Filed under: politics, race relations | Tags: 2008 election, affirmative action, identity politics, oppression, race relations, racial discrimination, racial injustice, ward connerly
By: Kasey Henricks
The following is part three of a three-part editorial series discussing affirmative action in the context of the upcoming election. Part three provides suggestions and solutions in walking towards racial justice, equality and healing.
The color line remains a problem of the 21st century, and affirmative action has problems of its own. It has yet to erace this color line. As evident in part two of the three part series, racial inequality is a nasty reality in the U.S. But together we can fix it. Each one of us can do our part. I urged every reader to pick up a pen and paper and write to U.S. Congressional representatives, U.S. Senators and good ole’ George W. Bush himself (See footnote 1). Together, we can walk towards racial justice, equality and healing.
Below I have outlined suggestions and solutions to consider for fixing the broken policy affirmative action. Please take these into consideration as you enter the political process, exercise your democratic right and influence public policy.
Federal level
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once wrote: “The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.”
In order to correct and reverse state decisions that have dismantled affirmative action, the federal government must address and affirm all affirmative action policy to include a race-conscious clause. This means the president needs to declare an executive order or Congress needs to enact legislation explicitly clarifying that affirmative action must consider race. Problems associated with race can only be fixed if we allow ourselves to see race. We must be color-conscious, not color-blind, if we are to correct past and present discrimination.
Measuring Effectiveness
The effectiveness of affirmative action can be measured only if it has adequate methods of self-evaluation. Currently, affirmative action lacks sufficient ways to gauge its own success and failure. However, any reasonable person can look at who has a job and who goes to school to see certain racial groups are underrepresented while others are overrepresented. Unless you believe in an inherent inferiority of certain racial groups, then it’s reasonable to expect representation in education and employment to reflect the available population pool. However, this is rarely the case.
Gross racial disparities, as cited in part two of the three part series, exist in the realms of education and employment. If affirmative action had adequate methods for self-evaluation, such disparities would less likely persist. A sufficient way of self-evaluation would be to compare representation in employment and education to representation in the available population. That is, the composition of the people who work at a job or attend school should reflect the community it serves. In order to know what kind of success or failure rates affirmative action has, outcomes in representation must be taken into account.
Possible solutions to remedy this problem vary. Employers and learning institutions could regularly perform racial discrimination tests and evaluate employment and admission practices. Also, employers and learning institutions can compare its internal racial diversity to the external population. To ensure employers and learning institutions are keeping their end of the deal, the federal government could increase the number of audits performed each year. People are held accountable when others remain in touch and keep up with them. Federal agencies must keep in touch with employers and learning institutions. Otherwise, affirmative action is merely a suggestion because it remains out of touch with those who are required to abide by it.
Effective enforcement
In part, ineffectiveness of affirmative action is due to the inability to uphold and enforce antidiscrimination laws already in effect. Two federal agencies vested with authority to enforce these laws include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). However, because of a lack of resources and manpower, these two agencies are rendered incapable of fulfilling their purpose.
Predominantly in the private business sector, the EEOC monitors affirmative action efforts and enforces antidiscrimination laws by evaluating complaints, mediating between involved parties, and filing suits when necessary. At present, the EEOC does not live up to expectations. In “White Racism,” sociologists Joe Feagin, Hernán Vera, and Pinar Batur point out: “U.S. government agencies have neither the resources nor the staff to enforce antidiscrimination laws vigorously. Because of underfunding, federal agencies like the EEOC typically have such a large backlog of cases that most victims of discrimination cannot achieve timely remedies through the federal government.” In order to get any job done right, you have to have the right resources. The EEOC needs more manpower. At current capacity, it files lawsuits for only one-half of one percent of discrimination claims per year. As reported by Michael Brown et al in “Whitewashing Race,” the EEOC receives an average of 59,000 discrimination claims per year, but only files 250 lawsuits per year.
Like the EEOC, the OFCCP monitors and enforces affirmative action. However, this agency oversees contractors who do business with the government. It, too, has its share of problems. In “Affirmative Action,” Tim Wise points out the OFCCP “has only enough compliance officers to review about four thousand contractors annually, meaning that, at best, reviews could be done every forty-six years for each company.” But affirmative action needs more than one checkup every half a century. As economist Barbara Bergmann’s addressed in her book, “In Defense of Affirmative Action,” the OFCCP found nearly 75 percent of employers were substantially violating civil rights laws.
At present, federal agencies have little resources or manpower to uphold and enforce any kind of antidiscrimination law. Such evidence suggests the federal government expects affirmative action to be carried out in “good faith.” Considering this, the president and Congress have made affirmative action a low priority. Because violators of affirmative action face little to no accountability, racial discrimination and inequality remains unaddressed and could potentially grow worse. Such racial injustice cannot be tolerated. An easy solution to this problem is to equip the EEOC and OFCCP with the necessary tools it needs. Increased funding and staffing would increase the scope of each agency’s ability, and therefore its effectiveness. With the proper resources, delivering justice to racial injustice is an obtainable goal.
