What’s surprising about today’s ruling on Parents Involved in Community Schools Inc. v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County (Ky.) Board of Education is the stunned reaction of civil rights advocates as though this wasn’t inevitable. However, one can make the argument that the dismantling of affirmative action has been inevitable for some time, particularly when African Americans are at a point in their political and economic maturity where White society feels remedies are no longer needed. Hence, cold turkey commences. The withdrawal is painful, but it will happen and Black people have no choice but to adapt to 21st century realities. Such rulings remind us that we will need to be collectively competitive.
The argument can be made that this would happen sooner or later as conservative legal minds would find creative – albeit capricious – ways to interpret the tenets of the Brown ruling on its face. A strict constructionist analysis of the monumental desegregation decision can easily argue that African Americans can’t expect to have it both ways: to 1) argue against the notion of schools separated by race but 2) decide to arrange school districts based on racial demographics. In this sense, conservatives (including the mindless, Scalia-cloning Clarence Thomas), appear to find everlasting loopholes that become the fatal blow to affirmative action, thus affirming ridiculous assumptions about Blacks somehow having ”an unfair advantage” over Whites. That’s what this is really all about: Whites can buck or circumvent “the system”; Black people can’t.
So, we’ve arrived at that evolutionary stage in modern racism where bigots split verbal hairs rather than split Black heads with police batons. Such rulings won’t take us back to legalized Jim Crow or slavery, but it begins to promote more subtle forms of such as access to educational and economic benefits gradually disappear and African Americans are chained to a maddening array of debt, financial collapse, unemployment and collapsed school systems. Clearly, the need for a new strategy has never been more apparent than now.
On the “All American Presidential Forum” ….
June 29, 2007
Slickly named the “All American Presidential Forum” in an effort to avoid the obvious Black-sided nature of the affair, this could actually be considered the most challenging debate for the candidates since it wasn’t all about Iraq – for the first-time (to date) candidates were required to consider other critical issues other than the war in Iraq. The issue of war remained a sub-text throughout, but this debate seemed to satisfy a general hunger for discussion on other major bread-&-butter issues. The All-American Presidential Forum was a great opportunity for Presidential candidates to answer questions about the unique issues facing African Americans and Africa. It is the first time in the history of the republic that all major candidates for President (the Republicans will engage in an All American Presidential Forum) were gathered – on an HBCU campus no less – to discuss these issues.
Regardless of what you think about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), the next debate and the first Democratic debate on South Carolina State University – another HBCU – is due to the “Obama Factor.” If not for Sen. Obama’s candidacy – the most legitimate and formidable Black Presidential candidacy ever – these debates would not have happened.
Obama was in a unique position. He had to “prove” his authenticity – a role not required of any other candidate – while not pandering or acting “too black” for the remaining 80% of the electorate. He had to strike a balance between authenticity and preventing general election campaign fodder for his potential GOP rival who could use footage against him as a racial wedge issue.
We do think Sen. Obama missed an opportunity, however, when the candidates were asked about Darfur and how America did nothing in Rwanda. This should have been an opportunity to “remind” Biden, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson and Clinton of their inaction on Rwanda despite previous influence, and that many remain in those same positions today while faced with genocide in Sudan.
The night’s most disingenuous moment is when Sen. Dodd roundly criticized today’s Supreme Court ruling on race in public schools despite his voting “yeah” for the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts. This should have presented an opportunity for Tavis Smiley and panelists.
Additionally, there was a missed opportunity to present a journalist from the Black press on this panel while not providing an Internet-based forum for average African American participation. Why are Black media outlets and journalists from Black newspapers being overlooked or ignored for these types of affairs? Why couldn’t a debate like this take place on TVOne or BET? Seems like a natural fit. Could there be political reasons, primarily Smiley’s enduring quest to curry favor and reputation with mainstream press outlets while painting himself as King of Rogue Black Commentators taking on the Man? We feel Black press outlets would offer an even edgier, raw perspective on these issues missed and ignored by big, White-dominated editorial pages.
Still, Tavis gets big ups for arranging the event and ensuring other issues get placed on the frontburner. We were snoring on previous debates.
The Shameless Sham of a Student Loan “Overhaul”
June 21, 2007
Who are these cats kidding? It’s predictable that Democrats would now focus on student loans as a new target in their enduring quest to appear more … oversight-happy than their Republican counterparts. Hence, it all looks a bit disingenuous. A screen of rhetorical smoke designed to make it seem as though they’re really all about change when, in reality, they’re just barely holding on to a slim majority in the Senate and still have much to worry about in 2008 if they continue getting weak in the knees on Iraq.
