I’m supposed to be working but I had to post this video from the Colbert Report. Stephen’s guest is Dinesh D’Souza. Enjoy!
Share with friendsToday is MLK day. For the first time in six years, I find myself away from the U of M campus. Each year U of M organizes many seminars and activities around the life of the Reverend. Inevitably, each year I look at the schedule and wonder what some of the speakers have to do with Martin, but I’m soon reminded Martin means different things to different people. And most importantly, to many he means nothing or in their estimation an unnecessarily vaunted social figure. I won’t even humor these people with a response. From my perspective it is important to remember Martin as a revolutionary.
I recently sat at dinner with a couple of colleagues and a conversation ensued about Martin v. Malcolm (interestingly enough years ago U of M used to celebrate Martin and Malcolm on the same day, but at some point this joined celebration decayed or was removed). While we were able to avoid pitting them against each other like a Balinese cock-fight, it reminded me that we are taught to know Martin as someone he did not seek to be.
I won’t use this space to expound on why Martin was revolutionary or even what revolution is. Instead I’ll invite you to spend a little time today and in the next few days learning about a brother with a legacy that is truncated for convenience and commercialism. If you feel like moving beyond your computer screen, check out Michael Eric Dyson’s book on Dr. King or read some Dr. Kings own words.
In a time where the nation is at war, the poor of our nation are forgotten, and the marginal are still treated unfairly, his wisdom continues to resonate.
1. Is a bird in the hand really worth two in the bush if you’re really good with a slingshot?
2. John Brown, what the f**k is a ghetto revival?
3. Can I have the 1.5 hours back I spent watching I Love New York?
4. Why isn’t there a backspace key for life?
5. What if I let them lead my life?
The Last Race Problem
New York Times, The (NY)
December 30, 2006
Author: ORLANDO PATTERSON
Estimated printed pages: 3
When W. E. B. DuBois, the patrician black leader, predicted in 1903 that the problem of the 20th century would be the color line, he had in mind an ethno-racial problem with a dual character. One side was the near complete exclusion of African-Americans and other minorities from the upper echelons and leadership of American society, public life and national identity. The other was the segregation of blacks from the social, communal and intimate cultural life of white Americans.
America’s resolution of the public side of the color line would have amazed DuBois. The nation stands today as a global model in the sophistication and enforcement of its civil rights laws, the diversity of its elite, the participation of blacks and other minorities in its great corporations and its public cultural life, and in the embrace of blacks as an integral part of the nation and what it means to be an American.
A black man has led the world’s most powerful military machine and stood a good chance of winning the presidency on the Republican ticket had he run; another is now a leading challenger for the Democratic nomination. A black woman, Oprah Winfrey, is perhaps the nation’s most powerful cultural force; another, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is one of the world’s most powerful people and is the nation’s public face before the world. The recent decisive gubernatorial victory of Deval Patrick in Massachusetts is yet another instance of full public integration. And in popular culture, blacks’ presence is out of all proportion to their numbers.
But when we turn to the other side of DuBois’s color line, we find a stunning paradox: accompanying this public integration has been the near complete isolation of blacks from the private life of the white majority. Recent modest improvements notwithstanding, blacks, including the middle class, are nearly as segregated today as they were in DuBois’s day. The typical black child now goes to a school that is more segregated than in the late ’60s. Segregation is the last major race problem because poverty, per se, is no longer mainly the result of discrimination but part of a broader national crisis that includes whites. Poverty’s greater incidence among blacks is largely due to segregation.
Compounding the paradox is the fact that the highest metropolitan segregation rates are now in the “liberal” regions of the Northeast and the Midwest, including New York. The paradox deepens when we learn from repeated polls that whites say they are comfortable living in neighborhoods that are approximately 25 percent black.
The celebrated tipping-point theory of Thomas Schelling, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, has long appeared to offer a pessimistic answer to the puzzle. It holds that even where a majority of whites favor having black neighbors, the all-white preference of just a few will always rapidly escalate into total segregation.
However, the economist William Easterly, after examining data on segregation over the past three decades, has demonstrated conclusively that Schelling’s theory is groundless in regard to race. In the vast majority of neighborhoods studied, Easterly found no pattern of acceleration of white decline, no evidence of a sudden, extreme exodus at the fabled tipping point, but instead a steady, almost constant decline in the proportion of whites from one decade to the next. Moreover, the typical neighborhoods that did change from being predominantly white to predominantly black in this period still had a significant proportion of whites living in them.
