Old School Racial Politics

It was already a lose, lose situation. However, Illinois Representative Bobby Rush’s comments made it more of an uncomfortable one. Rep. Rush’s statements were indicative of old school racial politics. He squashed any questioning of Blagojevich’s appointee by claiming we need more African Americans in the senate. He goes further to put on notice anyone who questions the appointment. To praise the governor simply for appointing an African American is a lame argument.

The racial overtones were clear and unfortunate. While I can understand his frustration with the lack of racial diversity in the senate, to minimize the issue and use the race of the appointee to essentially bully people into submission is unnecessary. Rush attempts to elevate the appointment of an African American to “tremendous national importance.” Sure we need more African Americans in the Senate. We need more people of color in the ranks of government in general to be more representative of our society. However, you can get that point across without using the tactic of shaming us out of questioning the details of this messy situation.

Rush continues beyond his call for numerical increases asking us not to “hang or lynch” the appointee and to separate “the appointee from the appointer.” Again, the racial connotation is clear and to me sounds like an attempt to silence interrogators. He goes a step further to state, “I don’t think any US senator… want[s] to go on record to deny one African American from being seated in the US senate.” This assertion is what got me fired up. Part of me understands that he was trying to stand up in the face of immediate allegations that Burris is tainted based on his appointment by the controversial governor. However, the comment wreaks of old school racial politics.

Historically, it was generally accepted to block the achievements of a person solely based on race. In that pre-Civil Rights Movement climate, it makes sense to call out those who dare to stand in the way of a qualified individual. However, racial politics have progressed. To be clear, racial discrimination occurs, and I’m sure blocks the progress of many. However, the issues are more complicated and to intimidate senators from coming forward to question an appointee because of his race is to send the message that you assume we live in the past tense. It misses the complexities of race today and does a number on intergroup dialogue.

To be fair, Roland Burris does have a long history of service in the state of Illinois. In many ways, it was a safe choice given the fact that the people of IL voted him into office on numerous occasions. However, he has a number of obstacles before him regardless of his race. For starters, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White stated that he would not certify the appointee and majority leader Harry Reid stated the Democratic caucus would not seat the appointee. For these reasons and more that we have yet to uncover, Rush’s use of old school racial politics to make race the front and center issue misses the mark.

What's in a Greeting?

The holiday season always reminds me how territorial we can be. The “war on Christmas” argument is revived and we are made to feel “damned if we do, damned if we don’t.”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with saying “Merry Christmas,” but there’s also nothing wrong with being sensitive enough to consider whether or not the phrase fits the recipient.

If you know someone is Christian, it’s easy. But if you know that someone follows another faith tradition, why would you be intent on wishing him or her a Merry Christmas? If you are in a friendship circle where you each wish each other a Happy Divali, Eid Mubarek, etc, perhaps it wouldn’t be too out of place. But my hunch is that many of us Christians use Merry Christmas as a greeting out of laziness. It becomes the “How are you doing? Fine.” exchange of the season.

I think retailers have caught onto this reality. If the clientele you are trying to reach is diverse, why use a phrase that narrows your market? You would not want to narrow the pool of potential customers. I suspect conservative Christians might argue that the omission of the phrase is offensive, and the retailer could potentially lose Christians’ business. This hunch certainly seems to be the case for a group of women in Mahoning Valley, Ohio who became frustrated that clerks in stores were replacing “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays.” They raised funds to erect 10 billboards this season to express their views. However, I would caution us from making grand assumptions. Christians are not monolithic in their thinking; therefore, it would be a false assumption that every Christian is offended when not greeted with “Merry Christmas.”

The “War on Christmas” has fueled this false assumption. Bill O’Reilly was the first person that came to mind when I thought about this controversy. But upon further reading (link to http://www.alternet.org/story/111465/the_white_nationalist_behind_bill_o%27reilly%27s_war_on_christmas/?page=1), I learned that the concept had another author. It seems that a conservative writer, Brimelow, birthed the idea years before O’Reilly brought it to mainstream media. His work comes from the perspective that immigrants and other cultures are responsible for the unraveling of the “ethnic core” of America. Our country was founded by Christian men and infused with Christian ideas. Yet from the beginning we espoused separation of church and state and struggled with how to recognize the diversity present in our nations’ inhabitants. Even if Christians have had the upper hand, this position is in no way a guarantee. And furthermore, wouldn’t we want to model respect and inclusiveness rather than narrowness given that we might not always be the dominant group in power?

So, thinking more broadly, how would our society respond if Muslims demanded we greet them with Eid Mubarek or Jews threw a media fit to be wished a blessed Yom Kippur? My hunch is that we would think, “Who do they think they are?” Whether we would admit it or say it out loud is another question. You could argue that there’s no way we would know these important events, because they are not national holidays. That would be true, but then you have to ask the important question: “Why it is that only Christian holidays are national holidays?”

In my opinion, it’s not about what phrases are plastered on TV or expressed by clerks, but more importantly, how aware we are of what different members in our society hold dear. I am reminded of the time when our faculty scheduled a meeting on Yom Kippur. No one caught the mistake until a Jewish faculty member spoke up. I am certain that it would have been caught sooner had the meeting been scheduled on Christmas. No one was purposeful about the scheduling, but it was certainly a clear indication of the fact that we were generally unaware of our Jewish colleagues.

What I think is really going on is that we Christians are having some difficulty sharing. We’ve been the main show, gotten national recognition, and now feel as if something is being taken away from us. We’re like the big sibling feeling displaced by the younger sibling. If we take that analogy a step further, even though the big brother feels as if things are being taken away, the family is really just making room for the other child. This shift might involve recognizing the needs of the younger child and generally making room for the family to grow. Similarly, the USA is working to accommodate the various religious groups that are represented in our society: growing pains.

“Merry Christmas” being replaced by a more generic term merely represents our awareness and sensitivity to the diversity of our nation. It does not mean that we hate Christians, Christmas or Christ. It also does not mean that the term should be outlawed. The older sibling often feels displaced, throws tantrums and swears the parents are playing favorites. Let’s get beyond our sibling rivalry and accept that our family has, simply, grown.

Faulty Comparisons

The recent criticism of Obama being the anti-Malcolm X is indicative of the tendency to homogenize racial groups. An Al-Qaeda leader suggested that Obama, along with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell, were “house negros.” This term refers to Blacks who are deferential to Whites. Obama was called out further as a betrayer to his Muslim heritage. The question of these leaders’ differences and/or similarities has ensued.

The comments are problematic on a couple of levels. Specific to the claim, Obama is not the opposite of Malcolm X. Only if we are limited to a surface analysis do these men appear to contradict each other: Malcolm X the militant hater of the Blue-eyed devil and Obama the peace-loving, bridge-maker. Of course these are gross over-generalization. When you dig deeper and acknowledge the full breadth of Malcolm X’s life, you understand that after his pilgrimage to Mecca, he no longer espoused anti-White views. His desire for connectedness and freedom for all people is far from opposite of Obama. Al-Qaeda conveniently chose one sliver or Malcolm X and Obama in attempt to draw a contrast.

More generally, the comments highlight the assumption that all members within a racial group are and should be the same. First, the premise is false. Biological research has confirmed that there is more within group variance compared to across group variance. People in one racial group are far from monolithic.

Second, these comments mask the real issue- that we use the category of “race” to lump together a wide variety of different cultures and ethnicities. Take the term “Asian-American” for example. What does it really mean? Nothing much given that it is merely an umbrella term for a group, which includes a host of languages, nationalities and worldviews. Yet surely we could name the “Asian stereotype.” These assumptions- that Asians are quiet, good a math and science and so forth- fail to capture the complexities and realities of all those identified as “Asian American.”

Finally, these assumptions perpetuate the problem. The narrow expectations that we create for racial categories limit our understanding of individuals who make up the group. It then seems discongruent if Obama, Malcolm X, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have different perspectives. They are all Black, right? So, they should all be the same.
Judging group members harshly when they don’t conform to the overaching stereotypes merely perpetuates the limited perceptions.

To the final point- who gets to decide what is the norm against which all other group members are compared? Who does it benefit to have such a narrow view of racial groups? It’s worth contemplating in detail. However, generally who ever is in power gets to shape the definitions and it is done so to benefit the status quo. However, once these limitations are set in motion, we all become complicit in the insidious way in which they take the place of true connection and understanding. Failing to see the dissimilarity in people from similar racial groups simply reifies the boundaries we have created. So, rather than spending time entertaining whether Obama is or is not the opposite of Malcolm X, I think it would behoove us to question why similarities are expected simply due to racial membership.

