism is to blame when trying to explain why the Democratic nominee had not pulled further ahead in national polls. Others have called cries of racism an excuse for Obama's inability to assuage voters' genuine questions about his readiness for the job. But ignoring or minimizing the effect of race -- pretending that criticisms of Obama's readiness or elitism or good fortune are entirely independent of the color of his skin -- is to minimize the lasting impact of our nation's history of race relations.
The effect that race has on Obama's campaign is far more subtle, and powerful, than the ballots of those who reveal their closeted bigotries only inside the voting booth. Millions of Americans have been breathing the smog of racial stereotyping their entire lives; their decisions, like those of the evaluators in the studies, are unsurprisingly affected.
In Oxford, we could see how much progress our country has made. Rather than continuing accusatory conversations on race that only serve to thicken the smog, let's move forward recognizing both how far we've come and how far we have yet to go toward perfecting our union.
See the Washington Post version here.
April 01, 2008
Supreme Court Notebook - Snyder v. Louisiana
In 1879, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the murder trial of a former slave. The jury for that trial was, predictably and by law, made up entirely of white men. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court was charged with interpreting the constitutional amendments adopted in the wake of the Civil War to determine whether American citizens, including emancipated slaves, had a right to a trial with a jury untainted by racial discrimination.
Justice William Strong answered with a rhetorical question: “How can it be maintained that compelling a colored man to submit to a trial for his life by a jury drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of his race, because of color alone, however well qualified in other respects, is not a denial to him of equal protection?”
On the grounds that the state had impermissibly excluded black citizens from serving on juries, the Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case.
Fast forward nearly 130 years from that step forward for civil rights – a time period that has included many steps forward in American race relations. Last week, the Supreme Court offered up evidence that steps forward in American race relations are small and often followed by steps back. See if this sounds familiar.
Obviously, the two cases are different – one is a challenge to a deliberately discriminatory state law, the other a challenge to an arguably discriminatory state prosecutor – but there were sufficient echoes in the contemporary case to give even today’s conservative Supreme Court pause.
Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Samuel Alito described the prosecutor’s allegedly non-racial reasons for dismissing one of the potential African American jurors as “suspicious.” The prosecutor’s non-racial explanation for the dismissal of that juror, a college student concerned about missing too much school, was that he looked nervous and might be eager to end the deliberations quickly by pushing for the defendant’s acquittal or conviction for a lesser crime so that he could back to school. To ease the prosecutor’s – and the juror’s – concern, the trial court contacted the juror’s dean who assured them that if the student were away only a week – as anticipated by the prosecutor himself – then jury service would not be a problem. The prosecutor was unconvinced and struck the juror.
What made this conduct “suspicious” to Justice Alito was that the prosecutor did not show similar concern for potential white jurors who likewise expressed the desire to avoid prolonged absence from employment or other responsibilities. The prosecutor’s “pretextual explanation naturally gives rise to an inference of discriminatory intent,” Alito wrote, concluding that the trial court committed a clear error in allowing the student to be dismissed.
Comparing these two cases, there are signs both of the significant progress that has been made on the race front and of the often subtle ways the race problem continues to manifest itself today. No longer are there state laws that exclude entire classes of citizens from the full benefits of citizenship, yet there remain juries without black members that convict black defendants. No longer must the Supreme Court deem obviously discriminatory conduct to be against the Constitution, yet the Court continues to confront cases of less blatant, though no less pernicious, discrimination.
In 2008, no less so than in 1879, courts and citizens alike continue the project of, as Justice Strong wrote in the 19th century, “securing to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations had been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy.”
Strauder v.
January 21, 2008
In the Words of Dr. King
Although commemorations can be wonderful, there is no better way in my mind to celebrate the life and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. than to look back at the words of Dr. King, himself. This year, on the 40th anniversary of the sanitation worker strike that led to Dr. King’s fatal visit to
“Something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee – the cry is always the same – ‘We want to be free...We’ve got to give ourselves to this struggle until the end. Nothing would be more tragic than to stop at this point, in
On the choice each of us faces when we find injustice...
“Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness…[Jesus] talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn’t stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But with him, administered first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project “I” into the “thou” and to be concerned about his brother.
We use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn’t stop. At times we say they were busy going to church meetings…and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn’t be late for their meeting….But I’m going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It’s possible these men were afraid. You see, the
That’s the question before you tonight. Not, “If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week?” The question is not, “If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?”
“If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?” That’s the question.”
The prophetic conclusion...
"Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do Gd’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I my not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I’m happy tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
December 17, 2007
Are We All Created Equal?
Our society and laws are built upon the premise that all people are created equal. Thomas Jefferson said so back in 1776, even if he meant it only aspirationally. It is upon this assumption that the guarantee of equal rights to all Americans is based. Without it – in a world where society and law hold that some of us are more equal than others – we enter the realm of Orwellian fantasy.
American and world history are marred by examples of individuals and movements attempting to disprove the “all created equal” theory to support an agenda of discrimination, enslavement, or extermination. After all, these people imply, since we are not created equal, what’s the logical basis for respecting equal rights?
In this, the DNA age, this debate has led to studies on the correlation of IQ and genetic continental origin (i.e., race). That debate leapt to the public consciousness earlier this year when Dr. James Watson, who won a Nobel prize for discovering the double helix structure of DNA, suggested that he was “inherently gloomy” about the future of Africa because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” In the wake of these comments, Dr. Watson was quickly eased into retirement and then bizarrely learned that 16% of his own genes were of African origin.
What has followed has been a more public debate between hereditarians who think intelligence is genetically determined and environmentalists who think intelligence is affected substantially by environment about who is right and what the implications of that answer are. For instance, if intelligence is genetic and there is a racial disparity that is intractable, then what good does a policy based on fictional equality do? This is what Dr. Watson seemed to be alluding to. On the other hand, if intelligence can be affected by environment, then what can be done to isolate the particular environmental causes in order to shrink racial disparities and lift intelligence across races. (For links that discuss the way-over-my-head science involved, see below)
I do not have Dr. Watson’s genetic pedigree, but after having combed through some of the research, I find myself leaning on the side of the environmentalists. Here’s why:
I am skeptical of the existence of a predetermined, measurable, and static “intelligence.” I am willing to concede that there are genetic capacities for every individual, but I have seen enough examples of people either exceeding or failing to meet their potential to know that there are many factors that determine whether that capacity will be reached. Intellectual capacities cannot be reached without nourishment – mental and physical. If an individual’s “intelligence” depends on whether or not she was fed properly as an infant, then how can their be a measurable number that represents her intelligence?
I am also skeptical of any test that purports to measure intelligence across societies and continents. How useful is a test conceived, designed, and administered by westerners to test the “intelligence” of people who have no contact with or understanding of the western world?
Further, if it is true that the black-white IQ gap shrunk substantially in the mid-1900’s (as studies show), then how can IQ be static? If IQ were static and genetically determined, then there is no proper explanation for such a dramatic decrease in “intelligence” disparity across races.
