In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, I have been stirred by a few thoughts. I hesitated to write something because I was not directly affected by this event and thought adding my own voice to the incessant media noise that descended on Blacksburg would be of little value. But I’ve decided to go ahead and write because I do find myself thinking and feeling deeply about the tragedy and its aftermath (and I humblyrealize that my voice is only reaching my friends and family anyway). So here are my two cents….
Cent One
As a person who believes in the fundamental goodness of human beings and is constantly looking for external factors to explain how some people go sour, incidents like Virginia Tech remind me that there really are people in this world who will stop at nothing to do evil things. And they may be on a college campus near me or in my neighborhood or walking past me on the street. What makes Virginia Tech so devastating is that this did not occur in Baghdad (where, tragically, deaths of innocents of this magnitude are occurring every day) or Sudan (where, unbelievably, deaths of innocents of this magnitude have been occurring for decades), but on a college campus in classrooms not dissimilar from those many of us were once in. It is this familiarity with environment that has caused the Virginia Tech tragedy to have such an impact on me and drive home the fundamental fact that evil does exist in this world.
I hate writing the words “evil does exist” because it is such a simple explanation for this incident. It is almost lazy to dismiss the killer as one bad apple and not focus on the societal forces that worked to put him in possession of a gun, a sense of loneliness, and a desire to do harm to himself and others. That is my typical response – if I am robbed, it is not the individual I initially condemn, but the society that has kept him in poverty and convinced him of the need to obtain money or material things by any means necessary. Of course, ultimately, it is the robber who should primarily be held responsible. There are millions of others who are impoverished and need things but do not rob me. Despite the societal influences that impact all of our lives, it is ultimately the robber who has made the decision to do something wrong.
No matter what was going on in his life or what flaws there were in campus security or state gun control laws, it was ultimately the act of one bad apple that killed so many people. The work that is to be done now is to fix the things we can fix – security protocol, gun control, background checks – but with the sad understanding that external factors can’t always stop some human beings from going sour and impacting other lives in the process. I weep for the victims and their families’ shattered lives, but I am equally saddened to be reminded yet again that there are people who just are not fundamentally good and they can devastate society so easily.
Cent Two
Beyond the sadness I feel after this tragedy, the next most prominent emotion I’ve found has been revulsion at the media. Every time a crisis/incident/tragedy like this unfolds, I always find myself being turned off by the circus of media coverage that envelops those involved. In these moments, should victims’ families have to worry about issuing press releases?
Obviously, this is a story the media has to cover. And obviously, viewers/readers should be interested in the causes and details. But as I saw a campus filled with news trucks and microphones in the background of the coverage from every single channel, it struck me that the media had become vultures and I began to question the motivations for their being there. Were they there to cover the story and bring the rest of the country the news? Or were they there out of their own self-interest, searching for the most sensational angle to drive up their ratings? The NBC News release of the killer’s manifesto is the most glaring example of this, but the overall tone of the reporting was only a slight step up from the coverage that passes for news on my local evening news.
The truth is somewhere in the middle – there are some journalists who are there for the noble purpose of the profession, seeking and reporting facts, giving their audience a new perspective on a difficult event, and there are others who are there because they are supposed to be there and must be in order to selfishly maintain ratings/readers/viewers. As a pseudo member of the media, I wish we lived in a world where all journalists were in it for the noble cause just as as a pseudo member of the legal world, I wish all lawyers were in it to help people. But that isn't the world we live in, and besides, if I got my wish, neither journalists nor lawyers would ever get paid. I am certainly being too hard on the media because this is an important story that must be covered, but I know how the victims of Hurricane Katrina have been largely forgotten after a month of blanket coverage and I have little doubt that the circus will move on from Blacksburg as well.
April 24, 2007
April 17, 2007
Justice Being Served?
In American mythology, the part of Justice is often played by a blindfolded woman weighing competing evidence dispassionately. She is to reach her just conclusions without regard to the way an individual looks or what that individual thinks or which party that individual votes for.
At the Department of Justice, the blindfold has apparently been removed.
The recent firing of eight US Attorneys for what appear to be partisan purposes has led to an outright Washington scandal, complete with hearings and testimony and subpoenas. However, the US Attorney firings were merely a continuation of the practice of politicizing the Department of Justice that began the moment the Bush Administration – and with it, Attorney General John Ashcroft – took office.