The Power of Building Bridges

America can change. This much is true. It was evident in the reflections of both candidates. Obama called for a renewed sense of unity, accountability and self-reliance. His speech was a call to action for all Americans to join together. The tracing of the life of Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106-year-old voter, was poignant and displayed the shape and stride of our history.

The speeches provided a glimpse into the tenor of both campaigns. I say campaigns, because this critique goes beyond the men who verbalized the messages. Essentially, both men aimed to inspire our nation to persevere in the face of tough times. However, the way they went about it differed drastically. Obama spoke of unity and attributed his win to the voices of all Americans- “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled.” He used the opportunity to expand the reach of his achievement beyond himself and his race.

McCain’s message was more narrow suggesting Obama won “ by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president.” He went on to say, “This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.” McCain limits the significance of Obama’s win to African Americans. Furthermore, he seems to suggest that the reason for the win was Obama’s ability to inspire the “wrongly” disenfranchised. The problem with this rhetoric is that 1) it is not statistically possible for Obama to have won with that sole voting block, therefore McCain’s comments fail to recognize the range of demographics of Obama supporters. And 2) it fails to acknowledge the relevance that Obama’s win has for each and every one of us.

Part of me believes that McCain did not intend for his words to be perceived in this way. However, he goes on to say, “Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.” This further statement leads me to think that he is not simply complimenting Obama on his win but rather putting on notice the Michelle Obamas and Rev. Jeremiah Wrights who speak out against the injustices of our nation. It seemed a direct challenge to anyone who might critique our nation, because in doing so they would appear ungrateful.

I felt McCain’s comments suggested that being critical of our nation and proud of it are mutually exclusive. That claim is false and counterproductive. We improved as a nation because we had courage enough to face what needed to changed rather than remain blindly loyal to false and contradictory ideals.

The fact of the matter is that Obama’s election does not instantly change the state of the union. His win provides a great opportunity for reconciliation and coalition building does not make racism, and injustice in general, non-issues.

If we recognize that issues of injustice happen on an institutional, cultural and individual level, it is clear that symbolically Obama’s presidency is a major achievement. However, it alone does not change the systematic disadvantages in education; it does not abolish the negative stereotypes of people of color in the media; and it does not limit the individual actions of hatemongers. Despite the historic occasion, we have much work to do.

It is essential that as we move forward in unity that we be accountable to each other as American citizens. That will require each citizen to do his or her part but also us a nation to be honest about the equality of opportunity that we uphold as an ideal. While we should not get caught up in what is wrong with our country losing sight of our progress, it should be clear that we can cherish our American citizenship without being blind to its injustices.

I think the spirit of the candidates’ words last night paralleled the spirit of the campaigns and gave us a sense of how Obama succeeded in blurring lines of division and reaching out to ultimately win the race.

All or Nothing

I’ve asserted time and time again that “race matters,” but given the recent happenings it’s also important to be clear that it is not “everything.” It seems that our default is to claim colorblindness or name race as the cause and cure. The dichotomy that race means nothing at all or drives one’s every move is false. In order to be an inclusive society, we must recognize what an individual’s race and ethnicity might bring while at the same time connecting with what is common among us.

Colin Powell has the right to break with the Republican Party without it being attributed to his race. Interesting that When Colin Powell was in lockstep with the Republican Party, he was “a fine American.” His race didn’t matter. However, when he breaks from the party he must have done so because of his race. The contradiction and convenience of this appraisal should be clear- never mind the thoughtful critique, which prefaced his announcement. Seriously, Powell could have made the same comments and ended with supporting McCain, and there would have been no mention of his race in the post-hoc analyses.

Voters in western Pennsylvania have the right to support McCain without being considered racists or rednecks. If we are willing to be honest with ourselves, all areas of our country have stories that we would be embarrassed to tell related to racial hatred. There is nothing that makes this area of the country “more racist” or “more American.” Again, that sort of either/or, us/them, right/wrong dichotomy is limiting in the long run. No wonder, as a country, we continue to grapple with how to truly become a multicultural society.

Until we are willing to recognize racial and ethnic identity as an important yet not all-encompassing part of peoples’ lives and motivations, we will remain trapped in this dichotomy. Identities are complex. Think about your own experiences that have shaped who you are. It wasn’t just your gender or simply your socioeconomic status. How offended would you be if with every move you made, someone assumed it was because of your class? Religion? Or gender? “That’s not ALL of who I am!” you would shout. So why, then are we intent on pigeonholing others? One answer is that it’s easy. Another is that we are too scared to really get to know the “other” to be equipped to understand them as more than their label. Perhaps Obama’s race was one factor in the many that Powell weighed. Perhaps the same is true for some voters in Pennsylvania. My assertion is that we cannot immediately vilify them if it is nor assume that race is the only factor at play.

It makes sense why some Whites fear people of color in positions of power if the assumption is that one can only act in the interest of one’s racial or ethnic group. If that were the case, then men would only lead for the betterment of men, and the rich only to further promote the interest of the rich. While in some ways as a country we have lived through this worst nightmare, we have also shown the potential to seek the greater good. For example, while it took time and failed attempts for women to receive the right to vote, it was men in political positions of power that made the decision. Those parts of our history would suggest that one does not lead from only one aspect of his or her identity. Fear of the unknown, or perhaps what is thought to be known, is the only reason I can think that people would believe that race would be any different.

Powell got it right when he discussed the inherent falsehood of what has been espoused by some Republicans. He discussed the attempt to use Obama’s Muslim father as slander and a reason to distrust his intentions as president (Notice I am not articulating that McCain, in particular, stated these assumptions. In fact, he stood up for Senator Obama. Rather it is the tone in which numerous members of the party- which McCain has been chosen to represent- have pushed to keep raising these questions perhaps to raise doubts and sway votes. But I digress.) Powell’s response was poignant in that he stated, “The correct answer is that he is not a Muslim…. But the really right answer is, ‘what if he is?’” Powell points out that the fact that the question itself is amiss in that it capitalizes on our fear of difference. If we deconstruct the insinuation, it suggests it would be dangerous and scary if a Muslim ran our nation, because (fill in the blank). As if that person’s faith would rule every decision and those outside of the faith would be persecuted. Were all non-Catholics persecuted after Kennedy bucked the trend of Protestant presidents? No. So why should we make such false assumptions now that we are possibly on the precipice of another change? Perhaps it is the visible nature of this change. We couldn’t literally see Kennedy’s Catholic-ness, but you can’t miss Obama’s skin color. One can only hope that just as we got used to expanding our conceptions of our leader in the 1960s, we might be able to do the same if Obama is elected.

Inclusiveness not only means accepting people along with their differences. It means recognizing that all motivation does not come from that one aspect of who they are. It means doing so without pushing them to abdicate membership in those groups. It means moving beyond dichotomous thinking to complexity. We can’t invoke race when it is convenient and ignore it when it’s a nuisance. While these dynamics are severely heightened during our election season within a two-party system, I believe they are partly responsible for why many find it difficult to envision a diverse and inclusive society.

Connecting the Dots

Can we please stop acting surprised that race matters? It’s been a focal point in the media’s recent discussion of the election- mostly that some people consciously or unconsciously will not vote for Obama because of his race. Don’t get me wrong. I agree that race is a relevant construct in our present day. However, the media’s sense of shock that their own pumping of negative stereotypes of Black men in particular, and African Americans in general, just might have an impact on the way some perceive Barack Obama is exasperating.

Research has found that not only are images of African Americans skewed negatively compared to the portrayals of Whites but theses images affect viewers’ attitudes. So, those who watched more television were more likely to judge stereotypical representations of Blacks as more realistic. That means that we start to believe the images we see are accurate portrayals rather than distortions. They become self-fulfilling stereotypes. We are then more prone to attend to attributes and individuals who fit our ideas rather than those who disconfirm them. You can easily do your own study to replicate the findings of research that found Blacks were overrepresented as perpetrators of violence by watching your local news. Even though statistically, Whites are more likely to be victimized by other Whites, media and news sources over represent Blacks as criminals thereby increasing fear and mistrust. Therefore, we should not be surprised when some White voters express uncertainty about Obama based on race. If all we take in about Black men is even half true, Obama must be dangerous.