Finally, I am troubled by the way the debate speaks in such broad racial terms of the intelligence of “Africans,” “Europeans,” or “Asians,” because it is such generalizations that lead to the most trifling of stereotypes and the most egregious of crimes. Even assuming that the studies are accurately measuring “intelligence” and showing genetic differences, that research says nothing about the African, European, or Asian standing in front of me. Averages may be a necessary evil in studies, but they are incapable of evaluating any given individual and I am especially troubled when averages may be used to support agendas of discrimination based on stereotypes.
Perhaps I, myself, am genetically predisposed to side with the environmentalists because I am optimistic that changes in circumstances can affect life outcomes. Although it is troubling for me to believe that all people are not created equal, I am fully cognizant that all people are not born into equal environments. So long as “intelligence” is not static, then improvements to those environments can also improve intelligence. That is certainly what I want to believe and I am sufficiently skeptical of the hereditarians’ science to be comfortable that my conclusion, and Jefferson’s as well, is more than mere wishful thinking.
LINKS for pleasure reading:
Profile of Dr. Watson in Times of London – the article that started the discussion
4-part Review of Scientific Literature by William Saleton (don’t miss the 4th part for an interesting correction/retraction)
Op-Ed by Richard Nisbett of Univ. of Michigan
Malcolm Gladwell reviews James Flynn’s book, What is Intelligence?
“James Watson tells an Inconvenient Truth”
Vaguely related article on Jewish genes and intelligence
There is much much more out there if you are interested and have many spare hours.....
American and world history are marred by examples of individuals and movements attempting to disprove the “all created equal” theory to support an agenda of discrimination, enslavement, or extermination. After all, these people imply, since we are not created equal, what’s the logical basis for respecting equal rights?
In this, the DNA age, this debate has led to studies on the correlation of IQ and genetic continental origin (i.e., race). That debate leapt to the public consciousness earlier this year when Dr. James Watson, who won a Nobel prize for discovering the double helix structure of DNA, suggested that he was “inherently gloomy” about the future of Africa because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” In the wake of these comments, Dr. Watson was quickly eased into retirement and then bizarrely learned that 16% of his own genes were of African origin.
What has followed has been a more public debate between hereditarians who think intelligence is genetically determined and environmentalists who think intelligence is affected substantially by environment about who is right and what the implications of that answer are. For instance, if intelligence is genetic and there is a racial disparity that is intractable, then what good does a policy based on fictional equality do? This is what Dr. Watson seemed to be alluding to. On the other hand, if intelligence can be affected by environment, then what can be done to isolate the particular environmental causes in order to shrink racial disparities and lift intelligence across races. (For links that discuss the way-over-my-head science involved, see below)
I do not have Dr. Watson’s genetic pedigree, but after having combed through some of the research, I find myself leaning on the side of the environmentalists. Here’s why:
I am skeptical of the existence of a predetermined, measurable, and static “intelligence.” I am willing to concede that there are genetic capacities for every individual, but I have seen enough examples of people either exceeding or failing to meet their potential to know that there are many factors that determine whether that capacity will be reached. Intellectual capacities cannot be reached without nourishment – mental and physical. If an individual’s “intelligence” depends on whether or not she was fed properly as an infant, then how can their be a measurable number that represents her intelligence?
I am also skeptical of any test that purports to measure intelligence across societies and continents. How useful is a test conceived, designed, and administered by westerners to test the “intelligence” of people who have no contact with or understanding of the western world?
Further, if it is true that the black-white IQ gap shrunk substantially in the mid-1900’s (as studies show), then how can IQ be static? If IQ were static and genetically determined, then there is no proper explanation for such a dramatic decrease in “intelligence” disparity across races.
Finally, I am troubled by the way the debate speaks in such broad racial terms of the intelligence of “Africans,” “Europeans,” or “Asians,” because it is such generalizations that lead to the most trifling of stereotypes and the most egregious of crimes. Even assuming that the studies are accurately measuring “intelligence” and showing genetic differences, that research says nothing about the African, European, or Asian standing in front of me. Averages may be a necessary evil in studies, but they are incapable of evaluating any given individual and I am especially troubled when averages may be used to support agendas of discrimination based on stereotypes.
Perhaps I, myself, am genetically predisposed to side with the environmentalists because I am optimistic that changes in circumstances can affect life outcomes. Although it is troubling for me to believe that all people are not created equal, I am fully cognizant that all people are not born into equal environments. So long as “intelligence” is not static, then improvements to those environments can also improve intelligence. That is certainly what I want to believe and I am sufficiently skeptical of the hereditarians’ science to be comfortable that my conclusion, and Jefferson’s as well, is more than mere wishful thinking.
LINKS for pleasure reading:
Profile of Dr. Watson in Times of London – the article that started the discussion
4-part Review of Scientific Literature by William Saleton (don’t miss the 4th part for an interesting correction/retraction)
Op-Ed by Richard Nisbett of Univ. of Michigan
Malcolm Gladwell reviews James Flynn’s book, What is Intelligence?
“James Watson tells an Inconvenient Truth”
Vaguely related article on Jewish genes and intelligence
There is much much more out there if you are interested and have many spare hours.....
March 05, 2007
Leadership Across the Color Line
It has been nearly a century and a half since the peculiar institution that was slavery was outlawed in the United States, yet the legacy of racial issues born by slavery continues to affect modern politics and leadership. Just last week, we learned that the ancestors of a preeminent African American leader (Al Sharpton) were at one point owned by the ancestors of a preeminent segregationist politician (Strom Thurmond), and it turns out that ancestors of Barack Obama’s white mother once owned slaves.
Against the backdrop of these revelations, a bill was recently introduced in Congress seeking an apology on behalf of the United States government for slavery and the Jim Crow segregation that followed it. Although the bill raises all sorts of interesting questions on its own, one of the more noteworthy aspects of it is that it was offered by a white congressman.
Specifically, the bill was introduced by Steve Cohen, a freshman representative and the first white congressman from majority-black Memphis in three decades. Cohen arrived in Washington only after defeating more than a half dozen African American candidates in a primary where some of his opponents suggested that he was unqualified to represent Memphis because of his race. The consensus is that Cohen is likely to face an African American candidate in 2008 with more unified support, giving him two years to prove to any suspicious black constituents that he can vigorously represent this district despite the color of his skin.
Ultimately, those two years will provide Cohen’s answer to the question of how a white person can effectively represent a majority-black district. This question, however, is really part of a larger question about leadership in America. Do Americans want a leader who simply looks like them or one who is able to understand their concerns regardless of what that leader looks like? Will Americans tolerate a leader who is not personally appealing if that leader proves capable of delivering good results? There is no question that Cohen’s record as a state senator has proven him to be strong on core African American issues – perhaps even stronger than his African American predecessor, Harold Ford, Jr. However, there is also no question that Cohen’s tactics and demeanor – and for some, his race – do not always endear him to the African American community. Cohen believes that if he can prove that he both understands African American concerns and work diligently to address them, his race ought not matter. But, fairly or not, Cohen’s race does matter.
