Unity Strategy Requires Persuasion

The first time I came across a bumper sticker with the campaign slogan for mayoral candidate Herman Morris, I was impressed at the simple yet meaningful message: Together. For a change. There are two potential meanings, both appropriate for this moment in Memphis history: "We will do things together for a change," or "We will work for a change, together."

Fellow contender Carol Chumney is also sloganeering for change. Her campaign mantra (For the People, For a Change) seeks to tap into the same appetite for a new direction in city leadership, while the slogan on Mayor Willie Herenton's billboards and Web site (Continuing Progress) promises to build on the accomplishments of his previous terms. This election season, it has been the mayor's unofficial slogan (Shake the Haters Off) that has gotten the most attention, but it is Morris' theme of togetherness that I find most intriguing.

This column is not meant as an endorsement or rejection of any candidate -- there is far more to judge all three of these hopefuls on than their slogans. Instead, with the election just over two weeks away, I wonder whether a campaign based on togetherness, as Morris' campaign is, can succeed in Memphis.

Memphis has a history of electing candidates whose campaigns divide, rather than unite, the community, and much of that dividing occurs along racial lines. In 1967, Henry Loeb was elected with virtually no African-American support, a strategy that did not serve him well as the city encountered the sanitation workers' strike of 1968. More recently, Herenton was first elected in 1991 with little white support over incumbent Dick Hackett by a mere 142 votes.

In a book studying the 1991 election, "Racial Politics at the Crossroads," Rhodes College professors Marcus Pohlmann and Michael Kirby wrote that Memphis had reached a "point of racial reflexivity," where any crossover support for one candidate would dampen enthusiasm (and with it, potential voter turnout) in the candidate's own racial community. For candidate Herenton, therefore, any impression of white support was likely to diminish the crusade-like enthusiasm in the African-American community that ultimately made it possible for Memphis to elect its first black mayor. Indeed, Herenton received approximately 3 percent of the white vote, while Hackett received only 1 percent of the African-American vote in 1991.

If Herenton is to win a fifth term on Oct. 4, it appears that it will be won, just as his first election was, without substantial white support. In a July poll commissioned by The Commercial Appeal, only 4 percent of white respondents thought the mayor should be re-elected. In that sense, 2007 looks a lot like 1991.

Based on his slogan, Herman Morris is betting that Memphis has pulled back from the 1991 level of racial reflexivity and that an interracial coalition can sweep him into the mayor's office. His co-campaign manager John Ryder recently stated that Morris can win by getting 40 percent of the white vote along with 40 percent of the African-American vote. Whether Morris can garner that percentage in either community remains to be seen, but 16 years removed from the incredibly divided 1991 election, there is some evidence that a unifying candidate can succeed, regardless of that candidate's race.

Most significantly, Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton, former U.S. representative Harold Ford Jr. and Ford's successor, Rep. Steve Cohen, have enjoyed significant crossover voting, although in Cohen's case, his support in the African-American community was hard won and appears to be even harder kept. For his part, even Herenton has previously enjoyed substantial white support in rolling to his landslide elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003.

If Morris, or any candidate, is going to follow these examples of interracial coalitions, he will have to convince voters in diverse segments of the community that togetherness can and must work for Memphis to thrive going forward. As Herenton himself said after his historic first election in 1991: "As your new mayor, not just for a few, but for all Memphians, I envision a great and vital metropolis rushing excitedly towards the 21st century, a century which will feature a Memphis that proudly boasts equal opportunity and access, racial justice and peace, cultural unity and harmony -- for all."

That kind of interracial togetherness would be some progress worth continuing.

Ruling Can Light Way to Better Schools

When U.S. Dist. Judge Bernice Donald concluded last month that the Shelby County Schools district has not yet overcome the relics of segregation, the stunned reaction from school officials was unequivocal.

"Certainly we are disappointed by the ruling," said school board chairman David Pickler.

"It could have some very dramatic negative effects on the children of Shelby County," school attorney Rick Winchester added. Winchester went on to suggest that Donald's ruling could mean that education dollars would be diverted to busing and moving children to schools farther from their neighborhoods.