What it is and what we’re going to do
Affirmative action is antidiscrimination law. It provides racial opportunity where there is little to none. It also seeks to end unequal opportunity. Without it, the color line will not be eraced.
Racial inequality and discrimination cannot be tolerated in America, the champion of freedom and democracy. I hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Among these rights is the right to equal opportunity.
If you care about racial justice, equality, and healing speak out. Share sentiments with your representatives and let them know your concerns.
Break the silence.
–
Kasey Henricks is a two time award-winning SouthEast Journalism Conference writer. He currently serves as Editor in Chief and can be reached at jpk.henricks@gmail.com
1. Attached to this article (the hyperlink at top of article) is a sample letter of concern. It outlines suggestions and solutions for fixing affirmative action and is intended to be sent directly to political representatives. This sample letter of concern can be used as a reference or guide for those interested in getting involved in the political process.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Filed under: politics, race relations, white privilege | Tags: 2008 election, affirmative action, racial discrimination, racial injustice, racial oppression, racism, reverse discrimination, reverse racism, stratification, ward connerly, white privilege
By: Kasey Henricks
Originally posted at www.theallstate.com
The following is part two of a three-part editorial series discussing affirmative action in the context of the upcoming election. Part two presents a general overview of the current state of U.S. race relations, and part three will provide suggestions and solutions in walking towards racial justice and equality (to be posted 8/6).
2000 Population
The need for affirmative action cannot be fully understood by taking it for face value. Whether you think affirmative action is racial preference or racial opportunity, you should read into the background and current status of U.S. race relations before making a final judgment.
We live in a world where skin color shouldn’t matter, but it does. Race cannot be ignored because race has real consequences. It remains of continuing significance in terms of political, social, cultural, and economic power. That is, U.S. society is arranged by a racial hierarchy.
When I refer to the U.S. as a racial hierarchy, this does not mean all whites are born with a silver spoon in our mouths, nor do I mean all African Americans are poor or unemployed. Much variation exists within each racial group. A racial hierarchy simply refers to the overrepresentation of certain groups at the top and the overrepresentation of other groups at the bottom. To borrow words from “Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community,” the Rev. Martin Luther King’s last book: “Of the good things in life [a minority] has approximately one-half those of whites; of the bad [a minority] has twice of those of whites.”
Education Attainment Levels
King’s words remain relevant today as an overwhelming number of racial disparities permeate U.S. society. In areas of political representation, healthcare access, home ownership, incarceration rates, education access and attainment, poverty, accumulated wealth, earned income, unemployment, and many other unmentioned areas, race determines power and privilege.1 That is, racial disparities resemble the structure of a pyramid whereas whites stand atop that pyramid and African Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics sit at the bottom, with other groups in between. If race is a trump card, meaning that when pulled out it wins out against all other factors, then that card is definitely white.
HS Graduation and Drop Out Rates
To ignore race would be to ignore something that gets in the way of millions of people’s everyday lives. As writer and speaker Tim Wise points out in “White Like Me,” if you teach yourself not to see color then you’re not likely to see problems associated with race, let alone know how to deal with them when they occur.
The vast array of racial disparities help paint today’s color line. But to achieve a holistic understanding of present race relations, we must revisit the past. As the old say goes: To know where you are, you have to know where you’ve been. Problems rooted in the past do not end in the past. For example, the current problem of the Iraq War will be passed on from George W. Bush to the next president. Problems are inherited, and in regard to race relations, problems are passed on from generation to generation, from grandparent to parent and parent to child. The legacies of slavery and Jim Crow remain alive and well. America’s racial past is one where whites had access to schools, jobs and housing, and these same opportunities were virtually off-limits to racial minorities. With this access, whites were able to accumulate assets and pass them along to younger generations. You can think of this as “affirmative action of old” whereas racial opportunity was protected and provided to the majority group – white folk. On the other hand, the “affirmative action of new” protects and provides racial opportunity to minority groups who have yet to enter an equal playing ground.
Income Levels
For some, past racial discrimination and present racial disparities are not enough to demonstrate the current need for affirmative action. After all, past discrimination does not provide substantial evidence of ongoing discrimination. That is, past discrimination does not prove present discrimination exists. In addition, current racial inequalities merely confirm a relationship between race and disparity, but these correlations do not explain why an African American, Native American or Hispanic is poor, unemployed, uneducated or living on the streets. Correlation is not causation, but these statistical relationships indicate minorities are more likely to be born into disparity. Many opponents of affirmative action remain unconvinced of ongoing racial discrimination. Organizations like the Goldwater Institute, Project 21 and the Manhattan Institute as well as affirmative action critic, Ward Connerly, claim racial discrimination is not a problem in 2008. After all, the age of Obama is upon us. However, recent scholarship paints quite a different picture.