Add to the equation that we live in a segregated society. So much of our knowledge about those who are different from us comes from the media. If you live in a diverse city or an integrated neighborhood, you might be disregarding me at this point. Stay with me. Even if where you live is racially diverse, calculate the percentage of people you have invited into your home that are of a different race or ethnicity. When we fail to have close relationships with people who are different from us, we rely more heavily on the images in the media. How else would we know about the other? For a large number of American’s these circumstances are their reality.

Media images are powerful. If you are still in doubt, consider the field of marketing. Corporations understand that imagery and messaging are key. Otherwise, they would not be spending millions to attempt to sway you to see things from their perspective.

When you put all of these pieces together- negative representations of Black men paired with the omission of positive images, segregation, lack of personal relationships across racial lines- it should not take long to understand why some Whites are skeptical of Obama. They just don’t feel like they can relate to him. They believe he is not trustworthy. He will not represent the interests of all of Americans. He’s a dangerous choice. I’m not leaving people of color out of this analysis, because they are just as susceptible to the negative imagery. Despite the increased likelihood of encountering opposing evidence, when these negative images are internalized, people of color can harbor those same beliefs. They become unable to see a person of color as capable of more than what is perpetuated in mass media. They become skeptical of the “exception.” Barack Obama becomes more than Barack Obama. He becomes a proxy for all of our ideas about Black men. We lose sight of the fact that his mother is White- that his grandmother, who was integral in raising him, was also. People have trouble seeing just him for who he is, and his message gets clouded by their expectations and misperceptions.

Related, I am not arguing it is an appropriate way to select the leader of our nation, but many have expressed affinity for a politician simply because he/she seems like “one of us” that they could “sit down and have a drink/coffee” with the person who seems “down to earth.” Personally, I think this argument is problematic for a number of reasons. However, examining the current issue at hand, it serves as another example of how race might influence voters. Insert images of Black men for Barack Obama and you have certain defeat. It’s the same reason the McCain/Palin ticket is attempting to link Obama to domestic terrorists. Who wants to sit down to for coffee with “that one?”

I am well aware that there are numerous Americans who will cast a vote regardless of race. But for those who are still caught up on Obama’s race, these dynamics very well might be a factor. Can we be honest with ourselves and stop acting surprised and clueless that these issues exist? Yes, race still matters. No, we are not immune to media imagery. And we continue to do our share to perpetuate it.

A Prejudice By Another Name Just Isn’t The Same

I’ve been struck by, well, a number of things in the past month. However, the most striking dynamic has been the consistent hypocrisy of Palin supporters crying sexism when Obama’s camp has been slammed for uttering race time and time again. Initially, I laughed (“Oh, now when it’s convenient, it’s OK to point out inequities.); then I was dumbfounded (“Seriously? You’re going to play the gender card after blasting Obama and Clinton for mentioning their identities?”); and now I think I’ve got it.

It was a common theme post-Palin-announcement and Cindy McCain, along with others, claimed that Palin was the target of sexism. If talking about all those cracks in the ceiling weren’t enough, such a claim certainly “injected” gender into the campaign. I use that term only because it was used when Obama was accused of injecting race into the campaign after mentioning that he does not look like all of our previous presidents (link to Who’s Playing Who). I, personally, think it’s laughable to say that a person is injecting something that is fully a part of who they are. It’s like the elephant in the room. Don’t talk about the fact that Obama is multi-racial or that Palin is a woman. Ridiculous. So, I am not suggesting that we ignore Palin’s gender. However, I am suggesting that it’s hypocritical to criticize Obama for mentioning his race. It’s also contradictory to vilify the spouse of one candidate for lamenting about the missteps of our country and not even blink- or better yet- rally behind the spouse of the other when she feels sexism is afoot.

Yet, I should not be surprised.

My observation of these dynamics is that the reactions parallel the stereotypes embedded in the isms (i.e. racism and sexism). We have a stereotype of women as docile, conciliatory, soft and so injecting gender into the campaign does not seem so threatening. We can tame that beast. It can even work to our advantage. Let’s talk about gender and then show how Palin takes the beauty queen role and flips it on its head. She’s a lady who is also ready to lead. How quaint.

On the other hand, we have a stereotype of Black men as aggressive, dangerous and unruly. Therefore, injecting race into the campaign brings with it a host of issues. We don’t want to engage or even admit to those ideas. If we allow that discussion, we fear it can’t be tamed. It will become out of control and dangerous- note the parallel. Pro-Obamas don’t want to further tie their candidate to the negative connotation of what it means to be Black in America (especially given the recent polls regarding racial attitudes), and anti-Obamas fear being called racists. Not so quaint.

Let me be clear, I am not in the business of ranking isms. I honestly feel that they are inextricably linked. Both isms are problematic. However, the conversations about race become heated much more quickly and are volatile from the outset, because we have created such a toxic picture of what it is to be Black. It’s all the more interesting to note that Obama is multi-racial and not Black or African American as we have traditionally defined the group. Yet he is just as entangled in the stereotypes of Black men, which speaks to the larger issue of how we label people in our society.

You might be remembering that Hillary Clinton got a pretty hard time for naming sexism. My analysis is that she was at a disadvantage, because she did not fit our idea of a woman closely enough. She was perceived as harsh and unfeminine in her power suits and told to suck it up and to stop crying fake tears. Palin is perceived as a caring mother of five, beauty queen who could pass as a librarian in her frames and skirt suit. With that, she can fight the political status quo without being called unfeminine. It seems that injecting gender into the race might even be to her advantage. Since she fits and fights the female image at the same time, perhaps the hope is that she will be embraced by all for whichever suits their fancy.

So what have we learned? At the very least it seems that it is much more acceptable to talk about gender if you are female republican VP candidate than if you are a multi-racial democratic presidential candidate. It’s more acceptable to talk about sexism in our society than it is to talk about racism. As we race to see which targeted group will go down in history as the first, let’s not kid ourselves that we don’t see the relevance of Obama’s race or Palin’s gender. I don’t purport to know why the double-standard exists, but I have certainly seen a great deal of it lately.

Post 9/11 Misperceptions Linger

As we reflected on the tragedy of 9/11, my mind shifted to the psychological aftermath of hypervigilence and misperceptions. The reality is that in a number of ways we “went after” those who looked like our perpetrators long before the Bush Doctrine. Muslims and people of Arab descent were targets of hate crimes, satire, comedic insult, distorted media images and the like. In some ways it seemed reminiscent of the climate, which I can only imagine, that preceded the Japanese internment camps. Assumptions were made based on the color of a person’s skin, and in this case, the professing of a certain religion. Never mind that on September 10^th these individuals were considered our neighbors and fellow Americans. Muslims and Arab Americans became “them”- no longer “us”- post 9/11.

Although seven years have passed, I’m not sure that our perception of Muslims has changed. One way we can expand our knowledge, and subsequently our perception, of Muslims is to learn about the culture. It is indeed a culture, a way of life, much more than a religion the way Americans conceptualize it.

I recently attended a Ramadan service led by the Muslim Students’ Association on my campus. Ramadan, the ninth month, is a month of fasting and realignment. It includes the most holy night of the year and is filled with fellowship. Students shared the meaning of Ramadan and their experiences growing up and at college.

During this service, I was struck by the parallel between Ramadan and Lent. Both seasons have an element of sacrifice- through fasting- meant to strengthen your relationship with a higher power. Through this practice the hope is that you will be renewed in your faith. Both periods of time involve recognizing the less fortunate, connecting with others in the faith community and culminate in a festive celebration. Of course they have their differences. Ramadan is considered a holy time because it was during this time that the Qur’an was revealed. Lent represents Jesus’ time in the desert prior to Easter.

You might ask, “So what?” You might even call me sacrilegious for making them. I raise the issue to say that it has become so common place to perceive Muslims as “the other” that it was a surprise to me when this connection popped into my head. Despite the attempt by some media outlets to portray real-life stories of Muslims the most common portrayal is not meant to help us see ourselves as similar. This reality is unfortunate, because as I said earlier Muslims are Americans. The questioning of this fact was only heightened post 9/11.

Getting back to my story- this personal account forced me to realize I had been keeping my distance from Islam. I have lived in a Muslim country, had numerous Muslim friends, yet I had let the distorted images of Islam cloud my ability to connect with the humanity of the religion. This prior knowledge did not make me immune to the distortions.