This practice of crying "bus" is a disservice to those the county schools serve and a distraction from what ought to be the goal of all parties involved -- providing the highest quality education to all Shelby County students. Compliance with Donald's ruling is -- forgive me -- not so black and white as the school officials seem to suggest.

Busing is not the only way for a school district to become unitary, and among the potential solutions, busing is probably the least appealing. Rather than frightening parents by alluding to the possibility of busing, school officials would do well to think outside of the busing box for creative ways to increase both the diversity and the educational quality in the Shelby County Schools. Where Winchester sees in the ruling the possibility of "dramatic negative effects," I see an unprecedented opportunity for Shelby County Schools to become a national model for equity and excellence in education.

Donald wrote that the true goal of any school desegregation plan is to provide equal educational opportunity to all students by eliminating racial isolation. For decades, as districts across the country were forced to comply with the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, the focus was on the elimination of racial isolation. Educational considerations were too often only secondary considerations.

In the 1960s and '70s, eliminating legally sanctioned racial separation was very important. But in 2007, with the benefit of a half-century of hindsight, districts like Shelby County have the opportunity to move beyond simplistic solutions such as busing and implement desegregation plans that embrace both the educational and the social ideals of Brown.

Using a combination of neighborhood schools with carefully drawn attendance zones, magnet schools that provide a variety of educational choices for parents, and lenient transfer policies combined with racial targets similar to those in Donald's ruling, districts across the country have achieved increased diversity by lifting the quality of all schools. In some instances, transportation is necessary, but it is far easier to convince a parent to accept busing when his or her child will be bused voluntarily to an exceptional school than when the child will be bused across town to a school no better, or worse, than the neighborhood school.

There is no reason to think the county schools cannot come up with a similar plan tailored to Shelby County in response to Donald's ruling. Devising such a plan is far more difficult than simply imposing busing, but county school officials need look no further than the Memphis City Schools to see the devastating effects busing can have on a district. The challenge is for school officials to resist the temptation to defensively use the threat of busing to criticize Donald's ruling and instead to develop a thoughtful, multifaceted desegregation plan that creates a world-class school district.

"In those instances where the Board adopted the Court's goal as its own," Donald wrote, "it has progressed with remarkable speed." The district should not miss this opportunity to adopt the goal of improving education across the system while eliminating instances of racial isolation. The initial signs of such adoption are not positive -- the board has already said it will appeal Donald's ruling -- but if the district does embrace the spirit of the ruling, there is no reason it should not progress with remarkable speed.

What Can Brown Do For Us Now?

After the U.S. Supreme Court's recent rejection of school assignment plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle that were aimed at maintaining racial integration in schools, a variety of pundits and scholars trashed the court for sticking a fork in the most revered decision of the 20th century, Brown v. Board of Education. However, the ideals of Brown -- providing students with equal educational opportunities regardless of race or background -- are far from dead. What has been missing from much of the criticism of the June 28 decision is an analysis of what exactly makes integrated schooling so beneficial, and what advocates for equity in education can do within this new legal landscape to recapture those benefits.

The court's decision is potentially calamitous because it handcuffs districts that are working to achieve racial diversity, thus threatening to eliminate the proven benefits of integrated classrooms. Numerous studies have shown that students who attended racially integrated schools -- such as the students in Louisville and Seattle -- show higher levels of tolerance toward individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and an increased sense of civic engagement, when compared with peers who attended more racially isolated schools. Academically, the benefits for African-American students are immense, with studies showing higher graduation rates, larger enrollments in advanced courses, and even higher post-schooling salaries for African-American students who learned in racially integrated schools. Preliminary studies show similar benefits for Latino students. Meanwhile, the racial composition of schools has proven to have no effect on the academic achievement of white students.

Recognizing these benefits, school officials in Louisville and Seattle enacted plans aimed at maintaining racial diversity, in certain circumstances considering a student's race in making school assignments. It was this minimal use of race to achieve the districts' goals that troubled the court (or at least its majority in the 5-4 decision). In a line from the ruling that is already famous, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Brown itself actually ended discrimination on the basis of race in making school assignments. Something more than just ending discrimination has been needed to achieve Brown's ideal of providing equal educational opportunities to students of all races. Now that the court has ruled that the "something more" can no longer include consideration of race to ensure integrated schools, the question education advocates must confront is how to recapture the benefits of integrated education within the new limits of the law. One avenue that offers a particularly hopeful outlook is a shift in focus away from racial integration and toward socioeconomic integration.