Federal Political Representation
Race remains a salient predictor in terms of access to education and employment and who reaps the benefits of this access. As Stanford University sociologist, Monica McDermott, comments: “Light skin has always been synonymous with privilege and advantage in the United States, and with good reason.” Five recent studies – although many, many more are available – demonstrate when all factors are held equal, whiteness remains a trump card.2 These studies control for variables like class, gender, age, education, work experience, neighborhood, criminal record, among others, and put forth identical school and job applicants, except with different racial backgrounds. This means that black, brown, and white applicants of matching backgrounds with the equal credentials and qualifications applied to the same schools and jobs. Each of these studies concluded similar findings: White applicants were found to have greater advantages in terms of accessing education and the job market. Whiteness remains the trump card.
Poverty Levels
Skeptics remain unconvinced. Some argue such studies are merely coincidences since a person’s race cannot legally be asked on an application. However, checking a box for your racial category is not the only way of knowing if someone is white, Hispanic, African American, etc. For instance, if someone attended say Fisk University or Tennessee State University, we know they’re more likely to be African American. If a person is a member of Sigma Delta Pi – a Hispanic honor society – then we know they’re likely to be Hispanic. Then what about names? How many white people do you know with the name Jamal, Tyrone, or Shanita? How about Tito or Maria? But what about the names Emily or Kasey? For the last two, it doesn’t get much whiter than that.
Incarceration and Uninsured Rates
Another common counter-argument contends affirmative action leads to “reverse discrimination” because it promotes race over merit and credentials. These critics argue affirmative action replaces qualified, competent individuals with less qualified and less deserving individuals. However, Michael Brown et al points out in “Whitewashing race,”: “Statistical enforcement of Title VII and affirmative action provide no evidence that they lead to racial balancing or reverse discrimination.”3 That is, if less qualified and less competent individuals are getting the job then we could expect productivity to slip. Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University public policy analyst, and David Neumark, a UC Irvine economist in “Accessing Affirmative Action,” found no conclusive evidence proving a loss of productivity. “There is at this juncture very little compelling evidence of deleterious efficiency effects of affirmative action.” Consistent conclusions have been found in the realm of education. For instance, NYU sociologist, Dalton Conley, points out in “Being Black, Living in Red” that when college graduation rates of African American and white students of the similar socioeconomic status are compared, no racial difference separates the two groups. Once minorities have been provided the opportunity for education or employment they compete just as well as any other racial group.
Unemployment and Home Ownership Rates
In conclusion, a person’s skin color shouldn’t matter. But it does matter because it has real consequences for all of us, whether we are aware of it or not. We, as a society, must not be blind to race, but able to see past race if we are to move forward. This is why affirmative action is needed. It’s a race-conscious policy that seeks to correct and prevent past and present racial injustice.
Given the current status of U.S. race relations, it’s apparent Americans need to renew their promise to racial equality. Affirmative action is no perfect policy, as part three of this series will detail, but it is the antidiscrimination law we have to work with. It needs revision and renewal, but as anthropologist Margaret Mead once wrote: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Today, affirmative action, and racial justice in general, needs a few committed individuals seeking social change. Speak up and speak out.
- -
Kasey Henricks is a two time award-winning SouthEast Journalism Conference writer. He currently serves as Editor in Chief and can be reached at jpk.henricks@gmail.com
1 All data evidencing these racial disparities are provided in the following: Charles Gallagher. (2007). Rethinking the Color Line: Readings in Race and Ethnicity (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
2 The five studies referred to include the following:
a) Marc Bendick Jr. (2007). “Situation Testing for Employment Discrimination in the United States of America.” Dentre d’analyse stratégique – Revue Horizons statégiques, 5, (Juillet), 1-18.
b) Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan. (2004). “Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.
c) George Farkas. (2003). “Racial Disparities and Discrimination in Education: What Do We Know, How Do We Know It, and What Do We Need to Know?” Teachers College Record, 105(6), 1119-1146.
d) LeeAnn Lodder, Scott McFarland & Dianna White. (2003). Racial Preference and Suburban Employment Opportunities: a Report on ‘Matched Pair’ Tests of Chicago Area Retailers. Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.
e) Devah Pager. (2003). “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937-975.
3 Michael Brown, Martin Carnoy, Elliott Currie, Troy Duster, David Oppenheimer, Marjorie Shultz & David Wellman. (2003). Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Filed under: race relations | Tags: African American, Black, discrimination, race, racism
If you are African-American and reading this note, you’ve probably been watching CNN for the past hour now. If you are of any other ethnic group, you’ve probably just gotten word that three middle class black women were accused of shoplifting at an Old Navy store in Georgia. The question is; does racism still exist.
Well of course. This situation is duplicated in various settings across America. The case where a black person just so happens to “fit the profile” of a wanted criminal is old and played out much like the link between Hispanics and the lack of jobs, Middle Easterners and terrorism and Asian people and dog meat.
According to the July 23rd CNN report, three black women in their 20’s decided to go powershopping when they were detained by six Gwinnett County police officers in front of an Old Navy store. Leah Wells, one of the girls detained by police, told CNN that the crime was “being black in America”; I would have to agree.