Yet the need to keep this distance serves our purpose as a country. In order to be at war, we need to see the “enemy” as the “other,” “them” “different from us.” It’s easier that way. Psychologically, we are less willing to wage atrocities on our neighbors or those we feel are similar. Yet it’s all a tangled mess, because we are not at war with Islam or Muslims in general. I share this personal example to say that we need to be careful about what messages we are taking in. This process can happen unconsciously, but through awareness and self-reflection you will see it rear its ugly head in your thoughts and actions. Psychology suggests that we think about “us” differently than we think about “them.” Once we’ve drawn those lines, we continue to see evidence to support the distinction. The roles of “us” and “them” change with time, but I would argue that we’re still feeling the aftermath of 9/11 in relation to our misperceptions of Islam.

Diversity in the Business World

Many people think that diversity in the business world is solely a numbers game. It can be conceptualized that way, but it usually fails. The first step is to define your terms. What do you mean by diversity? It is often helpful to have a broad definition, which can be broken down to focus on specific areas. For example, if you define diversity as “all the ways in which we differ,” you will need to then provide specifics that are relevant for your group. It might also be important to examine what aspects of diversity are represented in your community, potential customers, vendors, etc. These are populations which often go unexamined when discussing diversity. Increasing diversity in these areas might not immediately affect your bottom line but over time can make a real impact.

Training is essential. Trainings not only educate and motivate but also foster growth. In my consulting, I have found that some people refuse to get on board with diversity initiatives, because they don’t see the relevance. Take race for example, where I often here: “Race is no longer and issue,” or “I’m colorblind.” However, quality training can provide evidence for the unfortunate fact that 1) race continues to influence the distribution or wealth and resources in our country and 2) the construct affects us all to varying degrees. During one training, I showed a film of two professional discrimination testers- one White and one Black. Hidden cameras followed them as they attempted to get a job, buy a car, find a place to live and shop in the mall. Basically, the Black man experienced overt and covert racial discrimination. For example, the White man went to look at an apartment and was given the master key. When the Black man came, the apartment was “unavailable since a woman put a hold on it that morning.” This film was an “ah-ha” moment for several White males in the training. What struck one of the men the most was that these instances were real and unambiguous. He had heard people complain about discrimination but assumed that they were hypersensitive, overreacting or misinterpreting the situation. Not only were these instances that he witnessed occurring, but without the cameras we would have had no way of knowing due to their subtlety. Beyond the discrimination experienced by the Black man, the trainee also became aware of ways he might have been advantaged in unknowing and unsolicited ways. He left that training more aware of the ways in which race influences daily experiences.

Once you get people on board, through education, personal revelation or simple economics, you can begin moving forward with initiatives. Nothing is worse than individuals feeling as if diversity is being shoved down their throats. If you push ahead without buy-in, you are in for resistance and push-back. It’s no small feat, but it is essential to make it clear that diversity is a shared goal that cuts across the company. One way this can be done is by having leadership model the value of diversity through acknowledging (through awards or simple recognition) individuals who have engaged in company initiatives or developed new ways to foster interaction across lines of difference. It does not take long for employees to gravitate towards behavior that is being consistently rewarded.

If you are interested in examining company models, there a numerous options, but consider Kraft Foods or Aflac. They are clear about valuing diversity and making it something that is not only encouraged but rewarded from entry-level to upper management. Both companies also have employee councils, which provide support and develop initiatives geared towards various groups.

Still not convinced? More than 70% of Fortune 500 companies have diversity initiatives. It’s an important investment.

Got Diversity?

It’s worth pondering. How do you measure it? Some would quickly say it’s a numbers game. But is that the whole story? If we had the “ideal” mix of people, but those people simply coexisted in the same space, would that be diversity? OK, enough with the questions. I want to suggest that we consider multiple aspects of the term “diversity.” Social psychologist Patricia Gurin and colleagues have differentiated between structural, classroom, and interactional diversity. Structural diversity refers to the numerical representation of diversity and is necessary, but insufficient, in guaranteeing that people will have meaningful cross-racial interactions. Classroom diversity refers to knowledge of diverse people; whereas, informal interactional diversity involves the frequency and quality of intergroup interactions. Of these types of diversity, interactional seems to come closest to reaching the ideals espoused in vision statements. In part, these statements are put forth because diversity has become a sought after attribute of many institutions- colleges and universities in particular. They want to prepare students for a diverse and democratic society, and that cannot happen by osmosis. It takes more than diverse groups co-existing. It takes intergroup contact, relationships and engagement. Along the way, knowledge is gathered and perspective-taking skills increase. Even still, classroom diversity has its limits since book knowledge lacks the dynamics of real-life interaction.

Although this theory is rooting in the college setting, it also has implications for the wider population. As a society, we also need structural, informational (classroom), and interactional diversity. I believe the most transformative of these types is interactional, because a person who engages across lines of difference most likely also seeks knowledge about other groups and supports efforts of structural diversity. To answer my initial question, we need to examine our social circles, neighborhoods, workplaces and communities. It should not be expected that we can answer affirmatively for all of these domains given that our country remains quite segregated in various regards. However, it’s worth the reflection. We can look at the make-up of our social circle, neighborhood, schools, boards and city officials to examine structural diversity. Then, we can reflect personally and as a community about our knowledge of people who are different from us. Do we harbor misperceptions about our neighbors who have different traditions? Do we accurately portray various groups in the media? To examine interactional diversity, we can think about who we have invited to our home over the past year or which neighbors we actually associate with. These are all just suggestions to get you started on your own self-reflection.

You might ask, “Why?” Well, research has found that there are benefits to diversity. Basically, we all experience cognitive gains from enriched environments and encountering new stimuli. We know that a diverse educational environment has positive impacts on student learning, critical thinking, interpersonal competencies, self confidence and civic engagement. Although the research has not been replicated beyond college samples, it might not be too far of a leap to suggest that some of these benefits could also occur in a diverse community, workplace or social network. So, it seems a question worth asking- got diversity?

Who's Playing Who?

I was struck by the political commentary asserting Obama made a huge mistake in accusing McCain of using his “risky traits” to instill fear.

I think we could pretty much agree that there are numerous ways to disrupt or halt conversation. For some it might be bringing up religion or politics in casual conversation. In racial dialogues a surefire way to shut someone down is to accuse them of being racist. End of conversation. You win. They lose. We all know it is more complicated, but that’s the long and short of it in our society. We rarely stop to analyze the situation. We simply pick sides and talk past each other. It’s kind of like throwing a grenade and trusting it will do major damage- no need to worry about the details. It’s a really dirty way to fight- especially when the accusations are false and are simply used to smear the reputation of another. When that is the case, we’re being passive-aggressive. We’re trying to appear as if we’re not being confrontational, yet we are being just that. It’s subtle, might be accomplished through omission rather than commission, but there is no mistaking it. Well, sometimes there is.

I believe McCain succeeded is being similarly passive aggressive today while hurling the assertion that Obama is “playing the race card.” He did it in two ways. The first way he accomplished it was by never coming out and saying it directly. He agreed with a reporter’s assertion that Obama was playing the race card, called it “unfortunate,” and refused to comment further. So, we can’t really claim that he said it, right? I think his approach was to throw out the grenade and see how much damage it would do. By refusing to engage, he didn’t give us any direction, any understanding of how he came to the opinion, or what evidence he gleaned and weighed.

The other way in which he succeeded was by having what little detail there was about his position come from others who were extremely vague. Members of his campaign called Obama’s comments divisive, shameful, wrong, and from the bottom of the deck. Oh, now I understand.

I don’t think McCain’s accusation of Obama playing the race card without being willing to engage in details of why he feels this way is any more defensible than someone calling another person racist and upon being asked why saying “because.” These are loaded accusations. To not discuss the nuances, in my opinion, leaves McCain playing the race card just as much as he accuses Obama of doing so. By not delving further, we don’t know what he thinks. If people agree with him, they can simply insert their own reasons. We are left unable to critically analyze, and maybe even accept, his argument. He’s killed the conversation before it’s even started. He’s hoping we declare him the winner (in this round and the ones to follow).

Obama simply stated observations: his name is not mainstream, he is very different from the Presidents on the dollar bills- namely with relation to race. Rather than acknowledge that these reflections are in line with the reality of the circumstances, McCain interpreted them as “playing the race card.” At least that is what I can surmise since he refuses to engage in conversation.