The disadvantages that characterize many racially isolated schools -- inequitable resources, higher teacher turnover, fewer advanced classes -- and the lower average outcomes for students attending those schools -- higher dropout rates, lower graduation rates -- are even more pronounced in schools with high concentrations of poor students. The same educational benefits that flow to African-American and Latino students in racially integrated schools will flow to poor students of all races in schools integrated by socioeconomics.

One district that already uses this model is Wake County (Raleigh), N.C. In Wake County, where socioeconomic integration has been in practice since 2000, low-income students perform better than similarly situated students in other North Carolina districts. In addition, Wake County's minority students outperform the minority students in similar districts throughout the state. And the improved outcomes are not limited to low-income and minority students. In 2003, Wake County had the second highest graduation rate among the nation's 50 largest school districts. In addition, the cultural benefits of racially integrated schools, such as higher levels of tolerance among students, can also be captured by socioeconomically integrated schools. Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between income and race, such that creating schools with children from differing income levels is likely to have the effect of also creating schools with children from different races. Wake County, for example, has maintained much of its previous racial integration since switching from a racial to a socioeconomic integration plan in 2000. Income-based assignment plans also have the legal benefit of not triggering the strict judicial scrutiny that follows whenever a decision is made based on a student's race, making them less vulnerable to challenge.

With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to create a world where the playing field for individuals of all backgrounds is as level as possible. That leveling begins in our schools. Although the Supreme Court removed a critical tool in achieving opportunities that are equal for students of all races, other tools remain. It is now up to advocates of equity in education to find new ways to pursue Brown's ideals with the tools we have left. They are ideals -- with proven cultural and academic benefits -- worth fighting for.

Supreme Court Notebook - Ledbetter

How much do you know about the salaries of your coworkers? Talking among peers about compensation is always a little awkward and one-third of private employers actually prohibit such discussions of wages. The odds are that unless you are in charge, in the payroll department, or downright nosy, you probably don't know much about the compensation of your coworkers. This would make it nearly impossible for you to discover -- especially within 180 days of the time your pay is set -- that you are a victim of pay discrimination. Yet last week, the Supreme Court ruled that pay discrimination claims not brought within 180 days of setting the discriminatory salary are time barred. Unless you are nosy, you're out of luck.

The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, was brought by the only female supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama. Ms. Ledbetter discovered late into her twenty year career at Goodyear that the salaries of males in the same position as her were higher -- the lowest paid man was paid $4,286 a month while Ms. Ledbetter earned only $3,727. In the trial court, Ms. Ledbetter was awarded $360,000 in back pay and compensatory and punitive damages, but that award was erased on appeal. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, holding that Ms. Ledbetter brought her claim too late.

The law states that in order to bring an employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that she suffered an "unlawful employment practice" in the 180 days prior to filing her complaint. Until last week's ruling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission operated under the theory that each paycheck distribution that reflected the discriminatory pay constituted a new "unlawful employment practice" that retriggered the 180 day clock. The Supreme Court, voting 5-4, disagreed.

Justice Ginsburg, notably the only woman on the Supreme Court (and someone who is paid the same amount as her male colleagues), read a blistering dissent from the bench. Justice Ginsburg wrote that even though Ms. Ledbetter had established that discrimination (as opposed to performance inadequacies) accounted for the pay differential, the Court's ruling "grandfathered" such discrimination in. "The unlawful practice," she wrote, "is the current payment of salaries infected by gender-based discrimination -- a practice that occurs whenever a paycheck delivers less to a woman than to a similarly-situated man."

I am not the first to criticize this decision and Senator Hillary Clinton has already pledged to introduce legislation that would render the decision moot. But it is disturbing that five members of the Supreme Court, including President Bush's two appointees, could be this out of touch with the purpose of discrimination laws. The world the Ledbetter opinion would create is one in which it is illegal to discriminate in pay based on gender, but only for the first 180 days after that pay is set. If an employer avoids a complaint during those first six months, the employer is free to discriminate for the rest of an employee's career.