So why does segregation persist? The evidence seems clear that, in sharp contrast with the past, the major cause is that blacks generally prefer to live in neighborhoods that are at least 40 percent black. Blacks mention ethnic pride and white hostility as their main reasons for not moving to white neighborhoods. But studies like Mary Pattillo-McCoy’s ethnography of middle-class black ghettos show that the disadvantages, especially for youth, far outweigh the psychic gains.
It would be naive to discount persisting white racism, but other minorities, like Jews, have faced a similar dilemma and opted, with good reasons, for integration. The Jewish-American experience also shows that identity and integration are not incompatible, and that when the middle class moves, others follow. If America is ever to solve the second part of DuBois’s color problem, it will be on the shoulders of the black middle class.
Edition: Late Edition – Final
Section: Editorial Desk
Page: 19
Index Terms: Op-Ed
Authors Note: Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, is a guest columnist.; Maureen Dowd is off today.
Copyright (c) 2006 The New York Times Company
Record Number: 2006-12-30-901075
While everyone is reviewing 2006, I’m concerned about the entry of 2007 for Black folks, particularly Black Americans. Let’s hang our flag at half-mast, because it’s going to be a long year!!!
As 2006 ended, Prop 2 implementation was delayed and I was more concerned about the godfather of Soul’s transition than Gerald Ford’s. I should have known shit was gonna start to hit the fan. Then on the 30th, Black Sociologist Orlando Patterson smoothly ushered in a bad wind with his Times pieces that blamed segregration’s persistence on Black residential preference. You know we’re in trouble when Black folks start taking heavy shots at Black folks. Then the Black Messiah… er I mean Oprah, dissed Black American kids’ craving for ipods and kicks.
Then this morning I learned/realized that the stay on implimentation of prop 2 was denied by the Appeals Court. Which really means, that we’re already operating in a Prop 2 environment in admissions.
Damn, damn, damn James… it’s gonna be a long year.
Ah yes, to the East my brother to the East. For all my X Clan fans. I’m back East for a while. I celebrated a happy bday and had a good anniversary with my parents. My first couple of days were relativel low key, I’ve found myself watching all sorts of TV.
Hair Trauma
Ultimate Fighting
Bush’s Address
Maury Povich – the holiday special “is this hottie a male or female”
Jerry Springer
Colbert Report
Basketball
You know the usual brain food! I’ve also signed up for a virtual writing challenge over at BlackAcademic.com. Just follow the links to the discussion forum and “Publish or Flourish.” Also, that reminds me to shout out Blac(k)ademic who has retired from blogging. She was a great voice in the blogosphere. I’ll be skirting around the tri-state for a little bit, so maybe I’ll see you virtually or in real life, if not, then catch me in 2007. Oh, I should be doing a best of, we’ll see.
A couple years back Rosa Clemente penned a heavy letter about Russell Simmons called Russell Simmons You Are Not Hip Hop. Back in 2001 it caught me, it helped me remember why I got sick of people sweating Russell. It got me to realize why I did a little “mouth vomit” when I heard someone refer to him as the Godfather of Hip-Hop (didn’t Herc already have that title?). Recently Russell opened his mouth again, this time to defend the diamond industry.
This past weekend I shelled over my hard earned bills to see Blood Diamond at the theaters. Going in, I had my expectations set at the level that I set them when I’m going to listen to a Method Man album (that’s pretty darn low). But I was rather impressed with the film. Of course there were your standard issues of gender and race (e.g. Black Africans find White woman in the bush and she charms them with her camera — don’t even get me started) but the message about conflict diamonds was very clear to me. Conflict diamonds help support war and distinguishing between a conflict diamond and free diamond is damn near impossible. Neither of which were new concepts to me, but I thought they were both well illustrated in the film.
When the film was rolling out, I was interested to see that Nelson Mandela came out with a statement about diamonds and their positive impact on African economies. I was immediately a little bit concerned, as were others. Eventually, I had to wrestle with Mandela potentially selling out or if there was a degree of pragmatism attached to support of the diamond trade for the wealth or rather reduction of gross debt for African nations. I think my history with Nelson Mandela allowed me to take his statements within a larger context, when Russell Simmons opened his mouth however, I heard cash registers ringing.