Why so? Well, according to the report, store security was only alarmed to search for a “gang of shoplifters in the store”, which I find to be a rather broad description. This profiling could mean anyone and any age. So why were three black females detained? The proof is in the pudding, I don’t have to say what this appears to be. No implications necessary.
Someone out there is probably reading this saying, “Well, white people get racially profiled too… It’s not just a ‘black’ thing.” If this is the question asked, one should ask himself/herself who comes to mind in these situations:
1. “A woman was raped in her Hamilton County home”
2. “Three gang members were shot by police”
3. “Two men were arrested Saturday after robbing a gas station off HWY 153″
4. “Five students were involved in a bus fight at a bus stop on Wednesday.”
Some people would like to force themselves to say, “Well, these situations could be anybody,” which is very true. But what comes to YOUR mind, the average American mind? The mind that is more than likely molded to believe that minorities are delinquent in nature, and try not to lie to yourself in the meantime.
Others would argue that black people are more delinquent than other races and has been proven in the number of black arrests and black prisoners. But what makes America think that because more black people are arrested, detained, caught in the crossfire and accused than other races, that these actions to maintain justice are justified from the beginning? And just for kicks, not every imprisoned person is the culprit of the crime. Do the math.
The only other valid arguement I can imagine is one debating that black people make a racism issue out of everything. It has been validated that not every case of discrimination is rightfully assessed, let alone ‘black and white’, and that not every aggressor in a racist situation is of caucasian descent. In fact, the inverse is very true indeed.
But in the forementioned situation, I would have to concur that ‘black on white’ racism took place. Though I may have come to my conclusion, millions of people on both sides of the fence continue to argue on the subject. Some people think black people push the racism card too far while others agree that white people are in disbelief that racism exists. One thing is certain; racism still exists in America. Whether or not every situation of racism is valid remains in question.
Filed under: politics, race relations | Tags: affirmative action, politics, race relations, racial inequality, racial justice, reverse discrimination, super tuesday for equal rights, ward connerly
Battleground states determining Affirmative Action's Future
By: Kasey Henricks
Posted: 7/23/08
The following is part one of a three-part editorial series discussing affirmative action in the context of the upcoming election. Part one discusses the current dilemma facing affirmative action. Part two presents a general overview of the current state of U.S. race relations (to be posted 7/30). And part three provides suggestions and solutions in walking towards racial justice and equality (to be posted 8/6).
Currently, there’s an assault against affirmative action. The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), a partisan interest group, is working in Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska to promote the so-called Civil Rights Initiative (www.acri.org), which will be on the ballot this November. Essentially, this initiative seeks to dismantle affirmative action, end supposed racial preferences and eliminate “reverse discrimination.” Similar initiatives have passed in California, Washington, and most recently Michigan. Given their voting records, Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska will likely follow in this trend. With this growing momentum, it’s just a matter of time until the initiative reaches other states like Tennessee.
Affirmative action – what is it exactly? For many, it’s a term commonly used and argued for or against, but rarely is affirmative action ever clearly defined. This lack of clear definition convolutes public discourse on the issue, because meanings matter. For any constructive dialogue about affirmative action to occur, those who engage in this dialogue must understand what exactly is meant when a person says affirmative action.
In essence, affirmative action is a set of policies serving as antidiscrimination law. It applies broadly and stretches far beyond race to address areas including gender, age and religion. However, this upcoming election deals primarily with the racial aspect of affirmative action. For this article, I will narrow my definition as such.
Affirmative action is a race-conscious effort to open access and opportunity to minorities in areas of employment and education. In no way is affirmative action ideal, but it is a policy that addresses past and present racial discrimination. Now that affirmative action has been defined, let’s revisit ACRI’s original argument.
Affirmative action is a form of racial preference and reverse discrimination offering unfair advantages to minorities. The ACRI President, Ward Connerly, has likened affirmative action to a form of slavery for those who benefit from the policy. “If we carefully examine the definition of slavery, we find its most important characteristics – ‘dependency’ and ‘under the domination of another’ – present in affirmative action,” Connerly said.
The American Civil Rights Institute President, Ward Connerly
In essence, the ACRI and Connerly argue affirmative action harms both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
Now, an argument is only as strong as the evidence that backs it up. One can reasonably assume that if an argument against affirmative action is made based the promotion of racial preference and reverse discrimination, then plenty evidence would be made available to support this position. However, the ACRI has provided no such evidence.
In fact, the overwhelming amount of evidence I will offer in part two of the three-part series disproves this anti-affirmative action argument and demonstrates the continuing significance of race.
To view affirmative action as a policy of preferring one group over another is misleading and overly simplistic; rather, a more accurate view is that it’s a policy providing racial access and opportunity where there is little to none. In addition, the proposition for ending affirmative action ignores racial inequality and ongoing discrimination. Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind affirmative action is not pro-discrimination law, it is antidiscrimination law.