Effective leadership requires a combination of many abilities – the ability to connect with constituents, the ability to empathize with those constituents’ concerns, and the ability to work toward effective solutions to those concerns. Even today, each of these abilities is significantly impacted by what a leader looks like. In his first months, Cohen needs to overcome hurdles an African American representative would not have encountered by working to make connections with the majority of his constituents who do not look like him. The apology measure, along with a well-attended community event featuring African American congressman John Conyers, are clearly efforts by Cohen to prove himself capable of understanding and addressing African American concerns.
In our increasingly diverse nation, it will be impossible to find leaders who share a perspective will all of their constituents. What we should seek from those who represent us is a willingness to listen to our concerns and a passion for finding solutions to them. Whether that leader’s ancestors were slaves or slaveholders ought to matter less than how that leader confronts today’s problems, many of which find their origins in the era of slavery. Cohen’s apology bill will not solve any of those problems, but it is a first step toward convincing his constituents that he is up to the task of representing them effectively and it is a step Cohen has to take.
Against the backdrop of these revelations, a bill was recently introduced in Congress seeking an apology on behalf of the United States government for slavery and the Jim Crow segregation that followed it. Although the bill raises all sorts of interesting questions on its own, one of the more noteworthy aspects of it is that it was offered by a white congressman.
Specifically, the bill was introduced by Steve Cohen, a freshman representative and the first white congressman from majority-black Memphis in three decades. Cohen arrived in Washington only after defeating more than a half dozen African American candidates in a primary where some of his opponents suggested that he was unqualified to represent Memphis because of his race. The consensus is that Cohen is likely to face an African American candidate in 2008 with more unified support, giving him two years to prove to any suspicious black constituents that he can vigorously represent this district despite the color of his skin.
Ultimately, those two years will provide Cohen’s answer to the question of how a white person can effectively represent a majority-black district. This question, however, is really part of a larger question about leadership in America. Do Americans want a leader who simply looks like them or one who is able to understand their concerns regardless of what that leader looks like? Will Americans tolerate a leader who is not personally appealing if that leader proves capable of delivering good results? There is no question that Cohen’s record as a state senator has proven him to be strong on core African American issues – perhaps even stronger than his African American predecessor, Harold Ford, Jr. However, there is also no question that Cohen’s tactics and demeanor – and for some, his race – do not always endear him to the African American community. Cohen believes that if he can prove that he both understands African American concerns and work diligently to address them, his race ought not matter. But, fairly or not, Cohen’s race does matter.
Effective leadership requires a combination of many abilities – the ability to connect with constituents, the ability to empathize with those constituents’ concerns, and the ability to work toward effective solutions to those concerns. Even today, each of these abilities is significantly impacted by what a leader looks like. In his first months, Cohen needs to overcome hurdles an African American representative would not have encountered by working to make connections with the majority of his constituents who do not look like him. The apology measure, along with a well-attended community event featuring African American congressman John Conyers, are clearly efforts by Cohen to prove himself capable of understanding and addressing African American concerns.
In our increasingly diverse nation, it will be impossible to find leaders who share a perspective will all of their constituents. What we should seek from those who represent us is a willingness to listen to our concerns and a passion for finding solutions to them. Whether that leader’s ancestors were slaves or slaveholders ought to matter less than how that leader confronts today’s problems, many of which find their origins in the era of slavery. Cohen’s apology bill will not solve any of those problems, but it is a first step toward convincing his constituents that he is up to the task of representing them effectively and it is a step Cohen has to take.
January 15, 2007
In the Words of Dr. King
Last year, I celebrated Martin Luther King Day by sharing words from Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. I still believe that no one captures the spirit of this day better than Dr. King himself. This year, I’ve chosen passages from a speech Dr. King delivered to a church conference in Nashville on December 27, 1962, as the country was still grappling with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. Since I’ve been writing on desegregation and integration a bit recently, I thought this speech, “The Ethical Demands for Integration” was appropriate. (for last year’s passages, click here)
On the difference between desegregation and integration…
“We must always be aware of the fact that our ultimate goal is integration, and that desegregation is only a first step on the road to the good society……Desegregation is eliminative and negative, for it simply removes legal and social prohibitions. Integration is creative, and is therefore more profound and far-reaching than desegregation. Integration is the positive acceptance of desegregation and the welcomed participation of Negroes in the total range of human activities. Integration is genuine intergroup, interpersonal doing. Desegregation then, rightly, is only a short-range goal. Integration is the ultimate goal of our national community. Thus, as American pursues the important task of respecting the “letter of the law,” i.e., compliance with desegregation decisions, she must be equally concerned with the “spirit of the law,” i.e., commitment to the democratic dream of integration.”
On the danger of desegregation without integration…
“We do not have to look very far to see the pernicious effects of a desegregated society that is not integrated. It leads to ‘physical proximity without spiritual affinity.’ It gives us a society where men are physically desegregated and spiritually segregated, where elbows are together and hearts are apart. It gives us special togetherness and spiritual apartness. It leaves us with a stagnant equality of sameness rather than a constructive equality of oneness.”
On the lack of freedom in a segregated society…
“A second ethical demand of integration is a recognition of the fact that a denial of freedom to an individual is a denial of life itself…The absence of freedom is the imposition of restraint on my deliberations as to what I shall do, where I shall live, how much I shall earn, the kind of tasks I shall pursue. I am robbed of the basic quality of man-ness. When I cannot choose what I shall do or where I shall live or how I shall survive, it means in fact that someone or some system has already made these a priori decisions for me, and I am reduced to an animal. I do not live; I merely exist…I cannot adequately assume responsibility as a person because I have been made a party to a decision in which I played no part in making.”
On the failure of American leaders to fully embrace the spirit of the Brown decision…
“It is sad that the moral dimension of integration has not been sounded by the leaders of government and the nation. They staunchly supported the principle of the Court’s decision but their rationale fell short of being prophetic. They sounded the note that has become the verse, chorus and refrain of the so-called calm and reasonable moderates – we must obey the law! The temper of acceptance might be far difference if only our leaders would say publicly to the nation – we must obey the mandate of the Court because it is right!”
On the difference between enforceable obligations, such as desegregation, and unenforceable obligations, such as integration…
“[U]nenforceable obligations are beyond the reach of the laws of society. They concern inner attitudes, genuine person-to-person relations, and expressions of compassion which law books cannot regulate and jails cannot rectify. Such obligations are met by one’s commitment to an inner law, written on the heart. Man-made laws assure justice, but a higher law produces love. No code of conduct ever compelled a father to love his children or a husband to show affection to his wife. The law court may force him to provide bread for the family, but it cannot make him provide the bread of love. A good father is obedient to the unenforceable.”
On the limited, but important role the law can play in achieving integration…
“Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. The law cannot make an employer love an employee, but it can prevent him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin. The habits, if not the hearts of people, have been and are being altered everyday by legislative acts, judicial decisions and executive orders. Let us not be misled by those who argue that segregation cannot be ended by the force of law. But acknowledging this, we must admit that the ultimate solution to the race problem lies in the willingness of men to obey the unenforceable…A vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws will bring an end to segregated public facilities which are barriers to a truly desegregated society, but it cannot bring an end to fears, prejudice, pride, and irrationality, which are the barriers to a truly integrated society…True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.”