Personally, I don’t think it’s clear who has won this round, but I do know that we have a new way to, without explanation, bring conversations to a halt. Add “You’re playing the race card” to the list of conversation killers 101.

Getting Paid To Learn: Is it Enough?

CNN’s special report on being Black in America raised a host of issues, but the one that stood out to me most is education. The achievement gap is not a new problem. Black children continue to under-perform and we continue to be unsure how to remedy the situation. The special raised the question of whether students should receive monetary incentives for good grades. A Harvard economist, Roland Fryer, has instituted a program in New York City which pays students for test scores. Other cities, such as Baltimore and Atlanta, are following suit. The data aren’t in as to whether this approach works in the long-run, but short-term results suggest that the incentives are motivating students.

It’s important, though, to critically examine the variables at play and the methodology that would be needed to deem this approach a success. Those who support this perspective, say that money is an easy way to motivate students to perform in the short-term so that they can be better positioned for the long-run. However, some students are making the decision to work hard and study without these incentives. The difference is intrinsic motivation- the desire to engage in a behavior in the absence of obvious external reinforcers. An example would be the student who studies for studying’s sake. Adding money as an incentive for studying introduces an external reinforcer- rather than an internal reason to study, an individual now also has an external motivator. Some research suggests that when you reward someone for behavior that intrinsically motivating, it can decrease the motivation to continue the behavior. So, if we apply this finding, we could spoil the intrinsic motivation that some students have for learning by offering the monetary reward.

However, we can’t be too quick to bash these programs. My hunch is that it works for certain students. The incentive programs have been mostly aimed at low-income youth and inner city schools. A number of students attending these schools have a host of factors influencing their lives which complicate the idyllic “your job is school” mentality. For example, these students have to possibly contend with financial stress, neighborhood violence, and schools lacking physical and human resources just to name a few stressors. On average a student in a middle-class or upper-middle class family have fewer of these extraneous variables to tackle in addition to focusing on their schoolwork. Perhaps for those students whose lives are already full of demands beyond their years, a basic monetary reward is enough to re-focus their attention towards school. We’ll have to wait until the results start to roll in to know for sure. We’ll know more if we have data from students who were and were not a part of the program from 1) inner-city, resource-poor schools 2) suburban, resource-rich schools, and 3) students from a variety of sociodemographic backgrounds. With that information was can compare results and have a greater understanding of who these incentives work for and for whom they do not.

That last point reminds us that closing the achievement gap is not going to happen with one approach. These interventions are not one-size-fits-all. We have to understand that while we develop programs to students achieve, we also have a responsibility to provide them with educated teachers, safe environments and current resources. Those are the missing variables. Say we find that the monetary incentives work. We can pay kids to study but that does not change the fact that some are learning in dilapidated buildings out of old books with no computer in sight. There are institutional changes that would help support individual students in their pursuit of education. I recall a story of a young girl from Appalachia who graduated at the top of her class and dreamed of being a doctor. Yet, when she entered college, she was years behind her peers in math and science. Whether she earned money for her grades through her early education or had the intrinsic motivation to succeed, as a country we failed her in not providing access to up-to-date resources. We need to do better by our students. Since we don’t seem to be intrinsically motivated, perhaps we need some monetary incentives.

Ethnic Notions

Intent does not equal impact. After all is said and done, that phrase holds true- in the court of law and in personal relationships. If you hit someone with your car unintentionally, it does not make the impact (i.e. bodily harm and legal charges) any less real. If you make an honest statement about a friend or colleague and they are offended, you can talk at length about the person being overly-sensitive or your motive not being malicious- the impact will most likely remain. Think of a time you have felt wronged. Did the perpetrator telling you they didn’t mean to make it better?

Thank goodness for the freedom of speech that our country allows. However, that freedom does not absolve us of accountability for the consequences of such speech. The New Yorker cartoon of Barack and Michelle Obama raises a host of issues. Even if you are not personally offended by the image, it is a good exercise in perspective-taking to consider why it might offend or simply unsettle others.

The main critique of the New Yorker’s cover is that it too closely resembles what some believe to be true. I get the joke, but there’s no “ha-ha,” because too many others see it as an accurate reflection of their beliefs about Obama. The magazine has acknowledged that the cover incorporates many of the stereotypes and falsehoods which have been pumped into the media. That was the point. However, given the number of people who honestly believe these falsehoods, it seems a dangerous line to walk.

A recent Newsweek poll suggests that a number of Americans believe Obama was raised as a Muslim, attended an Islamic school, is a practicing Muslim, and took his oath of office on a Koran. All of this information is false. So inferring from the data, it seems that there are plenty of Americans feeling validated by the cover rather than amused by the satire. Even if the New Yorker intended to be clever, that does not ensure that the impact will be in line with that intent. So, for those defending the New Yorker on the grounds that they did not intend it to be offensive or controversial, or hold up the fact that the source has been pro-Obama, that is not the whole story. We must also attend to the implications of the cover.

Given the power of media images, I think it is reasonable to be concerned that the intended message of the cover could get lost. Sometimes caricatures take on a life of their own and rather than getting us closer to the “truth” by poking fun through exaggeration (which is what the New Yorker claims) they can take us further from the reality at hand. The magazine suggests that the cover will cause us to reflect on how ridiculous the portrayal of Obama has been. Perhaps. And if so, all is not lost. However, I think we need to recognize that the intent of the magazine does not dictate the impact of the image. We cannot control how others perceive, appraise and make sense of materials. And for that reason alone, it is unfair to minimize the concerns surrounding this cover.

Jackson, Obama Comments Highlight Interconnection Rather than Division

The recent controversy regarding Rev. Jesse Jackson’s comments directed at Senator Barack Obama along with the larger commentary drive home the complexities of the various levels of racism. If we fail to recognize these complexities, we miss the real issue at hand- that racism is not one-dimensional rather it exists on individual, cultural and institutional levels. Essentially, Jackson feared that the tone of Obama’s message- highlighting personal responsibility- would overshadow the collective responsibility of the government. It’s the age old debate of where to focus our attention: on individual or institutional matters. Some have written that the statements highlight a “divide” in the Black community. Rather than a divide, these perspectives represent pieces of the larger web of racism. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and.

Obama has a point. Institutional barriers have been and need to continue to be removed, but that does not take the place of individual action. Jackson has a point. There are institutional- as Dr. King would call them structural- disparities that are not caused by individual actions (e.g. over-representation of Black students in schools that are lacking resources and credentialed teachers relative to the average public school). They are coming at similar issues from different angles. Far from divided, these assertions are interconnected. If we take education, for example, even if we rise to the occasion as a collective entity to provide access to equal public education, each student still has to be personally accountable and engage in that education. Failings at the different levels could be exacerbated by the other, but broad-reaching success needs movements on both fronts.

Individualism alone will not solve the problems of the Black community nor will the government. I do not think it furthers the discussion on race to blast Obama (or Bill Cosby) for encouraging accountability, nor is it fair to dismiss Jackson (or Rev. Al Sharpton) for pointing out the institutional racism that has perpetuated disparities. Some have urged Jackson to step down or asserted that his time has passed. I would like to suggest that even if that shift were to happen, the institutional racism that he so persistently points out would not disappear. But, perhaps that is why some would like him to be quiet. If we only focus on individual responsibility, this conversation about race gets a great deal more manageable. We get uncomfortable when systemic, long-standing inequalities are highlighted. We long to believe the myth of meritocracy that we promote as a nation. We would rather believe that if you work hard, you will succeed while turning a blind eye to the reality that the mantra is not equally applied (starting with the disparities in infant mortality).

What I find most disturbing about Jackson’s comments actually stems from his apology rather than the initial statements. In his press conference, he seems to suggest that his comments would be less hurtful to Obama because they were made in a one-on-one interaction rather than a public forum. Really? I’m not convinced that I would be comforted by the knowledge that someone saves their offensive comments for private conversation. But, perhaps, that’s a larger discussion of overt versus covert discrimination or even still the cultural acceptance for holding such contradictions (e.g. as long as you keep your biases private, you won’t be called to task).

Fighting racism requires that we recognize the relevance in addressing both the individual and the institution while also holding each other accountable for our actions. We miss the opportunity to have true dialogue when we force comments into camps. Our sound bite culture seems to have limited our ability to tolerate complexity; oversimplifying issues inherently filters out those nuances. Obama and Jackson are not divided. Their comments are as interlinked as the discussion on alternative fuel sources and decreasing consumption when addressing climate change.