DOJ is headed by political appointees, like Ashcroft, who serve at the pleasure of the President. These individuals set larger policies to ensure that the DOJ functions as part of the larger presidential administration but typically do not direct the thousands of cases being pursued by DOJ at any time. That task is left to the roughly 300 career attorneys who serve in DOJ regardless of who is in the White House. Through Republican and Democratic administrations past, there has been a mutual respect, if not always agreement, between the political appointees and the career attorneys.
By many accounts, that respect disappeared when the Bush Administration began shaping its Department of Justice, most significantly in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The mandate of the Civil Rights Division is to enforce the nation’s civil rights laws, whether by suing an employer for a pattern or practice of employment discrimination or enforcing voting rights laws against a state that is disenfranchising minority voters. Through changes in the procedures for hiring new attorneys and shifts in the types of cases it undertakes, the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales DOJ has transformed the Civil Rights Division into a partisan tool.
Prior to 2001, job applicants would be hired by career attorneys subject to approval from the political appointees. Under Ashcroft, this practice was abolished in 2003 as career attorneys were removed from the hiring process completely. The results were predictable. According to the Boston Globe, only 42% of the career attorneys hired in the two years after 2003 had civil rights litigation experience, compared to 77% in the two years prior. In addition, of those 42% who had civil rights experience, half had gained it by defending employers against discrimination or arguing against affirmative action policies.
Similarly, the perspective of the career attorneys has been minimized in selecting the cases and positions taken by the Department. Despite career attorneys’ recommendations to the contrary, the DOJ has come out in favor of redistricting efforts in Mississippi and Texas that have benefited Republican candidates and recommended approval of a Georgia voter identification law that the career attorneys concluded would disenfranchise minority voters. The number of enforcement actions being brought for employment and voting discrimination is down, while the number of cases brought on the theory of “viewpoint discrimination” (i.e., cases claiming discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs) is up.
Career attorneys have been resigning in protest of these policy shifts throughout the Bush reign, but are only now gaining an audience in Congress. Last month, a House Judiciary subcommittee held hearings on the Civil Rights Division. At the hearing, Joe Rich, a 37-year veteran and a former chief of the Voting Rights Section in the Civil Rights Division who left in protest in 2005 testified that “the political decision-making process that led to the questionable dismissal of eight United States Attorneys was standard practice in the Civil Rights Division years before these recent revelations.”
In this context, the firing of US Attorneys who were reluctant to pursue a partisan agenda makes perfect sense. This Administration has never made it the goal of the DOJ to pursue justice, but has used the Department as part of a larger effort to create a permanent Republican majority. Only time will tell if it has succeeded in permanently removing the blindfold from DOJ.
At the Department of Justice, the blindfold has apparently been removed.
The recent firing of eight US Attorneys for what appear to be partisan purposes has led to an outright Washington scandal, complete with hearings and testimony and subpoenas. However, the US Attorney firings were merely a continuation of the practice of politicizing the Department of Justice that began the moment the Bush Administration – and with it, Attorney General John Ashcroft – took office.
DOJ is headed by political appointees, like Ashcroft, who serve at the pleasure of the President. These individuals set larger policies to ensure that the DOJ functions as part of the larger presidential administration but typically do not direct the thousands of cases being pursued by DOJ at any time. That task is left to the roughly 300 career attorneys who serve in DOJ regardless of who is in the White House. Through Republican and Democratic administrations past, there has been a mutual respect, if not always agreement, between the political appointees and the career attorneys.
By many accounts, that respect disappeared when the Bush Administration began shaping its Department of Justice, most significantly in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. The mandate of the Civil Rights Division is to enforce the nation’s civil rights laws, whether by suing an employer for a pattern or practice of employment discrimination or enforcing voting rights laws against a state that is disenfranchising minority voters. Through changes in the procedures for hiring new attorneys and shifts in the types of cases it undertakes, the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales DOJ has transformed the Civil Rights Division into a partisan tool.
Prior to 2001, job applicants would be hired by career attorneys subject to approval from the political appointees. Under Ashcroft, this practice was abolished in 2003 as career attorneys were removed from the hiring process completely. The results were predictable. According to the Boston Globe, only 42% of the career attorneys hired in the two years after 2003 had civil rights litigation experience, compared to 77% in the two years prior. In addition, of those 42% who had civil rights experience, half had gained it by defending employers against discrimination or arguing against affirmative action policies.
Similarly, the perspective of the career attorneys has been minimized in selecting the cases and positions taken by the Department. Despite career attorneys’ recommendations to the contrary, the DOJ has come out in favor of redistricting efforts in Mississippi and Texas that have benefited Republican candidates and recommended approval of a Georgia voter identification law that the career attorneys concluded would disenfranchise minority voters. The number of enforcement actions being brought for employment and voting discrimination is down, while the number of cases brought on the theory of “viewpoint discrimination” (i.e., cases claiming discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs) is up.