On the difference between desegregation and integration…
“We must always be aware of the fact that our ultimate goal is integration, and that desegregation is only a first step on the road to the good society……Desegregation is eliminative and negative, for it simply removes legal and social prohibitions. Integration is creative, and is therefore more profound and far-reaching than desegregation. Integration is the positive acceptance of desegregation and the welcomed participation of Negroes in the total range of human activities. Integration is genuine intergroup, interpersonal doing. Desegregation then, rightly, is only a short-range goal. Integration is the ultimate goal of our national community. Thus, as American pursues the important task of respecting the “letter of the law,” i.e., compliance with desegregation decisions, she must be equally concerned with the “spirit of the law,” i.e., commitment to the democratic dream of integration.”
On the danger of desegregation without integration…
“We do not have to look very far to see the pernicious effects of a desegregated society that is not integrated. It leads to ‘physical proximity without spiritual affinity.’ It gives us a society where men are physically desegregated and spiritually segregated, where elbows are together and hearts are apart. It gives us special togetherness and spiritual apartness. It leaves us with a stagnant equality of sameness rather than a constructive equality of oneness.”
On the lack of freedom in a segregated society…
“A second ethical demand of integration is a recognition of the fact that a denial of freedom to an individual is a denial of life itself…The absence of freedom is the imposition of restraint on my deliberations as to what I shall do, where I shall live, how much I shall earn, the kind of tasks I shall pursue. I am robbed of the basic quality of man-ness. When I cannot choose what I shall do or where I shall live or how I shall survive, it means in fact that someone or some system has already made these a priori decisions for me, and I am reduced to an animal. I do not live; I merely exist…I cannot adequately assume responsibility as a person because I have been made a party to a decision in which I played no part in making.”
On the failure of American leaders to fully embrace the spirit of the Brown decision…
“It is sad that the moral dimension of integration has not been sounded by the leaders of government and the nation. They staunchly supported the principle of the Court’s decision but their rationale fell short of being prophetic. They sounded the note that has become the verse, chorus and refrain of the so-called calm and reasonable moderates – we must obey the law! The temper of acceptance might be far difference if only our leaders would say publicly to the nation – we must obey the mandate of the Court because it is right!”
On the difference between enforceable obligations, such as desegregation, and unenforceable obligations, such as integration…
“[U]nenforceable obligations are beyond the reach of the laws of society. They concern inner attitudes, genuine person-to-person relations, and expressions of compassion which law books cannot regulate and jails cannot rectify. Such obligations are met by one’s commitment to an inner law, written on the heart. Man-made laws assure justice, but a higher law produces love. No code of conduct ever compelled a father to love his children or a husband to show affection to his wife. The law court may force him to provide bread for the family, but it cannot make him provide the bread of love. A good father is obedient to the unenforceable.”
On the limited, but important role the law can play in achieving integration…
“Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. The law cannot make an employer love an employee, but it can prevent him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin. The habits, if not the hearts of people, have been and are being altered everyday by legislative acts, judicial decisions and executive orders. Let us not be misled by those who argue that segregation cannot be ended by the force of law. But acknowledging this, we must admit that the ultimate solution to the race problem lies in the willingness of men to obey the unenforceable…A vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws will bring an end to segregated public facilities which are barriers to a truly desegregated society, but it cannot bring an end to fears, prejudice, pride, and irrationality, which are the barriers to a truly integrated society…True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations.”
November 07, 2006
This Race Matters
One hundred fifty years ago, the South, including Tennessee, seceded from the United States in order to protect its right to maintain slavery.
Forty years ago, individuals seeking to register African Americans to vote in the South were abused, beaten, and killed.
The South’s racial history is well documented and not something to be proud of, to put it generously. Tomorrow, however, for the first time since Reconstruction, Southerners – in this case, Tennesseeans – have the opportunity to send an African American to the United States Senate. Even if it is a long overdue milestone, the potential election of Harold Ford, Jr., would be historic.
Ford is not a typical African American politician, nor is he a typical Democrat. He has run a center right campaign that has angered many on the left, but has brought him to election day in a winnable race. He has outworked and outperformed his opponent throughout the campaign and would be a dynamic leader for all Tennesseans.
Until recently, Harold Ford’s race would have been considered a major obstacle for his campaign to overcome. This campaign, however, has been less about race than one would have expected in the South. The one exception of course is the now infamous ad produced by the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee showing a bare-shouldered white playmate mouthing “Harold, call me,” in an allusion to traditional white Southern fears of interracial intimacy. Thought it would be naïve to believe the ad did not intentionally appeal to a racist sentiment, its impact has been largely overstated by a national media keen on making news, particularly news that makes the South look like a bunch of racists. Any Tennessean who would have been swayed to vote against Ford by the ad’s racial allusion would be unlikely to vote for an African American candidate in the first place.
“I’ve never thought about race,” Ford has said. “Don’t believe for one moment just because we’re in the South that we can’t look for what’s in our best interest, and look for the person who will best serve and represent us.” Southerners, Ford seems to be saying, aren’t as backward as you’d like to think.
Whether Tennesseans will elect Ford is a tossup,.but he is the better candidate for all Tennesseans regardless of party affiliation. He is by far the more passionate, energetic, and talented politician of the two candidates. In the dealmaking and publicity-seeking that makes a successful Senator, Ford will excel. Through Bill Frist’s ascendancy to Senate majority leader, Tennesseans have learned the local, on the ground benefits to be gained by having a visible and successful Senator. Where Ford’s energy and passion will make him stand out, his opponent will likely blend right in with the other older white males in the Washington.
For the independent, moderate voter, Harold Ford is an ideal candidate. He is a pragmatic politician who seeks consensus and moderation rather than division and ideology. He is unafraid of reaching across party lines to find sensible solutions, unlike his opponent, who is less likely to vote independent of his party.
Strangely, the loudest criticism of Ford often comes from the left. Even if Ford’s policies are more conservative than some Democrats are comfortable with (and I include myself in this group), he could be part of a larger Democratic Senate takeover that would help push the national agenda. Some of the greatest progressive legislation of the twentieth century was passed with a coalition of northern and western liberals and southern moderates. Ford’s election could help create a modern revival of that coalition.
And for those concerned with making history and reaching long overdue milestones, Harold Ford just might do that too.
Forty years ago, individuals seeking to register African Americans to vote in the South were abused, beaten, and killed.
The South’s racial history is well documented and not something to be proud of, to put it generously. Tomorrow, however, for the first time since Reconstruction, Southerners – in this case, Tennesseeans – have the opportunity to send an African American to the United States Senate. Even if it is a long overdue milestone, the potential election of Harold Ford, Jr., would be historic.
Ford is not a typical African American politician, nor is he a typical Democrat. He has run a center right campaign that has angered many on the left, but has brought him to election day in a winnable race. He has outworked and outperformed his opponent throughout the campaign and would be a dynamic leader for all Tennesseans.