All Tangled Up

All this talk of “race,” “racism,” people being “racist,” and the rise in hate groups makes me think we need to step back and make sure we’re all on the same page with what we mean when we use these terms. One of the factors that I think has made the conversations on race most tangled is the failure, or perhaps unwillingness, to understand racism at multiple levels. We’re too quick to label some action or person as racist and “condemn” it or “disown” the person rather than fully analyze the situation. It is such an emotionally charged topic that it makes sense that dwelling on the complexities might be avoided (especially, when we want so badly to believe that race doesn’t matter anymore). However, it is that sort of analysis which will arm us with the ability to have true dialogue. Otherwise, we are left talking around each other while assuming we are actually communicating directly.

We don’t have to agree, necessarily, on the definitions to have these conversations, but we do need to understand how each party is defining their terms. So, let’s start with race. Biologically, we know that there is more genetic variation within groups, we call races, rather than across these groups. Penguins and fruit flies have more genetic variation between each other than we do as humans. So, all that scientific evidence from early 20^th century which claimed racial deficiencies on the basis of skull size, etc. has been found false- social opinion posing as objective research. Therefore, that leaves us with the reality that race is a social construct, which we have created and reified through laws and social dynamics.

Building on that definition, racism is a system of advantage based on racial classifications, which benefits one group over others. Another way to think of it is prejudice plus power. For example, I might have bias, or prejudice, towards red-headed individuals. But unless I (as a non-red-head) hold the power to dictate outcomes for red-heads, we don’t have an ism. If our society had a classification system that separated individuals based on hair color, and over and over non-red-heads were in power and made sure through laws and personal decisions that red-heads did not have access to positions of power, education, and basic services, we might say that it was a system of advantage based on hair color that systematically benefited non-red-heads over red-heads. Getting closer to home, it can be argued that while women can be hatemongers towards men that only men can be sexist. Men have had the power to systematically disadvantage women (i.e. withholding the right to own property, vote, etc.) but not vice versa. So, it’s all based on who has the power in an institution and what they do with that power.

Getting back to my original concern about lack of understanding of the various levels of racism- it occurs on three levels. There is institutional, cultural and individual racism. I would argue that institutional is the most insidious type; however, we’ll start with individual racism since we are most familiar with it and most adept at pointing it out.

Individual racism includes actions such as telling racially derogatory jokes, choosing not to speak to/hire/support/etc. someone because of their racial group membership, or engaging in hate crimes. We can easily think of more examples of individual racism. It’s what most easily comes to mind when the word is brought up- the KKK and cross burning is one of the most common examples I hear when introducing these distinctions. Since Obama has emerged as the presumptive democratic candidate, White supremacy groups have touted an increase in interest and activity. While this is of concern and does suggest that individual racism is still a relevant construct, it’s important not to lose sight of the ways in which other acts, which aren’t so extreme- also constitute individual racism.

Cultural racism involves the larger society (e.g., whose values are promoted or denigrated, who is omitted or distorted in the media?). An easy way to grasp this concept is to consider religious values. The post office, schools, etc. are closed during Christmas and usually over Easter. As a Christian, this set-up is really convenient for me. Society caters to the fact that I might want to travel to be with family, or be off of work to commemorate the holiday. However, the same cannot be said for Yom Kippur, Ramadan or Divali. Some might say, “Well, we can’t have all of those holidays off!” I’m not advocating what we should do about this cultural racism; I’m simply trying to raise our awareness of it as one ways in which we enact this thing called racism. Another example might be the way in which you see people of color in limited roles in primetime television (e.g. narrow portrayals of Indian Americans or Latinos).

Institutional racism occurs on another level where decisions made by the system (e.g., government, corporation) enact systematic advantage. Education is a prime example. There was a time when, regardless of whether an individual wanted to integrate or not, separate but equal education was supported by law. Of course, there is an intersection of these levels. Individuals as a group are the ones who ultimately pass the legislation which govern the institutions. This example is where you can see why it’s important to understand the various levels to understand how they interact and subsequently how to better combat them. Housing, healthcare and the judicial system are other institutions where you can see historical examples of institutional racism. The outcomes of these various institutions differ by an individual’s race. It’s not biological differences that dictate these outcomes (see above). It’s the way in which we as a society limit access that then creates discrepancies which over time look natural. For example post WWII, we had a wonderful opportunity as a country to integrate housing. However, the FHA chose redlining, and we continue to see the ramifications today- both in segregated housing and economic outcomes. For example, the same house in the suburbs might be worth three times the same house in a formerly redlined district. When those parents take the equity out of their home to send their child to college, one set has access to a great deal more money compared to the other. This difference is not a matter of one set of parents being lazy and not taking care of their child. It is linked to institutional decisions that were made on the basis of race. The difference in housing prices is just one example of how institutional laws trickle down to affect a whole host of issues.

I share these examples to say that we need to understand the difference between these levels of racism. The rise in White supremacy groups is fueled by individual racism and most recently the personal fear that Obama will win the presidency. The controversy over LeBron James’ Vogue cover was not about the magazine being racist. It was an issue of cultural racism given the historical ways in which Black men- in relation to White women in particular- have been portrayed. The issue of the achievement gap has a number of causes but unequal resources (e.g., teachers with advanced degrees, books, computers, etc.) rank top on the list of ways our government has enacted institutional racism and disproportionately provided access to some but not others.

These distinctions can be expanded to help examine other types of isms in our society (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism). Unfortunately, they are linked and if you understand one ism well you can understand another. I do think that having a more complex understanding other these systems can help us not feel so overwhelmed, not knowing where to start when something happens in our town, office or country related to race. Knowledge really is power- to be able to analyze an incident for yourself rather than relying on someone else to label it for you. You can have a better handle on things while the media continues to get tangled up in messy definitions.

Making Sense of Contradictions

What does it all mean? Landmark after landmark. Contradiction after contradiction. What does it mean when in the past weeks we have seen a biracial man clinch the democratic nomination and a town in Mississippi host its FIRST integrated prom?

What does it mean when we want people to interact across racial lines yet recent research suggests that the anxiety evoked by these interactions actually perpetuates segregation- for those who are ill prepared for such encounter, which is most of us since, well, that’s the reason we need more of it?

What does it mean when we celebrate the 40^th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban on interracial marriage by hearing from interracial couples of today only to find out that they continue to experience verbal, and sometimes physical, assaults?

I guess it means that, like many things in life, the answer is not that simple. Things aren’t black and white- pun intended. It means we’ve made progress. It also means we have work to do.

Some individuals stress the progress we have yet to make- pointing out the continued examples of racism and other systems of oppression. While other individuals want to highlight the progress we have made thus far- noting legal battles and the diversification of the middle class. The former demands the latter “wake up and stop living in denial.” While the latter is sick and tired of hearing the former complain since “it’s a new day.”

Why can’t we hold both concepts as valid reflections of our current reality? I think what keeps people from doing so is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological tendency to seek consistency. In other words, we don’t like it when we hold competing or contradictory thoughts or beliefs. For example, if you value your money, yet given the cost of fuel, you choose to buy a car that gets a handful of miles per gallon, you will find someway to rationalize your decision. You might make a case for why the car you chose was your only option given your lifestyle; you might start to ride your bike to work to soften the blow. Whatever change you might make is fueled by the fact that valuing money and buying a car that will spend a great deal of your valued resource is incongruent. You need to make everything fit. Research has found that when we have conflicting thoughts, we eliminate one. So, if you purchased the car, you most likely eliminated the thought that you value your money. That thought becomes conditional- i.e. not to the extent that it limits your desire for the car. Getting back to our original issue, if you believe we have made progress in the area of race relations it’s cognitively difficult to simultaneously hold that we also have to press on to make greater strides. On the most simplistic level, the tendency is to reject the competing opinion. It takes cognitive energy to consciously hold competing thoughts. However, I think it’s energy worth expending.

I firmly believe that both perspectives accurately reflect the present day dynamics. Simply refer back to the landmarks and contradiction in the opening to get a sampling of evidence. Arguing one perspective over another denies the complexity that it is not “either/or” it’s “both/and.” Until we recognize that reality and respect the fact that some of us are simple looking at things from a different perspective- some with a greater ability, or perhaps willingness, to change viewpoints- we are wasting our breath. Progress gets mired down by defensiveness and accusations.