Who the hell died and made Russell chief of Diasporic Affairs? And can I really take him seriously if Jim Jones is on his side with a diamond crusted bracelet? Okay, that’s just my bias! For years, I saw Russell Simmons as I saw Bob Johnson, a damn good Black capitalist (not endorsing this just calling em like I see em). Now with his explicit support and retort to Blood Diamond, I see he’s graduated to a damn good (Black) capitalist pawn… I wonder is there a difference between the two?
“I’m not a racist.” Another variation on it is often, “I’m not a racist but…” or better yet, “Are you trying to say I’m a racist?” All three of these things are beginning to make me literally sick to my stomach. A few weeks back Michael Richards’ outburst set the blogosphere on fire, which in turn set the media a fire, which in turn drove Richards to say, “The funny thing is, I’m not a racist.” Well to Mr. Richards and all others who utter these words, I have one simple comment, “Yes, (fill in name here), you are a racist.” Many folks get jarred by this statement, so read it again in the “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” tone. Does that help you stomach it?
I tend to let my mind ferment during the evening by watching reality TV or playing my Nintendo DS (oh it’s so great!). Tonight, I opted for Reality TV. I decided to watch the Real World Denver (no I don’t think I have a real reason to watch this trash, but I did). Tonight’s episode was yet another “big race episode” (this reminds me of when they would say things like, “Next week, a very special Webster” remember that? I digress). The characters end up in a tussle and the N word is barked by a drunken White male, Davis, within earshot of at least one Black roommate. I’ll summarize so you don’t have to watch the episode, they (producers) take the White roommate away for the night to a hotel and he returns the next day so the cast can talk it out. The result, the Black roommates forgive him and he says… you guessed it, “I’m not racist.” One Black roommate Tyrie asked him (and I paraphrase) “So I just want to know, when you used that word. Where did it come from? Is that something you’ve been thinking or did it come out of anger or…?” Davis quickly responded, “Out of anger.” This was particularly important to me because I knew once Tyrie gave him an “out” – mentioning anger, he would immediately jump at that reason. The episode closes with the Black roommates forgiving him and Davis staying so he can show them he can “watch what he says” and “he’s not a racist.” Dammit, you are a racist!
Now if any of you reading have had the pleasure (or pain) of sitting in on one of my guest lectures on race and ethnicity you know about this. Towards the beginning of the lecture I have all the people in attendance point to their neighbor and say, “You’re a racist” and then have them point to their other neighbor and say, “You’re a racist.” After people follow in a Pavlovian style they usually look back at me, half of them with some form of pissed expression. I then allay their fears by saying, “Now that everyone has been called a racist and called at least one person a racist, we can stop being scared of being labeled a racist.” The label racist is avoided like Jehovah’s Witness’ on a Saturday morning.
Now being the good sociologist that I am, I know that is because most people associate racism with individual deliberate actions towards someone of a subordinate group that are meant to harm and are based on prejudice. Which really means that nobody wants to be considered a Klan member (well except of course Klan members who are out of the closet). That’s the big problem, when I’m in a room of over 150 people and I ask, “Who is a racist?” and maybe one or two people raise their hands, we have a problem!!! The problem is not anger, the problem is not drunkeness, the problem is not hecklers and losing our cool, it’s racism! I know you want a nice out or absolution, I know you want to prove you’re not that bad word, but dammit you gotta claim it to change it.
Imagine this, you go the doctor, you ask him about a piercing headache you keep on having. The headache is usually bearable but on occasion it causes you to yelp in pain for others to hear. The doctor takes does a full exam, xrays, scans, etc. and sees you have a tumor on your brain. When the doctor comes back to talk to you and you ask the doc, “Am I alright?” The doc responds, “You have a cold.” A cold, hell nawh you have cancer!!! Racism is a disease, one that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately everyday we ask the world not to label ourselves or others as racist, which drives us further away from curing the sickness of racism. A doctor who prescribed Ludens to you (you know those cough drops you always wanted because they tasted like candy but your momma wouldn’t let you have them) instead of chemo would be in serious malpractice and in violation of the their oath. But everyday, people ask me, “Why do we have to say someone is racist?” “Can’t we call it something else? or “I get what you’re saying, but calling someone a racist is ugly.” Racism is ugly!!! I could go into my definition of racism but here is a link to a basic definition of racism that should get you started. If you’re already with me, read on.