Until recently, Harold Ford’s race would have been considered a major obstacle for his campaign to overcome. This campaign, however, has been less about race than one would have expected in the South. The one exception of course is the now infamous ad produced by the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee showing a bare-shouldered white playmate mouthing “Harold, call me,” in an allusion to traditional white Southern fears of interracial intimacy. Thought it would be naïve to believe the ad did not intentionally appeal to a racist sentiment, its impact has been largely overstated by a national media keen on making news, particularly news that makes the South look like a bunch of racists. Any Tennessean who would have been swayed to vote against Ford by the ad’s racial allusion would be unlikely to vote for an African American candidate in the first place.
“I’ve never thought about race,” Ford has said. “Don’t believe for one moment just because we’re in the South that we can’t look for what’s in our best interest, and look for the person who will best serve and represent us.” Southerners, Ford seems to be saying, aren’t as backward as you’d like to think.
Whether Tennesseans will elect Ford is a tossup,.but he is the better candidate for all Tennesseans regardless of party affiliation. He is by far the more passionate, energetic, and talented politician of the two candidates. In the dealmaking and publicity-seeking that makes a successful Senator, Ford will excel. Through Bill Frist’s ascendancy to Senate majority leader, Tennesseans have learned the local, on the ground benefits to be gained by having a visible and successful Senator. Where Ford’s energy and passion will make him stand out, his opponent will likely blend right in with the other older white males in the Washington.
For the independent, moderate voter, Harold Ford is an ideal candidate. He is a pragmatic politician who seeks consensus and moderation rather than division and ideology. He is unafraid of reaching across party lines to find sensible solutions, unlike his opponent, who is less likely to vote independent of his party.
Strangely, the loudest criticism of Ford often comes from the left. Even if Ford’s policies are more conservative than some Democrats are comfortable with (and I include myself in this group), he could be part of a larger Democratic Senate takeover that would help push the national agenda. Some of the greatest progressive legislation of the twentieth century was passed with a coalition of northern and western liberals and southern moderates. Ford’s election could help create a modern revival of that coalition.
And for those concerned with making history and reaching long overdue milestones, Harold Ford just might do that too.
September 01, 2006
Why Katrina Hurts
The past week has brought us countless stories on the state of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast one year after the most devastating natural disaster in American history. That superlative is not only appropriate based on the terrible loss of human life, displacement of entire communities and enormous damage to property, but also because with its blistering winds and unquenchable thirst for destruction, Hurricane Katrina bruised the American psyche in an unprecedented way.
Though certainly Katrina was a monster storm, it was not the first hurricane to bring extensive damage and death to American shores. The names Hugo and Andrew still make citizens in Charleston and Miami tremble. But Katrina and its aftermath cut deeper, affecting not only those along the Gulf Coast, but all Americans. Why does Katrina hurt so badly?
In one week, Hurricane Katrina exploded myths of American ingenuity and craftsmanship and exposed inequalities many of us willfully ignore, forcing us to confront the reality that we, as a country, are not exactly what we think ourselves to be.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Americans imagine our country to be one of boundless opportunity where everyone has the chance to hit the lottery. The gap between wealthy and poor, however, continues to expand and threatens to create a permanently impoverished and undereducated class of citizens with a very low ceiling on what they can achieve in the United States. Although most of the time, the elements of the community stuck in this rut are confined to certain parts of the city and heard from only on the local news when being interviewed regarding a neighborhood crime, after Katrina, all over the country Americans were forced to confront the poverty that our nation tolerates. For several weeks, the individuals our society does least to protect were brought out from the shadows and onto their rooftops with pleas for help.
The way Katrina's human toll cut along racial and economic lines exposed for all to see the second America that John Edwards so eloquently brought to life with his "Two Americas" speeches. During Katrina, the haves, the have-a-littles, and the have-a-whole-lots got a glimpse of the have-nots struggling to get by in this country. Katrina brought America face-to-face with its greatest vice, inequality, and many Americans were shocked and repulsed. In this land of supposedly boundless opportunity where anyone can make it through hard work, Katrina drove home the fact that some Americans have it a whole lot better than others.
In addition, the completely bungled response by all levels of government to the unfolding disaster exposed all that is wrong with a current leadership class that is focused more on elections than on governing, more on appearing to help than on actually helping. Such bogus leadership escapes unmasking until a moment of crisis comes along, at which point the empty heads and suits in leadership positions are reduced to impotent spectators. Katrina did a heckuva job of lifting the mask on all levels of government failure.
Add to the leadership vacuum Katrina exposed the extreme slowness and inability of the government to either protect or rescue citizens and you get a genuine national embarrassment. Here we were, the most powerful country on the planet, unable to reach our own citizens in a major city several days after the storm.
And then there was that group of citizens, themselves embarrassing the country by taking advantage of the anarchy of the times to rob, loot and threaten for their own pecuniary gain. They reflected a culture of selfish thuggery where crime is a badge of honor and laws and law-abiding citizens are inconveniences that would best be disposed of. They are not the majority of Americans, but they are part of the American underbelly exposed by Katrina.
Why does Katrina hurt? Because it slaps us in the face with the reality that we are not doing as well as a nation as we think we are. A year later, that reality still stings.
Though certainly Katrina was a monster storm, it was not the first hurricane to bring extensive damage and death to American shores. The names Hugo and Andrew still make citizens in Charleston and Miami tremble. But Katrina and its aftermath cut deeper, affecting not only those along the Gulf Coast, but all Americans. Why does Katrina hurt so badly?
In one week, Hurricane Katrina exploded myths of American ingenuity and craftsmanship and exposed inequalities many of us willfully ignore, forcing us to confront the reality that we, as a country, are not exactly what we think ourselves to be.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Americans imagine our country to be one of boundless opportunity where everyone has the chance to hit the lottery. The gap between wealthy and poor, however, continues to expand and threatens to create a permanently impoverished and undereducated class of citizens with a very low ceiling on what they can achieve in the United States. Although most of the time, the elements of the community stuck in this rut are confined to certain parts of the city and heard from only on the local news when being interviewed regarding a neighborhood crime, after Katrina, all over the country Americans were forced to confront the poverty that our nation tolerates. For several weeks, the individuals our society does least to protect were brought out from the shadows and onto their rooftops with pleas for help.
The way Katrina's human toll cut along racial and economic lines exposed for all to see the second America that John Edwards so eloquently brought to life with his "Two Americas" speeches. During Katrina, the haves, the have-a-littles, and the have-a-whole-lots got a glimpse of the have-nots struggling to get by in this country. Katrina brought America face-to-face with its greatest vice, inequality, and many Americans were shocked and repulsed. In this land of supposedly boundless opportunity where anyone can make it through hard work, Katrina drove home the fact that some Americans have it a whole lot better than others.
In addition, the completely bungled response by all levels of government to the unfolding disaster exposed all that is wrong with a current leadership class that is focused more on elections than on governing, more on appearing to help than on actually helping. Such bogus leadership escapes unmasking until a moment of crisis comes along, at which point the empty heads and suits in leadership positions are reduced to impotent spectators. Katrina did a heckuva job of lifting the mask on all levels of government failure.