We need to tolerate the cognitive dissonance and hold the harsh realities and powerful strides. They are- together- relevant, informative and integral to guiding us forward.

Maximizing the Effectiveness of Transracial Adoption

To take account of race or to not take account of race- that is the question- or at least it is in transracial adoption. The rates of transracial adoption have increased dramatically in the past decades and research and the law are trying to keep up. From the social research perspective we’ve learned a few things. Historically, research on transracial adoption found no differences in outcomes for kids adopted across race compared to same race families. However, more recent research has investigated the racial experiences of adoptees and concluded that they are not monolithic. It appears that parents’ attitudes and behaviors related to racial socialization affect the experience of youth adopted transracially. In addition, for those children adopted transracially from foster care, it seems that problematic parent-child relations have more of an adverse impact compared to children adopted by same-race parents. All of this to say, it makes sense that race- that of the parent and child- would influence the dynamics of adoption.

Inherently there is nothing problematic about transracial adoption. In and of itself it does not cause maladjustment or foster psychological distress. However, the particular experience of being adopted transracially should not be minimized. Children who are of a different race than their parents cope with feeling “different” and may feel alone and confused when faced with discrimination. We need to prepare parents for this reality and encourage them to acknowledge and validate these experiences even though it might be uncomfortable to address. In addition just like every child, transracially adopted children will develop a sense of themselves. However, a key part of developing an identity for children of color often involves integrating race into their sense of self. This process involves integrating personal attitudes and beliefs about oneself and one’s group in addition to integrating familial and societal opinions. Racial identity is a process that needs to be supported, and parents of transracially adopted children need to be knowledgeable about it. Some parents might want to gloss over the issue of racial identity development because they see their child as part of the family and perhaps secretly hope that race won’t matter as much. It would be important for those parents to be assured- just as with any parent- that the process of identity development can be tumultuous but does not negate the familial bonds that have been created. Most adolescents emerge from that process and reconnect with their parents if they have felt supported (if even from a distance) and validated.

Let me be clear, I am a proponent of across-race adoption. Too many kids need homes to make blanket claims that rule out the possibility of adoption for an entire group of people. However, I think that as part of preparing a family for adoption, parents who are adopting a child across-race need to have thought about race as a construct that influences how society perceives people. Heck, this sort or awareness should be a part of all adoptions involving children of color. Why single out White parents? Simply because someone is from a particular racial background does not automatically make them aware of, or sensitive to, issues of race. Why not mandate training on racial identity development for all parents? It’s just that important.

Even if we all agreed that parents seeking to adopt transracially should have some sort of training- just as parents who adopt from another country undergo training to help understand the child’s background- there are legal barriers to limit such efforts. In 1996, the guidelines were changed to enforce color-blindness in adoption so that the race of the child and parent becomes irrelevant. I won’t go into how problematic it is to take this stance (see previous piece), but I will simply say that to be blind to a potential problem hinders you from finding a solution. Since this change, we still lack equity in adoption rates of African American children who stay in foster care on average nine months longer than White children. Perhaps it needs to be re-evaluated.

When adoptive parents facilitate rather than ignore children’s understanding of themselves and their racial background, the results are higher self-esteem, less feelings of marginalization, increased pride in their background, less distress and overall better psychological adjustment. Isn’t that what we want for all children? If so, we should remove the legal red tape and support the movement within the system to take account of race in the adoption process.

Honesty is the Best Policy

Senator Barack Obama is a bi-racial man running for president. Most people label him as African-American. Any way you slice it, there are some people who are not supportive of him solely because of his race. There, I said it.

We seem to tiptoe around this issue despite the evidence. The more heated this presidential bid becomes, the less willing folks are to have complex discussions about the role of race (if you could say we’ve ever been willing). It’s a topic that is claimed to “not matter” yet it matters in so many ways it’s exhausting. If Obama brings it up, he’s playing the race card. If others bring it up, they are being racist. Can we get over ourselves, please? It’s just not that simple.

Race is a powerful social construct. We recreate it and participate in it daily. We know that biologically there are more DNA differences within racial groups compared to across groups, yet many still hold beliefs that African Americans are inherently better in sports due to a genetic advantage, or that Asian Americans are genetically predisposed to be math geniuses. So it should come to no surprise that race is influencing people’s perceptions of Obama.

Earlier in the season, the media kept posing the question “Is America ready for a Black president?” If I missed a resolution to this question, please let me know. My take is that we assumed the answer was “yes” given Obama’s performance in the primaries, yet we continue to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. Some might say that it’s not worth giving attention to such a dated perspective, but I think that we must given the gravity of this election. It’s not dated; it’s present day.

In a Washington Post article last week Kevin Merida discussed the racially-charged experiences of Obama’s campaign workers. Some might argue the reactions are simply a function of people being so passionate about the issues and the importance of this race. However racial slurs aren’t warranted when you disagree on healthcare. Why haven’t these experiences been made more public? I think one reason is that the media wants to believe that these examples are exceptions, a few bad apples. I think another reason is that the Obama campaign is working hard not to make race too central- smart move. I believe that if the campaign openly talked about all of the discrimination they have encountered, the general response would be disbelief and assumptions that they were overreacting or being too sensitive. To win this election, Obama needs America to believe its own fantasy- that we are ready for a president who is something other than a White male.

The recent primaries highlight the racial divide. Clinton’s remarks after her recent wins along with the media analyses have stressed that Obama struggles most to secure the support of working-class Whites. If we stop to deconstruct this assertion, we can see another way in which the social construct of race is alive and well. I don’t purport to know what is going on in the heads’ of White voters nor do I believe they are monolithic in their thinking. However, I do know that if we look at history, the intersection of race and class runs deep. Throughout history, marginalized groups have been pit against each other. As a country we only seem to be able to hold once civil right in mind at a time. I can see how our actions could leave some working-class and poor Whites feeling forgotten and less important than people of color- for whom it has been en vogue to advocate for. No wonder some marginalized Whites would much rather see a White female at the helm compared to an African American male. Let me be clear, a true leader would not separate the issues that affect Americans by race or class. A true leader would recognize the interconnection of various isms and advocate in ways that increase access for all. Given Edwards’ recent endorsement of Obama, it will be interesting to see if working-class White voters will translate that gesture into an assurance that Obama “gets it”- sees the connections and is not just a candidate who will focus on race.

There are people who will not vote for Obama simply because of his race. As much as we might long for that statement to be false, merely stating the opposite won’t make it so. And claiming that it’s only a small group of people who feel this way is doing us a disservice and clouding the larger issue. Race plays a role in the dynamics of this election, and the more we fail to talk about it honestly as and influential part of the process, the further we get away from being able to disentangle the stereotypes and misperceptions fueling the fire. It’s complicated. I just hope we can push ourselves to have the complex conversations rather than shy away from the realities.

So Much For Colorblindness

I’ve never liked the term. I think it’s problematic and a complete contradiction. How would you feel if I claimed to be unable to see a significant part of you? Even if you wouldn’t have a problem with it, the concept is inherently flawed. Being blind to people’s differences isn’t the answer- not judging them on these differences is.

I could continue with my rationale about the falsehood of “colorblindness,” but my 14-month-old son proved my point more succinctly than I ever could. We were in the pharmacy yesterday waiting for his first antibiotic prescription to be filled. As Murphy’s Law would have it, I’m waiting in line with a sick child and the script isn’t ready- nowhere to be found. The clerk was really nice about it and helped move things along, so Avery and I went for a walk in the aisles. He proceeded to spot his father (“Da-Da”) three times. He was spotted on an advertisement for the store; Da-Da reappeared as a clerk moving merchandise; and he made his last appearance as another customer picking up his prescription. What did all of these men have in common? They were African American males. The first time this happened, I told Avery that the man was not Da-Da but did happen to be Black like his Da-Da. The second time, I must admit, I felt a little uncomfortable fearing that the other customers might assume my son was longing for a father figure, desparate enough to seek one in a random passer-by in the store- you know, the stereotypical fatherless Black boy, single-mother home story. The third time, I was simply amused and laughed at his observant, and consistent, behavior. Let me just add that Avery played a game of peek-a-boo with a White man with no mention of Da-Da.