The Supreme Court would dispute this characterization. They would argue that this is not so much a case about pay discrimination as it is about statutory construction. A theme of the more conservative members of the court -- including Justice Alito in this case -- is that it is not the Supreme Court's job to set public policy, but to interpret the law by strictly adhering to legislative text. The Bush Administration, however, who weighed in against the EEOC's interpretation, was singularly concerned with setting policy and the Supreme Court delivered precisely the policy the Administration sought. Even if the message the Supreme Court claims to have sent is "draft clearer legislation," the message they actually sent is "employers are free to discriminate if they are not caught in the first 180 days."

The advice to Americans is clear. For those beginning new jobs in the future, it would be wise on the first day to shake your coworkers' hands with the question, "And how much are you paid?" This will not only make you popular around the office, but if you do otherwise, the Supreme Court has ruled, you may simply be out of luck down the road.

Voting for Present and Future Memphis

(NOTE: This column appeared in the Commercial Appeal)


City government plays two distinct roles in the life of a city. First, it must deal with the issues of today, delivering services and providing a safe environment in which citizens can pursue their day-to-day business. Performing this role requires competence in management and administration as well as a commitment to serving a city's residents.


Second, government must dream of what a city will look like tomorrow. Elected leaders set priorities and policies that can affect the direction of a city well beyond the term of any elected official. Such dreaming requires both vision for the future and the ability to enact policies that point the city toward that vision.


With four months until the most important city election since 1991, it is time for Memphians to start thinking about which candidates provide the right combination of competence and vision to steer Memphis into the next decade and beyond. Too often, coverage of the elections focuses on the issues of today with little attention paid to the candidates' vision for tomorrow. Although the short-term tasks of government -- including, most importantly, confronting crime -- are what keep a city's wheels spinning, it is the forward-thinking vision that gets a city moving ahead.


So what are the issues Memphians ought to be quizzing the City Council and mayoral candidates about to get a sense of what they see in tomorrow's Memphis?


At the top of the list is education. If Memphis is to move forward, it will have to be on the shoulders of a new generation of citizens with the skills and learning abilities to support the 21st-century economy. Too often, this newspaper reports a story about a business that was considering a move to Memphis, but decided not to relocate here due in part to the "education level" of the workforce. Raising that level for Memphis students -- whether they attend city, county or private schools -- must be a priority.


Another top priority is how each candidate sees Memphis thriving economically in the future, as a vibrant business community can provide the jobs that will allow thousands of Memphians to flourish. The city government has several tasks in the area of economic development, beginning with support for existing businesses to help them prosper. In addition, leaders can sell the city's benefits to businesses considering a move to or growth in Memphis. Finally, and perhaps most critically, city government can strategically revitalize areas of the city best placed to attract the type of business growth that can lift an entire city.


Memphis is already well placed to become the nation's 21st century distribution hub if it can intelligently develop its "aerotropolis," or the distribution center built around the multibillion-dollar global air shipping industry. Candidates should present ideas to keep Memphis ahead of this curve and seek other areas in which the city can push ahead of the competition.


Finally, in this election, coming as it does during what feels like a turning point in local politics, the candidates should step forward to change the tone of pessimism and divisiveness that afflicts Memphis. For too long, Memphis has divided itself into factions -- racially, geographically, economically, politically -- that have stunted city prosperity. As factions grapple amongst themselves over municipal power, the larger community is left with the status quo.


For Memphis to truly move forward, city leaders must search for common ground, take risks that do not serve only the interests of their own political group, and be willing to consider opposing viewpoints with respect. Changing the self-identity of Memphis is not a task that can be accomplished in one term in office, but it is a challenge candidates must be willing to confront if Memphis is to reach its potential over the next decade.


It is up to all Memphis voters to ask the questions that push this year's candidates to present their ideas and priorities for the future. Only then will voters be able to reward those candidates who are thinking seriously about where our city could be in 2017 while still addressing the problems of 2007.