Add to the leadership vacuum Katrina exposed the extreme slowness and inability of the government to either protect or rescue citizens and you get a genuine national embarrassment. Here we were, the most powerful country on the planet, unable to reach our own citizens in a major city several days after the storm.
And then there was that group of citizens, themselves embarrassing the country by taking advantage of the anarchy of the times to rob, loot and threaten for their own pecuniary gain. They reflected a culture of selfish thuggery where crime is a badge of honor and laws and law-abiding citizens are inconveniences that would best be disposed of. They are not the majority of Americans, but they are part of the American underbelly exposed by Katrina.
Why does Katrina hurt? Because it slaps us in the face with the reality that we are not doing as well as a nation as we think we are. A year later, that reality still stings.
July 28, 2006
Race and Politics in Dixie
A few blocks from the heart of downtown Memphis sits the National Civil Rights Museum, one of the city's treasures. Situated at the Lorraine Motel, site of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, the Museum offers visitors the opportunity to relive civil rights history, including the chance to watch Dr. King's historic "I Have a Dream" speech in its entirety.
Exiting the Museum this election season, Memphians are being reminded both of the progress that has been made and of how far remains to go to fulfill Dr. King's dream, as two candidates from Memphis – one black and one white – seek to prove that race is no longer a bar to winning elections, even in the South.
Tennessee's ninth congressional district, of which Memphis is the majority, has been represented in Congress by an African American since 1975. This fall, the incumbent, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., is pursuing a seat in the U.S. Senate, leaving a slew of candidates – 20 in all – vying to replace him. Among them is state senator Steve Cohen, who stands out from the pack based simply on the fact that of the presumed frontrunners in next week's Democratic primary (from which the likely general election winner will come) Cohen is the only one who is white.
During the campaign, few rivals have questioned Cohen's qualifications or commitment to the constituents of the district. Instead, as recounted in this newspaper, several have explicitly or implicitly suggested that Cohen is unfit for the seat simply on the basis of his race. Often, such quips are prefaced with qualified praise like "Steve's a good guy, but…" The unspoken yet well understood "but" is that the ninth district, which is 60% African American, should not send a white representative to Congress, no matter how qualified. One candidate even sent an email to supporters laying out what he sees as the dire stakes, threatening that "For the first time in 30 years Memphis could be without African American representation."
Such efforts to make race a qualification (or disqualification) for office appeal to the basest instinct of American politics – the instinct to make important decisions based solely on race. Playing the race card in this way, these candidates seek to simplify an important and complex congressional race into, literally, a black and white choice.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ford, the man vacating the ninth district seat, is attempting to break a color line of his own as he seeks to become Tennessee's first African American Senator. In a state that is 80% white, there has been remarkably little talk about Ford's skin color as a potential disadvantage for him. There have certainly been no ominous "Tennessee might be without a white Senator" emails from Ford's opponents. Such tactics would be roundly – and rightfully – denounced, with the loudest denunciations coming from some of the same people pleading against electing Mr. Cohen on the basis of his skin color. And while it would be naïve to believe that the color of Ford's skin does not affect the way some individual voters think of him, it has been refreshing to see a campaign by an African American for statewide office in the ex-Confederacy that is not focused on race. Regardless of whether Ford wins in November, that is progress.
The candidacies of Rep. Ford and Mr. Cohen offer 21st-century illustrations of the centuries-old intersection of race and politics in America, an intersection whose continued relevance was affirmed by this month's reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The opposition to Cohen based on skin color rests on the assumption, despite Cohen's two-decade long record to the contrary, that a white person cannot effectively represent African American interests, and it comes even as Ford simultaneously seems to be disproving the converse assumption: that an African American cannot represent a majority white state.
Both Ford and Cohen – as well as several of Cohen's opponents – are distinguished and qualified candidates. Both have sought to rise above divisive racial politics by asking voters to judge them by their record rather than their race, or, stated more eloquently, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. This is what they and the citizens they seek to represent deserve and exactly what Dr. King dreamt of more than forty years ago.
Exiting the Museum this election season, Memphians are being reminded both of the progress that has been made and of how far remains to go to fulfill Dr. King's dream, as two candidates from Memphis – one black and one white – seek to prove that race is no longer a bar to winning elections, even in the South.
Tennessee's ninth congressional district, of which Memphis is the majority, has been represented in Congress by an African American since 1975. This fall, the incumbent, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., is pursuing a seat in the U.S. Senate, leaving a slew of candidates – 20 in all – vying to replace him. Among them is state senator Steve Cohen, who stands out from the pack based simply on the fact that of the presumed frontrunners in next week's Democratic primary (from which the likely general election winner will come) Cohen is the only one who is white.
During the campaign, few rivals have questioned Cohen's qualifications or commitment to the constituents of the district. Instead, as recounted in this newspaper, several have explicitly or implicitly suggested that Cohen is unfit for the seat simply on the basis of his race. Often, such quips are prefaced with qualified praise like "Steve's a good guy, but…" The unspoken yet well understood "but" is that the ninth district, which is 60% African American, should not send a white representative to Congress, no matter how qualified. One candidate even sent an email to supporters laying out what he sees as the dire stakes, threatening that "For the first time in 30 years Memphis could be without African American representation."
Such efforts to make race a qualification (or disqualification) for office appeal to the basest instinct of American politics – the instinct to make important decisions based solely on race. Playing the race card in this way, these candidates seek to simplify an important and complex congressional race into, literally, a black and white choice.
Meanwhile, Rep. Ford, the man vacating the ninth district seat, is attempting to break a color line of his own as he seeks to become Tennessee's first African American Senator. In a state that is 80% white, there has been remarkably little talk about Ford's skin color as a potential disadvantage for him. There have certainly been no ominous "Tennessee might be without a white Senator" emails from Ford's opponents. Such tactics would be roundly – and rightfully – denounced, with the loudest denunciations coming from some of the same people pleading against electing Mr. Cohen on the basis of his skin color. And while it would be naïve to believe that the color of Ford's skin does not affect the way some individual voters think of him, it has been refreshing to see a campaign by an African American for statewide office in the ex-Confederacy that is not focused on race. Regardless of whether Ford wins in November, that is progress.
The candidacies of Rep. Ford and Mr. Cohen offer 21st-century illustrations of the centuries-old intersection of race and politics in America, an intersection whose continued relevance was affirmed by this month's reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. The opposition to Cohen based on skin color rests on the assumption, despite Cohen's two-decade long record to the contrary, that a white person cannot effectively represent African American interests, and it comes even as Ford simultaneously seems to be disproving the converse assumption: that an African American cannot represent a majority white state.
Both Ford and Cohen – as well as several of Cohen's opponents – are distinguished and qualified candidates. Both have sought to rise above divisive racial politics by asking voters to judge them by their record rather than their race, or, stated more eloquently, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. This is what they and the citizens they seek to represent deserve and exactly what Dr. King dreamt of more than forty years ago.
June 09, 2006
Supreme Court Shift?