Eliminating affirmative action would remove significant educational and economic opportunities for minorities, worsening their already grossly unequal standing. Sociologist George Lipsitz comments, “Ending affirmative action cuts off avenues of upward mobility that have proven of great importance to aggrieved communities.”
Although affirmative action is not an ideal policy, it’s an anti-discrimination law that’s needed in our country. A “no” to affirmative action is a “no” to racial justice. In closing, I’d like to leave you with the words of Ronald Reagan, who as governor of California was an adamant defender of affirmative action:
“Time and experience have shown that laws and edicts of nondiscrimination are not enough. Justice demands that each and every citizen consciously adopt and accentuate a real and personal commitment to affirmative action, so as to make equal opportunity a reality.”
© Copyright 2008 The All State
By: Kasey Henricks
Posted: 7/23/08
In many aspects, democrats and republicans act more as allies than political competitors. After all, when power is centralized it’s in each party’s best interest to defend against outside intruders who could potentially shift the balance of power. A two-party system guarantees the self-preservation of both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
These methods of self-preservation and maintaining monopolized power are not exclusive to politics. One example is the oil industry. The number of American oil companies can practically be counted on one hand: ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, etc. Another example is the American media. A handful of corporations, like Viacom, Disney, Time Warner, News Corp, and General Electric to name a few, have essentially monopolized the channels in which Americans receive their information. These two examples demonstrate when ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few competition does not exist; control does.
When competition is scarce, it’s in the best interest of those who hold power to collaborate. In terms of American politics, “democrans” and “republicats” have carved themselves such a niche it’s likely some form of revolution will have to occur for real social change to occur. This niche is like an air-tight, foolproof security system, ensuring American political power to remain in the hands of one or the other.
Why is a two-party political system so successful? Partly, because anytime a third party enters the picture the democrats and republicans squash it like a bug. Democratic and Republican Party platforms have changed and adapted with time to ensure their longevity. These changing platforms have historically expanded and contracted to swallow up third party issues. As a result, the Democratic and Republican Party also absorb third party voters. This is no new idea.
In the 1896 election, Democratic presidential candidate William J. Bryan promoted the free-silver platform to sway support from the Populist Movement. Also, in 1916, the Republican Party selected moderate Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans as its presidential candidate to sway support from republican-turned-progressive Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party. In modern times, these trends remain the same.
In 2000, Ralph Nadar ran for president on the platform to break big business’ control over government. Recently, Democratic candidate Barack Obama attempted to appeal to Nadar voters by taking a similar stance. In early June, Obama announced neither he nor the Democratic National Committee would accept lobbyist money. But it should be noted Obama denied public campaign financing shortly after. Furthermore, Obama has persistently stressed a direct, grassroots approach to government. This stance reflects the long-standing views of the Green Party platform and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.
The Republican Party also uses such tactics. In 2000, George W. Bush promoted a platform of limited government and vowed to downsize once he became president. This was also the stance of the Libertarian platform and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. However, it was the Bush Administration’s broad-sweeping, federally mandated No Child Left Behind Act that increased government size and power. In addition, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security continued the same line of expansion.
Current Republican candidate John McCain also promotes reduced government. Specifically, he promotes a laissez-faire, or hands-off, approach to economic issues. While McCain, like most other republicans, promotes this stance, his actions indicate inconsistencies. For example, McCain voted against ending corporate welfare for companies outsourcing American jobs in March, 2005. The hands-off approach McCain verbally supports is also the long-standing platform of the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr.
The ability for political parties to change their platforms is part of the beauty of American politics. As new problems arise new solutions are needed. The adaptive nature of the Democratic and Republican Parties places them in a position where they remain relevant and in touch with contemporary and arising concerns. However, a two-party system ensures political power remains concentrated between two entities.
A government cannot reflect its people’s values when only two choices are provided. This is an illusion of choice – the equivalent to asking: “What values should be reflected in government?” Choose “A” or “B.”
However, it’s important to remember many sets of eyes are better than only two.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Filed under: politics, white privilege | Tags: Clinton, gender, identity politics, obama, race
Published 4/16/08
By: Kasey Henricks
Many have argued that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s battle to be the next potential president is evidence that America has moved to a post-race, post-gender society. On the contrary, how these candidates have addressed these issues, and at what lengths, suggest otherwise. Contrary to many accusations of playing identity politics, Obama and Clinton have left the issues of race and gender relatively untouched on their campaign trails.
Obama and Clinton didn’t get to the position where they are today by talking about the two distinguishing features that set them apart in the history of American politics – race and gender.
For Obama to address the issue of race, he would likely be accused of playing the “race card.” And this would potentially upset a chunk of the vote he needs to win the nominee, white people. After all, Obama has been winning states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado and Alaska. And the snow on the ground ain’t the only thing that’s white in these states. Obama’s candidacy highly depends on the white vote as whites make up three-fourths of the population, as reported by the last census.