Career attorneys have been resigning in protest of these policy shifts throughout the Bush reign, but are only now gaining an audience in Congress. Last month, a House Judiciary subcommittee held hearings on the Civil Rights Division. At the hearing, Joe Rich, a 37-year veteran and a former chief of the Voting Rights Section in the Civil Rights Division who left in protest in 2005 testified that “the political decision-making process that led to the questionable dismissal of eight United States Attorneys was standard practice in the Civil Rights Division years before these recent revelations.”
In this context, the firing of US Attorneys who were reluctant to pursue a partisan agenda makes perfect sense. This Administration has never made it the goal of the DOJ to pursue justice, but has used the Department as part of a larger effort to create a permanent Republican majority. Only time will tell if it has succeeded in permanently removing the blindfold from DOJ.
April 01, 2007
Help More Celebrate First Birthdays
NOTE: This column appeared in the April 1 edition of The Commercial Appeal.
Several weeks ago, a dozen babies gathered in our living room to celebrate my daughter's first birthday. It was a joyful afternoon of bubbles and balloons, singing and snacks -- the kinds of things all 1-year-olds should enjoy. Yet I know that in the Mid-South, many infants -- children who could have been my daughter's peers -- never make it to their first birthday.
What makes this sad fact more distressing is that we know what it takes to give children the best opportunity to survive -- proper vitamins and diet for the mother during pregnancy, prenatal health care, regular pediatric visits after birth, and careful attention to the tiny details through which babies send us signals about their health, hunger and happiness. Yet we do not do an adequate job of delivering the necessary information and services to the pregnant women whose children are most at risk.
The tragically high infant mortality rate in and around Memphis has been well documented. In 2005, Memphis had the highest infant mortality rate among the 60 largest American cities, a rate of 14 infant deaths per 1,000 births, twice the national average. In some of the poorest pockets of our community, the infant mortality rates are on par with those of several Third World countries. Statewide, Tennessee ranks 48th and the rates in Hardeman, Shelby, Tipton and Haywood counties are the worst in the state. Last month, this newspaper reported that the infant mortality rate in Mississippi, already the worst in the country, is rising, particularly in the Delta communities along U.S. 61. In the Mid-South, more human beings die each year before their first birthday than from homicides, even though we know the tools necessary to bring infant mortality rates down.
As a result of the notoriety born of such intolerable statistics, local and state leaders have pushed to make reducing infant mortality a top priority. Last spring, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen and Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton convened a workshop aimed at decreasing infant mortality. The Tennessee Department of Health has set a goal of bringing the state infant mortality rate down to the national average by 2010. In addition, local and national organizations with experience in infant health are converging on Memphis. In March, the founder of the Birthing Project, a program that matches pregnant black teenagers with women trained to guide them through pregnancy and a child's first year, was in Memphis meeting with potential volunteers.
These initiatives are a start, but more must be done. Too many women do not see a doctor during their pregnancy until they enter the hospital for labor. They neglect to visit the doctor because they do not have health insurance or because they cannot get time off from work or because they do not know that regular doctor visits during pregnancy drastically reduce the risk of infant mortality.
Among pregnant women in Tennessee who received no prenatal care, the infant mortality rate is astronomical -- 46 infant deaths per 1,000 births. In 2005, infants born to mothers who first received prenatal care in the seventh month of pregnancy or later were twice as likely to die as those born to mothers who received care during the first trimester.
To give our community's most vulnerable the chance to survive their first year, we must remove all barriers to pregnant women receiving prenatal care early and often. This means providing health care coverage to all pregnant women and infants, a goal addressed by Bredesen's CoverKids program, slated to take effect today.
But coverage is only the first step -- all efforts must be made to ensure that covered individuals actually enroll in the new program and that sufficient numbers of doctors and health care facilities serve those in the highest-risk areas.
We know not only that these steps can lower the risk of infant mortality, but also which women need attention the most. In addition to behavioral activities like smoking or drinking while pregnant, increased risk of infant mortality is highly correlated to a pregnant mother's social traits, including poverty and lack of education. Unfortunately, infant mortality breaks along racial lines as well. In Tennessee in 2004, the infant mortality rate for African-American mothers was more than two and a half times higher than that of white mothers.