So, when we saw the latest piece on legislation to curb federal subsidies to student lending companies, we didn’t get jiggy. Not that we’re opposed to cuts in subsidies to lenders – we’re opposed to the idea of subsidizing lenders at all. Why the lenders appear to be just as much a factor as the students in this equation baffles us; there’s more talk about ensuring the lending market is “stabilized” than there is talk about how most Americans can’t afford college.
The issue of college affordability is a topic certain to significantly boost the polling numbers of any Presidential candidate (Democrat or Republican) who really attacks it head on as a leading platform. Any takers? Think about it: all you need to do is say you want universal college education – even if you know that it will get jammed up in Congress. But, seriously: a candidate who runs on that as a centerpiece issue is the candidate that creates a new movement.
To date, however, it doesn’t appear that way because all the candidates ever talk about is Iraq, terrorism, immigration … and … oh yeah, more Iraq. What was that again? Oh – Iraq. The sleeping standout issue of the 2008 elections is the affordability of a college education. It’s something everybody can agree on (regardless of race, religion and party) and it’s something we all worry about for us, our kids and our future as a stable society.
The real debate should be on cutting all subsidies to lenders and, finally, discussing an investment in the higher education of all Americans. We’re even, perhaps, open to the idea of a fair, balanced and non-discriminating universal college system that pays for all tuition costs but is based on a universal academic merit system (translated: you’re on your own if your high school GPA is below a 3.0). Or: why not expand AmeriCorps as a condition of full tuition payments, creating a massive army of youth giving something back to the community. This is not outside the imagination, folks. You somehow sync it with No Child Left Behind, thereby offering incentive for parents and kids who once assumed college was out of reach.
On the 3.0 GPA condition, some may accuse us of a bit of intellectual elitism; we argue that reality dictates the competitive nature of the world we live in, and we should cease “dumbing down” academic standards.
Obviously, critics will note the mammoth expense of such a proposal – while supporting the growing expense of an American military presence in the Middle East. There may be room for a compromise – if it’s too expensive to pay for a pricey Ivy League or top-tier University education, then offer full tuition for public universities which aren’t all that bad last we checked. There could be much discussion surrouding the “separate and unequal” perception of low-income to middle-class students going to public universities while the rich kids get to go to Princeton, Harvard and Yale. But – it’s better than the haunting probability of an entire generation of unschooled, desperate, and unemployed/under-employed post-teen youth forced to engage in an array of sordid alternatives.
Essentially, this proposed student loan legislation misses the point by far. It’s also another example of lending industry manipulation through lobbying and campaign contributions. More on that …
India’s Slave Trading & Condi Rice’s Blackness
June 13, 2007
Even though we’ve placed Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice at the top spot of our new “Power Players” list, we do so with pure objectivity and not out of favoritism. You can’t deny it: she is the most powerful Black person in the world since she executes U.S. foreign policy. Let’s establish that first.
But, we wrestle with that No. 1 “Power Players” ranking after catching this latest CNN report about how Rice appears to literally dismiss the fact that some 65 million individuals are subjected to forced labor in India, now a growing South Asian economic powerhouse. As CNN reports, India “ … was spared the worst ranking on the State Department’s new list of nations where humans are bought and sold.” Why? We find this rather disturbing reason several paragraphs below:
U.S. officials told CNN the question of India’s ranking caused a heated debate between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.
Negroponte wanted India listed as a Tier 3 country, or worst offender. Rice overruled him out of concern about alienating the Indian government. India is on the Tier 2 watch list.
Rice agreed to undertake a special evaluation of India in six months, and then take action if India does not make improvements.
It’s actions like these which will, understandably, cause a new round of accusations from the Black intelligentsia that Rice has “issues” with her “Blackness” or simply: she’s not “Black enough.” We can’t help but notice that it’s rather odd and, frankly, a bit unsettling that an African American woman (with Southern roots) would prevent sanctions against India for the human slavery taking place inside its borders. It may not officially sanction the slavery, but 65 million people is an astonishing enough number to cause a concerned pause from the international community about the Indian government’s culpability. What is even more unsettling is that Rice would actually argue with a White man about it.
If anyone in the State Department should be recommending a “Tier 3″ ranking without reservation it should be Rice, who we feel could show a bit more empathy based on her basic knowledge of what her ancestors went through. Some issues are just, simply, non-negotiable.