What does this story suggest? I think this vignette supports research that has found that by pre-school age children are aware of racial differences. Some people might get up in arms and claim that if a child is noticing racial differences at that young of an age, the parents are too race-conscious. I would disagree and reiterate that our children seeing difference is not the issue. It’s all the social baggage that comes along with these labels that are problematic. My second reaction to Avery’s declaration confirms how quickly these stereotypes come to mind. He wasn’t making any judgement about Black men, but I sure was immediately cognizant of how others perceive them.

For example, when White parents claim that their child doesn’t even realize that their friends are of color, I bet the reality is that the child is aware but not influenced. As adults, we see someone’s race and immediately the stereotypes are activated. We find out where they work and attended school, and more are filled in. This process continues, because stereotypes are short cuts for the brain. They allow us to conserve cognitive energy and avoid processing fully every stimulus we come in contact with. Children have yet to learn all of these short-cuts and collect all of our baggage.

Don’t get me wrong, children can and do learn the meaning that we place on race. The social construct is powerful, and a historical study found that young children were aware of the ways people from different racial groups are treated. Children also learn by example and are keenly aware of how the adults in their world interact with others. So, what starts out as innocent awareness in time becomes fodder for preconceptions. It’s not the awareness that we need to eradicate. We are no more colorblind than we are genderblind. If someone were to make the claim that they don’t see gender, I doubt you would believe them. Gender norms are deeply ingrained in our society. Simply note the recent uproar over gender identity disorder in general or the pregnant transgendered man in particular. Claiming to be colorblind doesn’t make it so, nor does it make it desirable. It’s just not that simple. We see color; we notice racial differences; we are not colorblind. My 14-month-old son can tell you that.

Race and Capital Punishment

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling rejecting lethal injection as inhumane allowing some states to resume executions only addresses a small sliver of the controversy. Justice Stevens went on record stating that the practice of capital punishment might very well be unconstitutional. Regardless of your belief on the matter, it should not escape your awareness that the larger argument against capital punishment has its groundings in dynamics which far precede what method to utilize. Recent research has provided compelling evidence that race plays a major role in the death penalty. We should be arguing for a moratorium on the grounds that the punishment is administered in a consistently biased manner.

Race plays a role in numerous ways: the investigation of a crime, the jury selection, the media portrayal, and the charges brought against the defendant. The most striking statistic is that compared to a White defendant killing a Black victim, a Black person killing a White person is up to 30 times more likely to receive the death penalty. You might say that murder is such a heinous crime that if a few innocent people are killed in the process of administering capital punishment, it is acceptable. 30 times more likely- that’s more than a few. We can even turn to recent news to reiterate the significant ways race has influenced the system. Last year in Dallas county, TX an African American man, was exonerated by DNA testing. You might argue again that this is simply one example- a by product of such an aggressive hunt to keep murderers off of the streets is going to yield some false positives. What if I then told you that he was the 12^th person in the past 15 years in this ONE county whose conviction was overturned? This type of story is not specific to Texas, but it does provide a glaring reflection of what is wrong with our system.

It would behoove us to take a step back and to wonder why so many cases are being overturned by DNA evidence. The short answer is that we got it wrong. In some cases we can’t be sure if the error occurred in the assumptions made in the investigation, the jury selection, the charges filed, or a combination of these factors. The reality is that somewhere along the line, we sentenced to death individuals who did not commit the crime. Was it that we assumed a Black male is more likely guilty than innocent and followed a cold lead? Or was it the racialized portrayal of crime in the media that skewed the assumptions of potential and future jurors? It could also be the practice of limiting the racial diversity in juries for fear of sympathy. Thankfully, this practice has been exposed. Unfortunately this practice of using race as a factor in eliminating potential jurors- although ruled a violation of the 14th amendment- had to be reiterated in 2005 in two separate cases.

I recently took one of my classes to see the film, Race to Execution, which boldly presents evidence of the ways race affects our legal system. They had an African American man who was exonerated based on DNA evidence after over a decade on death row speak about his experience. What struck me the most were the ways in which evidence was stacked against him. The police had a bloody jacket that did not fit him; the blood stains on his shoes were later tested and found to be chocolate; the public defender he received had never tried a murder case. He’s now “free” (i.e., not behind bars). However he spoke candidly about how his job and housing prospects are bleak given his fraudulent incarceration. I’m sure similar stories exist, but this one stands out in my mind, because I was witness to its retelling. I was outraged, upset and disappointed. My tax dollars help to support this botched system.

If we are going to engage in a practice of selectively ending the lives of individuals, shouldn’t we also be willing to make sure the system is working? If you are a proponent of capital punishment- and have read this far- recognize that I am not simply saying we should abolish it on a moral basis. I am stating that in its current state, how can we not? It’s blatantly flawed. Perhaps if we would own up to the disparities and minimize the potential for bias, we can have the debate over whether capital punishment is moral or constitutional. Until then, we should follow Governor Ryan’s lead, in one respect, by advocating for a moratorium.

Getting to the Root of the Problem

I’ve decided that in order to achieve what Senator Obama referred to in his recent race speech- the perfection of our union- we need to stop providing superficial remedies to societal problems. I’ve begun to liken affirmative action to an anachronistic medical procedure that continues to be performed despite more advanced knowledge. It’s like treating the surface wounds and ignoring the underlying infection. Let me be clear- rhe need for affirmative action still exists. Unfortunately, race still has powerful effects on outcomes for individuals and shapes practices of institutions. The malady still exists, but the remedy needs some updating.

During its infancy, affirmative action was pruned by Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and even Nixon. We all should know that quotas are illegal and affirmative action was never about promoting unqualified individuals. However, the rampant misunderstanding of affirmative action is all the more reason to re-examine it. When medical procedures become out-dated, you move onto the recent technological advance. Why shouldn’t we do the same with our policies?

Stanley Fish urged us to consider historical context when examining affirmative action. He likened racism and affirmative action to cancer and chemotherapy. Both cancer and chemotherapy disrupt the balance of a system; however, one is the cause of the disease and the other is the cure. I like this analogy, because it acknowledges that there is something that needs fixing in our society- racism. It also acknowledges that affirmative action was created to remedy the situation.

However, as I look at affirmative action as a remedy, it seems like a band-aid or surface response to an underlying infection. Why can’t we propose a remedy for the root of the problem? Well when I think about the historical context, I can start to understand why. In the 1960s we were on the heels of Brown v. Board, had barely begun to implement the ruling and were in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement. We didn’t have time for a major surgery that would address the infection of racism that had seeped into every corner of American life! (One could also ask how we could not engage in the major overhaul so desperately need.) At first glance, I get that this proposal of affirmative action seemed like a reasonable response given the state of the union. Legally, we were making strides. However, one need only recall the experiences of the Little Rock Nine to illustrate how domestically and interpersonally we were far from doing the real work that was necessary.

So, here we are almost 50 years later. In many ways we have made great strides. However, problems persist and we continue to apply old remedies rather than innovate new techniques. In the medical field preventative care has been realized as a true money saver- exert effort to stave off diseases like diabetes and heart disease and save tons of money in the long run. Affirmative action provides the possibility for equality for underrepresented groups if they happen to beat the odds and are competitive for employment or higher education. What if we engaged in preventative approaches all along the pipeline- from birth through education? My hunch is that we would increase the number of individuals from underrepresented groups who are competitive, thereby increasing the likelihood that fields would be more representative of the racial make-up of society.

We need a policy that will address the inequality in the conditions and resources of our schools. We need a policy that will create equality of opportunity early in life. We need a policy that will ensure that students graduating from high schools in rural Appalachia, inner city St. Louis and the suburbs will be comparable in their knowledge base. We need a policy that will think about the pipeline rather than affect only those who are lucky enough to make it. Until we have those policies, we are merely tending to the surface of a wound that runs deep. For a while, that sort of treatment works. But after a while, the infection spreads and it gets pretty stinky. I think that’s where we are today with the arguments over reverse racism and colorblindness. We’re trying to claim that the problem is solved, and we no longer need the band-aid. We should push ourselves to consider more preventative treatments, before the situation gets further out of control. In the mean time, we will continue to need our superficial remedy affirmative action. Going back to Fish’s analogy- while we work to reduce the toxins in the environment to lower the rates of cancer, we’re still going to need the effectiveness that chemotherapy brings.

Check it Out

I have begun writing oped pieces for an in-depth, online news source- The Beacon. You can check out my pieces there and comment.