For me, dropping the term racist from our lexicon weakens our ability to call everyone to the task of being accountable for inequality. Admittedly not all inequality is racial, but many of the social ills that we see have a strong racial component. To borrow from Beverly Tatum racism is like pollution, you may not have started it, but you must live with it and everyday your actions contribute to it. The true question is what are you going to do to reduce it? By ignoring racism and the people and institutions that perpetuate it, we retard social progress. Because we have dropped racist from our lexicon, racial discrimination (disproportionate impact) does not legally exist until animus is demonstrated. Because we stopped calling out people as being racist, the very people who support systems of oppression now label us racists. Because racist became perverted, some are now distorted enough to think the oppressed are the oppressors.
I know this getting way too long, but let me conclude by saying, we live in a world without racists, but in a world full of racism. While I am forgiving, reasonable, and solution oriented, it disturbs me to see us sidestep the root of the hatred that we see in the disparate worlds we live in and in the malice ridden words we speak. I’d rather have chemo than candy. Wouldn’t you?
So I’ve been busy, but I did want to post briefly on something that is tremendously important and waiting in the balance of the Supreme Courts. While we were all sleeping, two cases rose to the level of a Supreme Court hearing and stand to place the final nail(s) in the coffin of Brown V. Board of Education. Realize that Brown v. Board of Education has been dismantled steadily through legislation and contestation. For a great discussion of the process check out Dismantling Desegregation by Gary Orfield.
The Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments for Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education. The first case (Seattle) is about high school assignment and the latter is about elementary school assignment. There is some really impressive social scientific research that went into an amicus brief provided by the Harvard Civil Rights Project here. Essentially both cases boil down to the question that is IN PART analogous to the Michigan cases: “Can be race a factor when determining school entry or placement.”
I’ll let my legal colleagues dissect the finer nitty-gritty details for you, so I’ll let them lead that way. But I do want folks to realize this is once again an attempt to reduce racial disparity by race neutrality…. yeah I know it sounds ridiculous. I recently watched a panel on CSPAN that features Ted Shaw (NAACP LDF), Roger Clegg (Center for Equal Opportunity) and others. The most interesting part was hearing Roger Clegg actually say (and I paraphrase) “considering race is racial discrimination.” For me, that sums up my issue with “race-neutrality” in fact it let’s just call it “utopian-neutrality” because there darn sure isn’t any consideration of race.
Aight, I gotta go write and do the 50 other things I have, but wanted you all to be paying attention. By the way, remember when I posed my simple question of who has beeen doing the work on the k-12 education? Well, clearly the conservatives have been working on dismantling equal oppurtunity there too.
First, I want to thank Fatima Ashraf of Radio Tahrir for interviewing me this past week for Pacifica Radio’s Informed Dissent series. We did a brief interview on Proposal 2 and how it’s been swept under the rug in light of the “Democratic Sweep.” You can find it on the Nov 18th in part one about half way through.
Last night I was reading and talking to one of my boys and I told him I was reading about the achievement gap. To which he responded, “You love to read about that ish.” Which I do, it’s the motivation for my research. While we talked I lamented over not really learning anything “new” from most publications on it. He responded, “Well if you’re going to publish on it, why don’t you just write the book that someone’s going to write in 25 years. Just say it (the achievement gap) ain’t going no where.” While on the face this remark is fatalistic, I think he’s actually right on. I was further confirmed of this when I woke up and finally read through Gloria Ladson-Billings’ 2006 American Educational Research Association’s Presidential Address. The talk was entitled “From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools.” The talk is really amazing and I encourage you read it, it’s a little longer than most things that I link to, but well worth it. Or you can watch it here.
She uses economics to discuss educational inequality but not in predictable ways. She uses economics to talk about people.
I am arguing that our focus on the achievement gap is akin to a
focus on the budget deficit, but what is actually happening to
African American and Latina/o students is really more like the
national debt. We do not have an achievement gap; we have an
education debt.
The talk is based on the idea that we do not know what really causes the narrowing of the gap.
However, when we begin looking at the construction and compilation
of what I have termed the education debt, we can better
understand why an achievement gap is a logical outcome. I am
arguing that the historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral
decisions and policies that characterize our society have created an
education debt.
She powerfully weaves a narrative of black, brown, yellow and red children’s cumulative educational disadvantage. She makes powerful policy metaphors from Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Ed, the Voting Rights Acts all the way to the responses to Hurricane Katrina. She leaves us with fertile ground to start our work toward improving children’s lives and opportunities. I can’t encourage you enough to read it, it gives a richer context to discussions of the pursuit of educational and social inequality.