So we know the mothers whose babies are most at risk for infant mortality and we know what it takes to lower that risk. It is a matter of delivering the proper information and care to the right women at the right time. As a community, we must embrace maternal health and work to ensure that the information and services necessary to give women the best opportunity to give birth to a healthy child reach those women most at risk early in their pregnancies. We will not eliminate the tragedy of infant mortality, but we must do better at protecting our most vulnerable.
Several weeks ago, a dozen babies gathered in our living room to celebrate my daughter's first birthday. It was a joyful afternoon of bubbles and balloons, singing and snacks -- the kinds of things all 1-year-olds should enjoy. Yet I know that in the Mid-South, many infants -- children who could have been my daughter's peers -- never make it to their first birthday.
What makes this sad fact more distressing is that we know what it takes to give children the best opportunity to survive -- proper vitamins and diet for the mother during pregnancy, prenatal health care, regular pediatric visits after birth, and careful attention to the tiny details through which babies send us signals about their health, hunger and happiness. Yet we do not do an adequate job of delivering the necessary information and services to the pregnant women whose children are most at risk.
The tragically high infant mortality rate in and around Memphis has been well documented. In 2005, Memphis had the highest infant mortality rate among the 60 largest American cities, a rate of 14 infant deaths per 1,000 births, twice the national average. In some of the poorest pockets of our community, the infant mortality rates are on par with those of several Third World countries. Statewide, Tennessee ranks 48th and the rates in Hardeman, Shelby, Tipton and Haywood counties are the worst in the state. Last month, this newspaper reported that the infant mortality rate in Mississippi, already the worst in the country, is rising, particularly in the Delta communities along U.S. 61. In the Mid-South, more human beings die each year before their first birthday than from homicides, even though we know the tools necessary to bring infant mortality rates down.
As a result of the notoriety born of such intolerable statistics, local and state leaders have pushed to make reducing infant mortality a top priority. Last spring, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen and Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton convened a workshop aimed at decreasing infant mortality. The Tennessee Department of Health has set a goal of bringing the state infant mortality rate down to the national average by 2010. In addition, local and national organizations with experience in infant health are converging on Memphis. In March, the founder of the Birthing Project, a program that matches pregnant black teenagers with women trained to guide them through pregnancy and a child's first year, was in Memphis meeting with potential volunteers.
These initiatives are a start, but more must be done. Too many women do not see a doctor during their pregnancy until they enter the hospital for labor. They neglect to visit the doctor because they do not have health insurance or because they cannot get time off from work or because they do not know that regular doctor visits during pregnancy drastically reduce the risk of infant mortality.
Among pregnant women in Tennessee who received no prenatal care, the infant mortality rate is astronomical -- 46 infant deaths per 1,000 births. In 2005, infants born to mothers who first received prenatal care in the seventh month of pregnancy or later were twice as likely to die as those born to mothers who received care during the first trimester.
To give our community's most vulnerable the chance to survive their first year, we must remove all barriers to pregnant women receiving prenatal care early and often. This means providing health care coverage to all pregnant women and infants, a goal addressed by Bredesen's CoverKids program, slated to take effect today.
But coverage is only the first step -- all efforts must be made to ensure that covered individuals actually enroll in the new program and that sufficient numbers of doctors and health care facilities serve those in the highest-risk areas.
We know not only that these steps can lower the risk of infant mortality, but also which women need attention the most. In addition to behavioral activities like smoking or drinking while pregnant, increased risk of infant mortality is highly correlated to a pregnant mother's social traits, including poverty and lack of education. Unfortunately, infant mortality breaks along racial lines as well. In Tennessee in 2004, the infant mortality rate for African-American mothers was more than two and a half times higher than that of white mothers.
So we know the mothers whose babies are most at risk for infant mortality and we know what it takes to lower that risk. It is a matter of delivering the proper information and care to the right women at the right time. As a community, we must embrace maternal health and work to ensure that the information and services necessary to give women the best opportunity to give birth to a healthy child reach those women most at risk early in their pregnancies. We will not eliminate the tragedy of infant mortality, but we must do better at protecting our most vulnerable.
March 19, 2007
Cinderella Nation Revisited
NOTE: This column references last year's NCAA Tournament column, available here.
Can we be a Cinderalla nation without a Cinderella?
That is the question I’m left pondering after a weekend of college basketball without a major upset. Last year, I wrote that the NCAA tournament gives us the most quintessential American tale – the Cinderella story – year after year. With the apparently level playing field in the tournament, any team could wear a glass slipper for a few weeks in March.