Further, the same principle applies to Clinton. If she were to highlight gender issues and seek to remedy them, she’d likely be accused of playing the “gender card.” And Clinton needs another large chunk of the vote in order to gain the nominee, men. (Side questions: What kind of cards are race and gender? And when in America has being a woman or being nonwhite been a trump factor?).
Censorship. Let’s talk about it. Because Obama is dependent upon the white vote and Clinton the male vote, this drastically alters what issues they talk about and how they talk about them.
For Obama, he’s played it politically safe when it comes to addressing race. To his credit, he has persistently connected the past to the present by stating that today’s racial gaps are rooted in the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. This was among one of his central themes in his “A More Perfect Union” speech, or as some call it, his “race speech.” However, a statement like this isn’t any statement that deviates from what previous democratic nominees have said. John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton all made similar statements on their presidential campaign trails.
If Obama were to set himself apart when it comes to acknowledging race, he would have to pose a different argument. Perhaps it would be an argument that addresses a fuller picture of race relations in America. This argument would not only acknowledge the problems rooted in the past but address the ongoing discrimination that maintains and widens the racial divide. It would be an argument that distinguishes racial inequality from all other inequalities. It would be an argument that states when all factors are equal, race remains significant. And plenty of studies are out there to prove this. When variables such as class, gender, age, education, work experience and criminal records are controlled, race remains an influential factor in terms of discrimination in schools, the workplace, housing and other unmentioned areas. (For those interested in these studies check out: Joe Feagin, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, David Embrick, Thomas Shapiro, Robert Bullard, Douglas Massey, Marc Bendick, Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Mullainathan and Devah Pager).
However, Obama has yet to make any such argument. But this may not be because Obama, himself, doesn’t share these views. He probably knows that constructing any such argument would potentially make a lot of white people uncomfortable and end his presidential run.
For Clinton, she has also played it politically safe when it comes to addressing gender. But to her credit, Clinton introduced a Senate bill entitled the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2007. This policy aimed to help bridge the gender gap in earned income disparities. However, it dwindled and never reached a debate.
Otherwise, when Clinton addresses social issues she tends to downplay gender inequality in areas like health care and education and focus on general access and availability to all people. While general access and availability to all people is a noteworthy approach and needs to be talked about, gender inequality in these areas is another noteworthy issue worthy of attention. But gender inequality is an issue that remains in the periphery of Clinton’s political dialogue.
However, Clinton’s lack of attention toward the issue may not be representative of her political stance. Like Obama, Clinton can only say so much. Too much gender talk may leave her labeled as a man-hating feminist and potentially alienate the male vote.
Another problem emerges from the political dialogue Obama and Clinton have engaged in. These candidates talk of race and gender as issues in themselves, which they are, but it’s problematic to isolate race and gender from other interrelated issues. For Obama and Clinton, race or gender gets talked about in one speech or debate, then remains largely ignored in the next few speeches and debates. Talking about racial and gender equality under these circumstances fails to provide any depth to which these problems reside. This approach skims over the root causes of racial and gender inequalities because it does not give any context for these problems. This dialogue does not incorporate racial and gender equality into interconnected issues of political representation, health care, the justice system, education access and attainment, poverty, accumulated wealth, income disparities, unemployment, among others. Until this dialogue is altered, these problems don’t look to be improved.
In closing, the 2008 democratic presidential race demonstrates how far America has come in making strides toward racial and gender equality. But more importantly, it demonstrates how far America still has to go.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 4/2/08
By: Kasey Henricks
It was 6:05 p.m. Thurs., April 4, 1968. One shot rang out in Memphis at the Lorraine Motel. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Rev. Ralph Abernathy, of Birmingham, bent down to cradle King’s head as Jesse Jackson and other members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference pointed across the street towards where the shot was fired. Soon after, King was rushed to St. Joseph’s hospital where he was pronounced dead.
King has meant many things to many people. However, he is not remembered for his silence. As the reverend once said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” No one has changed history by remaining silent. King was a man whose words put truth to power. A bullet may have ended King’s life, but his dream lives on. Forty years after his death, his legacy remains.
Many conservatives remember the King who marched on Washington, D.C. to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. King shared: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
And many liberals recall the King who criticized the Vietnam War and declared that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” In a speech entitled “Beyond Vietnam” given at Riverside Church in New York City, King preached: “It should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam.”
Others remember the more radical King who argued for policies like reparations and affirmative action. In his work “Why We Can’t Wait,” King wrote, “Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat to catch up.”
And King is also remembered for his strong words against the evils of capitalism. In his 1967 SCLC Presidential Address, King said: “We honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America?’ And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society.”
King was all of these things, and more. One sentence, one paragraph, one book cannot encapsulate the meaning of what Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has meant to people. King is a symbol, but he’s more than that.
His image represents inarguably one of the greatest struggles for liberation throughout history. King was not one to advocate silence, because as he saw it, social injustice was not continued by overt actions of bad people, but the disturbing silence of all the good.