In response to patterns leading to the rapid resegregation of public schools in cities across the country, many local school boards have enacted voluntary plans meant to help maintain diversity in their schools. Somewhat ironically, these plans have spawned lawsuits nearly identical to the cases brought in the 1950s and 60s by African American students seeking admission to schools racially segregated by law. Both sets of cases claim that making school assignments based on race violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution. The difference is that now the plaintiffs are white.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases brought by white students in Louisville and Seattle who claim that policies in those cities unlawfully denied them admission to certain schools based on their race. Both plans were judged constitutionally permissible by the court below, but now the Supreme Court will get the final say.
Neither Seattle's nor Louisville's plan uses race as the only factor in making school assignments, but rather as one among many. In Louisville, parents are able to freely choose their children's schools so long as each school in the district maintains a minority enrollment between 15 and 50 percent. In Seattle, the plan requires school authorities to take a student's race into account as a "tiebreaker" only if that student is applying to a high school that already deviates by more than 15 percent from Seattle's systemwide racial balance. The most important thing to know is that both plans are voluntary -- not imposed by a court order -- and enacted for non-discriminatory purposes -- these districts have judged that it is in the best interest of all students to have schools that more accurately reflect the demographics of the broader communities the students will be a part of after graduation.
The Supreme Court's agreement to hear the cases was quite a surprise. In 2003, the Court ruled on similar issues regarding the use of race in admissions policies at the University of Michigan law school. In that 5-4 decision, written by now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court upheld the law school's use of race as one factor in admitting students, though it warned that the days when such affirmative action would be permissible were not without limit. In the grade school context, the Court refused to hear a case from Lynn, Massachusetts, identical to that of Louisville and Seattle as recently as December. Why the shift?
The answer, of course, is that while the issues have not changed, the Court itself has. These cases mark the first opportunity for the court of Chief Justice John Roberts to define itself on such a big social issue. Whether the loss of the difference-splitting Justice O'Connor and her replacement with conservative jurist Justice Samuel Alito will result in a reversal on the affirmative action front remains to be seen. Justice O'Connor was still on the bench when the Court declined hearing the Lynn case.
Regardless of the outcome, however, the ideological lines in these cases reflect the enormous shift in the role of the equal protection clause in civil rights jurisprudence since the days when the first desegregation lawsuits were filed. Specifically, the idea of local control of schools has switched sides. During desegregation, conservative scholars, lawyers, and judges derided efforts by courts to tell local school authorities how to run their schools. Local control, it was argued, was a necessary characteristic of effective school administration. Now, conservatives find themselves looking to the courts for help, seeking court-ordered school admission for white students rather than allowing plans enacted by local authorities to stand. Meanwhile, liberals who once pushed for a broad and strong equal protection clause that could override local school decisions that violated it are stuck arguing for its limitation while insisting, as the conservatives once did, on leaving local school decisions to local authorities. How times have changed.
The outcome of these cases, expected to be heard late in the fall, will determine whether public schools across the country will be able to take measures meant to ensure diversity in their classrooms or whether the return to segregated schools, albeit de facto rather than de jure, will be accelerated. It would be unfortunate if after a half-century attempting to integrate public schools, we ended up right back where we started.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear cases brought by white students in Louisville and Seattle who claim that policies in those cities unlawfully denied them admission to certain schools based on their race. Both plans were judged constitutionally permissible by the court below, but now the Supreme Court will get the final say.
Neither Seattle's nor Louisville's plan uses race as the only factor in making school assignments, but rather as one among many. In Louisville, parents are able to freely choose their children's schools so long as each school in the district maintains a minority enrollment between 15 and 50 percent. In Seattle, the plan requires school authorities to take a student's race into account as a "tiebreaker" only if that student is applying to a high school that already deviates by more than 15 percent from Seattle's systemwide racial balance. The most important thing to know is that both plans are voluntary -- not imposed by a court order -- and enacted for non-discriminatory purposes -- these districts have judged that it is in the best interest of all students to have schools that more accurately reflect the demographics of the broader communities the students will be a part of after graduation.
The Supreme Court's agreement to hear the cases was quite a surprise. In 2003, the Court ruled on similar issues regarding the use of race in admissions policies at the University of Michigan law school. In that 5-4 decision, written by now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court upheld the law school's use of race as one factor in admitting students, though it warned that the days when such affirmative action would be permissible were not without limit. In the grade school context, the Court refused to hear a case from Lynn, Massachusetts, identical to that of Louisville and Seattle as recently as December. Why the shift?
The answer, of course, is that while the issues have not changed, the Court itself has. These cases mark the first opportunity for the court of Chief Justice John Roberts to define itself on such a big social issue. Whether the loss of the difference-splitting Justice O'Connor and her replacement with conservative jurist Justice Samuel Alito will result in a reversal on the affirmative action front remains to be seen. Justice O'Connor was still on the bench when the Court declined hearing the Lynn case.
Regardless of the outcome, however, the ideological lines in these cases reflect the enormous shift in the role of the equal protection clause in civil rights jurisprudence since the days when the first desegregation lawsuits were filed. Specifically, the idea of local control of schools has switched sides. During desegregation, conservative scholars, lawyers, and judges derided efforts by courts to tell local school authorities how to run their schools. Local control, it was argued, was a necessary characteristic of effective school administration. Now, conservatives find themselves looking to the courts for help, seeking court-ordered school admission for white students rather than allowing plans enacted by local authorities to stand. Meanwhile, liberals who once pushed for a broad and strong equal protection clause that could override local school decisions that violated it are stuck arguing for its limitation while insisting, as the conservatives once did, on leaving local school decisions to local authorities. How times have changed.
The outcome of these cases, expected to be heard late in the fall, will determine whether public schools across the country will be able to take measures meant to ensure diversity in their classrooms or whether the return to segregated schools, albeit de facto rather than de jure, will be accelerated. It would be unfortunate if after a half-century attempting to integrate public schools, we ended up right back where we started.
March 10, 2006
Crash
When I saw Crash last spring, I wrote a review of what I thought was one of the more interesting movies I'd seen in a while. When Crash won Best Picture on Sunday, I thought that review would be a good column this week. So, here it is:
On a drizzly Sunday afternoon, Meggan and I hiked across the Boston Common to catch a matinee showing of Paul Haggis’s (“Million-Dollar Baby”) latest film, “Crash.” The cinema was our preferred antidote to stressful weeks at work (hers, not mine) and uncooperative weekend weather (30 degrees in May?!). If what we sought was a pleasant escape, however, our choice of “Crash” was disastrous. Of all the things that this movie is - and there is much good about it - pleasant is not one of them.
After the film, Meggan turned to me. “I didn’t think I could have been any more depressed. But,” she sighed, “I was wrong.”
Having enjoyed the movie, I felt the need to defend it, but the more I thought about the movie, the less certain I became that I liked it. And maybe that was the point.
Without spoiling anything, “Crash” depicts a 36-hour period when the lives of a dozen Angelinos of varying race and ethnicity crash into one another. There is not one single crash, but the many little crashes of daily life. However, underlying each crash is a single theme - stereotypes, bigotry, and cultural misunderstanding. Some crashes end tragically, while others offer hope, but each provides a scathing critique of racism in Los Angeles. Watching racism play itself out should not be pleasant. And it wasn’t.