The results on the court bore out my theory – a quarter of the teams that won their first round games were double-digit seeds. Two double-digit seeds and five teams seeded worse than 6 survived the first weekend into the Sweet Sixteen. And the George Mason Patriots, an 11 seed from the unheard-of Colonial Athletic Association, knocked off three Goliaths on their way to the most improbable Final Four berth ever.
Last year’s results were so surprising that even as they underscored the first half of my theory – anything can happen – they cast doubt on the second half – but it usually doesn’t. The tournament, like the American dream it mimics, is not as fair as it seems, I wrote. But after George Mason, I began to wonder if maybe the playing field of the tournament was level after all.
Last year’s madness seemed to usher in the postmodern era for college basketball where conference affiliation, star players, and Hall of Fame coaches no longer mattered. Parity was the buzz word and an avalanche of upsets was predicted for this year’s tournament.
In short, the avalanche hasn’t happened. Of the forty-eight games played so far in this year’s tournament, only four qualify as genuine upsets. Only two-double digit seeds got through the first round and both were bounced in the second. Only two of the Sweet Sixteen is seeded 6 or worse. All four #1s, three #2s, and three #3s are still in.
All of which leaves us without a true Cinderella. The lowest seed remaining, #7 UNLV, has a championship banner from 1990. The two teams from so-called mid-major conferences, Butler and Southern Illinois, spent the majority of the season in the top 25 and earned good seeds. Like it or not, teams like Butler, Southern Illinois, and Gonzaga are becoming Goliaths of their own, albeit leaner ones.
Ironically, the Cinderella story from this year’s tournament may be predictability itself. Over the years, the tournament has captured our national attention by being unpredictable. In the wake of George Mason’s bracket-busting run last year, the only thing no one expected this year was exactly what we got – top seed domination. In the context of March Madness, what’s more unpredictable than predictability?
This development should be welcomed by all who love college basketball. We seemed headed to an era where anything really could happen, rendering the label of underdog irrelevant. How much of a fairy tale is it if Cinderella gets the prince every year?
This year’s tournament has restored order to the college basketball universe. At least until next year when it can be turned on its head once again. See you in March 2008.
Can we be a Cinderalla nation without a Cinderella?
That is the question I’m left pondering after a weekend of college basketball without a major upset. Last year, I wrote that the NCAA tournament gives us the most quintessential American tale – the Cinderella story – year after year. With the apparently level playing field in the tournament, any team could wear a glass slipper for a few weeks in March.
The results on the court bore out my theory – a quarter of the teams that won their first round games were double-digit seeds. Two double-digit seeds and five teams seeded worse than 6 survived the first weekend into the Sweet Sixteen. And the George Mason Patriots, an 11 seed from the unheard-of Colonial Athletic Association, knocked off three Goliaths on their way to the most improbable Final Four berth ever.
Last year’s results were so surprising that even as they underscored the first half of my theory – anything can happen – they cast doubt on the second half – but it usually doesn’t. The tournament, like the American dream it mimics, is not as fair as it seems, I wrote. But after George Mason, I began to wonder if maybe the playing field of the tournament was level after all.
Last year’s madness seemed to usher in the postmodern era for college basketball where conference affiliation, star players, and Hall of Fame coaches no longer mattered. Parity was the buzz word and an avalanche of upsets was predicted for this year’s tournament.
In short, the avalanche hasn’t happened. Of the forty-eight games played so far in this year’s tournament, only four qualify as genuine upsets. Only two-double digit seeds got through the first round and both were bounced in the second. Only two of the Sweet Sixteen is seeded 6 or worse. All four #1s, three #2s, and three #3s are still in.
All of which leaves us without a true Cinderella. The lowest seed remaining, #7 UNLV, has a championship banner from 1990. The two teams from so-called mid-major conferences, Butler and Southern Illinois, spent the majority of the season in the top 25 and earned good seeds. Like it or not, teams like Butler, Southern Illinois, and Gonzaga are becoming Goliaths of their own, albeit leaner ones.
Ironically, the Cinderella story from this year’s tournament may be predictability itself. Over the years, the tournament has captured our national attention by being unpredictable. In the wake of George Mason’s bracket-busting run last year, the only thing no one expected this year was exactly what we got – top seed domination. In the context of March Madness, what’s more unpredictable than predictability?
This development should be welcomed by all who love college basketball. We seemed headed to an era where anything really could happen, rendering the label of underdog irrelevant. How much of a fairy tale is it if Cinderella gets the prince every year?
This year’s tournament has restored order to the college basketball universe. At least until next year when it can be turned on its head once again. See you in March 2008.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)