And today, injustice remains. When disparities (such as political representation, healthcare access, home ownership, incarceration rates, education, poverty, accumulated wealth, earned income, unemployment, and many other issues) are further examined, King’s struggle remains imminent.
As bell hooks once wrote, “When we speak out in a liberated voice and break the silence, we connect with anyone anywhere living in silence.”
Forty years later, remember King. Break the silence.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 3/19/08
By: Kasey Henricks
Five years ago, the statue of Saddam Hussein tumbled to the ground, symbolizing at that moment liberation for the people of Iraq. Today, marks the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. No celebratory ceremonies have been announced.
The costs of the Iraqi War range broadly. Many analysts tend to focus in terms of dollars. In September 2007, an article in The Washington Post reported: “The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the [American Friends Service Committee's] analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.”
In addition, a recent column by Bob Herbert of The New York Times reported: “The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more.”
But is a dollar figure capable of measuring the losses this country has experienced? What about the losses that Iraqis and other bystanders have experienced? As the war reaches the five-year mark, an alternative approach is needed to better address the suffering endured.
Let’s not view Iraq in terms of dollars, but in human lives. Recalling days after the invasion, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was questioned how many American lives will be lost in this war. Rumsfeld responded by saying he could count this number on both hands. He was off.
According to the Department of Defense, approximately 4,000 U.S. servicemen and women have died since March 19, 2003, and over 2,000 of those were soldiers enlisted in the Army. Of the 4,000 lives, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count records that 84 were from Tennessee and three of those from Clarksville. In addition, more than 82,000 noncombatants, or innocent civilians, have been killed during this time, as reported by Iraq Body Count.
If all of the dead military servicemen and women were APSU students, this would mean our university would lose almost half of its population. Furthermore, if the noncombatant Iraqis who have died were APSU students then our university would increase its current enrollment nine times over.
Numbers matter, but which numbers are taken into account must be considered. A dollar value cannot measure the losses of life in the Iraqi conflict. Life is too precious to put a price tag on it. Five years later, it’s a duty of the living to remember and acknowledge the dead, and the sacrifices that have been made.
Iraq. Why are we there? For many, this answer remains murky. Regardless of the reason(s) why the U.S. is there, the fact remains that we are there. No easy answers are available on how to solve this situation successfully and peacefully. But as the five-year anniversary is upon us, I ask our readership to stop and acknowledge the dead lost in this conflict. Light a candle. Say a prayer. Observe a moment of silence.
To the servicemen and women and the Iraqi civilians, “We remember.”
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 1/23/08
By: Kasey Henricks
Three weeks into the primary season and Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan have potentially made a decision on behalf of the rest of America. Thanks.
If democracy is defined as resting sole authority in the people, the U.S. needs to reconsider its process of electing representatives.
Our electoral process has essentially approved these three states to prematurely narrow the presidential candidates before the other 47 states (Wyoming is somewhat of an exception) have exercised their opportunity to vote.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan compose nearly four percent of the nation’s population. Does this percentage constitute a representative voice for America? Also, these states can collectively be described as being middle-to-upper-middle class, northern-to-northeastern, average-educated white people.
This small sample of people influences and, in some ways, determines the electoral process. In conclusion, decisions are being made by some states for other states without their input. And these decisions are motivated by the interests of a select fraction within the population.
On the Democratic end, the potential candidates have been narrowed from eight to five candidates. And many Democratic voters consider this race to have only two horses remaining-Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As for the Republican race, some uncertainty looms. Four GOP candidates have bowed out but seven still remain. Though many political analysts describe this race as being wide-open, the early primaries and Iowa caucus have allowed Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain a head start that may prove difficult for others to overcome.
For political campaigns, momentum is everything. Voters look to the results of early races to help determine how they will vote. If a person is unsure of which candidate to support, many will pay extra attention to early elections and caucuses to help inform a decision about which candidates are contenders and which ones are not. Obama and Rudy Giuliani are prime examples. Six months ago, many considered Obama to be an inexperienced underdog and not likely to win the Democratic ticket. Fast forward to present day, the Illinois senator has become a serious contender and is considered by many as the candidate to beat. On the other end of the political spectrum is Giuliani. His showing has been reduced to merely having a name on the ballot. Giuliani’s fourth and sixth place showings have discouraged many from viewing “America’s mayor” as being an electable candidate.
The case of Giuliani raises a strong point. Should votes be motivated by choosing a candidate that possesses the most “electability?” Or should voting be motivated by selecting a candidate that best represents a person’s views? Staggered primaries and caucuses have a tendency to promote the candidate most likely to be elected, but not necessarily the best candidate.
And how do candidates elevate their status to be considered electable? Money is one factor in this equation. It’s no coincidence that the winners of these early primary races have been the candidates raising the most dollars. According to CNN, Clinton and Obama have raised nearly $91 and $80 million, respectively. As for the Republican Party, Romney and McCain are among the top fundraisers with nearly $63 and $32 million. Giuliani ranks second among the GOP’s top money-getters raising nearly $47 million but this seems to be the only campaign strategy working out for the New Yorker.