As a film, it was uneven. Haggis was very effective depicting how quickly events can escalate based on misconceptions fueled by cultural differences, and there were several incredibly dramatic, well-crafted, and anxious scenes where Haggis was at his best in this, his directorial debut. But there were many moments when characters speechified. Barely five minutes passed between diatribes on race or ethnicity and such speeches came out of characters mouths seemingly out of nowhere. On their own, the speeches were interesting, but they were not believable dialogue.
To me, the film was Haggis’s attempt at showing the ramifications of prejudices. “Look what happens when we make decisions based on stereotypes,” the movie says. “It sucks, doesn’t it?” But Meggan took an entirely different message, and some end-of-weekend blues, with her: “We all hate each other and that’s that.”
Perhaps Haggis was too convincing, providing a glimpse of this problem without even the suggestion of a solution. This, however, seems to be the necessary first step that Haggis is urging us to take: until a problem is glimpsed and acknowledged, there will certainly be no solution. This is where the film succeeds - it forces viewers to acknowledge the problem, thus sparking discussion (hopefully) that could lead to a solution. That we remain stalled at this first step of recovery - acknowledgment - is more a failure of ourselves than a problem with the movie.
The problem with “Crash,” though, is that it reeks of the very problem - stereotyping - that is seeks to confront. We meet a stereotypical image-conscious, opportunistic district attorney and his angry, bigoted wife. We see a race-obsessed young black male with corn rows who is a carjacker, a racist LA cop, and a loud, overweight black woman. Although there are attempts to humanize all the characters, the reliance on stereotyped characters combined with their inability to talk about anything but racism, affirmative action, or discrimination undermines the film and reinforces the very stereotypes it critiques.
That being said, there is plenty to chew on after “Crash,” an accomplishment in itself and perhaps Haggis’s single goal. The dialogue the movie seeks to create, perhaps, is the solution Haggis is offering. There are no good characters or bad characters, but just characters attempting to exist in a city filled with many types of people who often misunderstand and even hate each other. We see how good intentions mean little. Simply doing the right thing does not make one immune from succumbing to despicable acts in a racist society. Likewise, being racist does not prevent one from being a good son or a hero. By unfolding these scenarios in such detail, Haggis forces us to evaluate the character based not only upon their unreasonable biases, but also on their reasonable fears and the very real pressures of their families or careers. Offering these glimpses of life in another’s shoes, the movie begins a conversation that it cannot, and does not attempt to, complete. Does that make it a bad movie? Not at all. Just unpleasant and not the right pick on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
On a drizzly Sunday afternoon, Meggan and I hiked across the Boston Common to catch a matinee showing of Paul Haggis’s (“Million-Dollar Baby”) latest film, “Crash.” The cinema was our preferred antidote to stressful weeks at work (hers, not mine) and uncooperative weekend weather (30 degrees in May?!). If what we sought was a pleasant escape, however, our choice of “Crash” was disastrous. Of all the things that this movie is - and there is much good about it - pleasant is not one of them.
After the film, Meggan turned to me. “I didn’t think I could have been any more depressed. But,” she sighed, “I was wrong.”
Having enjoyed the movie, I felt the need to defend it, but the more I thought about the movie, the less certain I became that I liked it. And maybe that was the point.
Without spoiling anything, “Crash” depicts a 36-hour period when the lives of a dozen Angelinos of varying race and ethnicity crash into one another. There is not one single crash, but the many little crashes of daily life. However, underlying each crash is a single theme - stereotypes, bigotry, and cultural misunderstanding. Some crashes end tragically, while others offer hope, but each provides a scathing critique of racism in Los Angeles. Watching racism play itself out should not be pleasant. And it wasn’t.
As a film, it was uneven. Haggis was very effective depicting how quickly events can escalate based on misconceptions fueled by cultural differences, and there were several incredibly dramatic, well-crafted, and anxious scenes where Haggis was at his best in this, his directorial debut. But there were many moments when characters speechified. Barely five minutes passed between diatribes on race or ethnicity and such speeches came out of characters mouths seemingly out of nowhere. On their own, the speeches were interesting, but they were not believable dialogue.
To me, the film was Haggis’s attempt at showing the ramifications of prejudices. “Look what happens when we make decisions based on stereotypes,” the movie says. “It sucks, doesn’t it?” But Meggan took an entirely different message, and some end-of-weekend blues, with her: “We all hate each other and that’s that.”
Perhaps Haggis was too convincing, providing a glimpse of this problem without even the suggestion of a solution. This, however, seems to be the necessary first step that Haggis is urging us to take: until a problem is glimpsed and acknowledged, there will certainly be no solution. This is where the film succeeds - it forces viewers to acknowledge the problem, thus sparking discussion (hopefully) that could lead to a solution. That we remain stalled at this first step of recovery - acknowledgment - is more a failure of ourselves than a problem with the movie.
The problem with “Crash,” though, is that it reeks of the very problem - stereotyping - that is seeks to confront. We meet a stereotypical image-conscious, opportunistic district attorney and his angry, bigoted wife. We see a race-obsessed young black male with corn rows who is a carjacker, a racist LA cop, and a loud, overweight black woman. Although there are attempts to humanize all the characters, the reliance on stereotyped characters combined with their inability to talk about anything but racism, affirmative action, or discrimination undermines the film and reinforces the very stereotypes it critiques.
That being said, there is plenty to chew on after “Crash,” an accomplishment in itself and perhaps Haggis’s single goal. The dialogue the movie seeks to create, perhaps, is the solution Haggis is offering. There are no good characters or bad characters, but just characters attempting to exist in a city filled with many types of people who often misunderstand and even hate each other. We see how good intentions mean little. Simply doing the right thing does not make one immune from succumbing to despicable acts in a racist society. Likewise, being racist does not prevent one from being a good son or a hero. By unfolding these scenarios in such detail, Haggis forces us to evaluate the character based not only upon their unreasonable biases, but also on their reasonable fears and the very real pressures of their families or careers. Offering these glimpses of life in another’s shoes, the movie begins a conversation that it cannot, and does not attempt to, complete. Does that make it a bad movie? Not at all. Just unpleasant and not the right pick on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
January 13, 2006
In the Words of Dr. King
As we embark on this 3-day weekend, I find it appropriate to honor the man for whom this holiday is celebrated. Much has been written, said and thought about Martin Luther King, but no person could more eloquently and effectively capture what Dr. King stood for than Dr. King himself. Below are some of my favorite portions of Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” They are as applicable to the quest for social change today as they were when they were written in 1963. If you are interested, click here for the entire letter.
In response to the contention that Dr. King, an outsider, had no interest in the fate of Birmingham: “Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”
On the timing of his activities: “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."… Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait."… When you know forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”
On white moderates: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
On his willingness to break laws: “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."… One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
In response to the contention that Dr. King, an outsider, had no interest in the fate of Birmingham: “Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”
On the timing of his activities: “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."… Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait."… When you know forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”
On white moderates: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
On his willingness to break laws: “You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."… One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)