Becoming president is expensive. A typical political tactic is to pour as much cash as possible into the first few races. If candidates build a strong presence early, a following is established and the other competitors’ funds are diminished.
Staggering caucuses and elections present a hiccup in the democratic process. A few states highly influence and somewhat determine the presidency. And because of these earlier elections, presidential candidates are forced to concentrate their cash in these few states. For some contenders, after this initial cash is spent, so are they. The race transforms from a battle of ideas to a contest of who has the deepest pockets.
One alternative to remedy this problem is to establish a national primary election and caucus day. All voters would hit the ballot at the same time allowing for a more authentic vote, free from outside influence and premature candidate selection.
No election results could influence how voters check their ballot. And campaign funds would have to be dispersed throughout the country making it more difficult for headliner candidates to capitalize on outbidding lower-tiered candidates. The sheer size and diversity within our country would force candidates to spread out their funds, opening the door for other candidates to strategically compete better. This proposal would potentially decentralize the process of electing presidential candidates, making it more representative of the peoples’ interests.
Given the current state of elections and caucuses, one thing is certain: America should reconsider its ideas of democracy and how it should be practiced.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 11/7/07
By: Kasey Henricks
Anytime human judgment is involved, unbiased opinion is not possible.
News is about presenting information. Behind every piece of information is an agenda. Contrary to what Fox News would like its audience to believe, it is not “fair and balanced.” And no, the token liberal co-hosting “Hannity & Colmes” isn’t fooling anyone. And for those liberal-minded people out there, MSNBC isn’t much worse. Having conservative Tucker Carlson host his own show doesn’t cover up or balance out MSNBC’s liberal bias.
Let’s speak truth about objective reporting in the complex social world: It’s not possible. For every piece of information, there’s a choice to present that information and how to present it. Partial realities describe the content presented by newspapers, magazines, TV and other media outlets. Everyone has a bias, including journalists. Forming a bias cannot be avoided. Things like experiences, interests and norms shape the way individuals think. And journalists bring such backgrounds to their job everyday.
To truly accomplish objective reporting, the world would have to be ideal. That is, ways of seeing would have to be the same for everyone. Objectivity is a state that occurs only when people have the same interests and experience base. Everyone would have to have the same point of reference. Everyone would have to possess the same logic. Everyone would need to have the same expectations. Such an environment leaves no room for dissenting opinion. Only in this ideal world could journalists consider all angles of a story.
Truth looks different to different people. A wise man once told me: “For every way of seeing, there’s a way of not seeing.” Viewing the social world is like looking at a multidimensional object. How an object appears depends on where a person stands. A different vantage point shifts the entire image. Journalism is much of the same. News is simply a narrow account of the complex social world. Each account is not a full description, but merely an introduction to the world as that person or group sees it. It’s a one-dimensional view for a three-dimensional world.
An alternative approach to journalism would be to admit these limitations. Admit that there is no all-encompassing method to presenting the news. Acknowledge that the social world is complex, and a five-minute news presentation or 500-word article cannot include all of the contributing factors as to why certain events occurred the way that they did. Confess these shortcomings, but commit to aggressively striving for truth with an open-mind.
Journalists should strive for a profession rooted in fairness and accuracy. The media must commit to considering more than “both sides of a story.” Traditional ways of thinking must be revised. No longer should it be acceptable to believe that two versions of a story are the only versions out there. Instead, journalists should ask: “What questions am I missing?” Much consideration should be given to the knowledge that remains unknown. The alternative approach to news could start with what is not known, not what is. Journalists should disclose what factors may have influenced or motivated their way of viewing an issue or event. Generally when individuals admit an interest in an issue or event, reasons exist for that interest. Providing such information would better inform audiences of what lens an issue or event is being looked through.
Journalism with an admitted bias opens the door for accuracy in reporting. Such an approach would spawn endless debate. But this type of debate may be exactly what the public needs. After all, this question and verify-everything approach serves democracy as a better method of holding government accountable. For example, it would have benefited the American public if the so-called “liberal-news media” would have lived up to its reputation prior to the invasion of Iraq. If the media hadn’t been consumed with the “Shock and Awe” campaign that showed America flex its muscles with close-up images of tanks and fighter jets, journalists might have stopped to ask: “Is Iraq a threat to America? Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Is Iraq connected with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida?” An admittedly biased media outlet could have benefited America at such a time.
Honesty is perhaps the most-needed quality when dealing with issues or events that involve uncertainty. The media operates with limitations. But an approach that asks fellow journalists to add to the conversation of news serves as a better model of media. The need for fact-checking works best when the presented information is assumed to be false until proven true. Constant verification is a good thing.
Perfect media will never exist. But committing to foundational pillars in journalism is the first step to creating a more perfect media – a media that’s fair and accurate, but limited by its inherent shortcomings. Oh yeah, and the wall must come down.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
