Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Our Eyes Will See the Glory

(Full text and audio: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm)

Martin Luther King, Jr
April 3, 1968
Memphis, TN

"This is where we are right now..."

...This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

...For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected....

~Barack Obama, 3/18/08

A Gift Bag Full of Feminism

Today is my daughters' eighth birthday. We have already had their party--a raucus affair at Pump It Up! They've taken treats to school today to share with their classmates. This evening my husband and I will take them out to dinner and give them their gifts from us (watches with clock faces/hands and books 5 and 6 of the Harry Potter series) and from their relatives out of town.

But still, I am thinking that I should give them a gift that is more personal...more lasting and important. After thinking about this a lot--especially in light of recent current events--I think I know the perfect gift:

Feminism.

But no, not the used, second-hand feminism that I was given/took/stole, and/or re-fashioned. A new feminism.

This new feminism will not trade paternalism for maternalism, nor tokenism for exoticism.

This new feminism will see that sometimes "assertiveness" and "fiestiness" is really just the same old arrogance and rudeness, just spun and branded better.

This new feminism will not be silent in the face of 24/7 media coverage of the death of one blond-haired, blue-eyed young woman while coverage of brown and black young women who also are found dead is absent.

This new feminism will acknowledge that some fish might like bicycles.

This new feminism will involve neither "choice" nor competition among gender and race and income level and sexual orientation and age or any other aspect of personal and group identity.

This new feminism will not define different opinions as self-delusion.

This new feminism will be as concerned with rights to be mothers as with rights not to be.

This new feminism will embrace the struggles and triumphs of my brothers, fathers, grandfathers and uncles as part of its own.

This new feminism will be as concerned with the women changing some other women's children's dirty diapers, cleaning some other women's dirty toilets as it is with these other women's struggles bumping up against the glass ceiling.

This new feminism will continue to observe how the "personal is political," but will also acknowledge that sometimes your personal "ain't like mine."

This gift of new feminism definitely will not be one size fits all, and there will be no restrictions on exchanges or refunds. I give this gift openly and freely, and without expectations of a thank you card or some other repayment at some future time.

Happy birthday, girls. Hope you enjoy your day and all of your gifts.

Voting Rights at Prairie View

As a follow-up to my previous post about voting rights for our college students is this article from the Houston Chronicle:

More than 1,000 Prairie View A&M students turned out on Tuesday to march in support of their voting rights.

The marchers said Prairie View student voting rights have been suppressed for decades in Waller County.

The protesters carried "Register to Vote" signs and wore black shirts with the slogan, "It is 2008 and we will vote."

..."These are wonderful kids. They are making a statement, until they spoke up there was only one early voting place in the entire county. They spoke up but everyone is benefiting from what they are doing,'' said Prairie View Mayor Frank Johnson.

Last week, under pressure from the federal government, Waller County officials added three temporary polling places for early voting, ditching plans to open only one voting site in advance of the March 4 primary.

The Justice Department questioned the county's January decision to cut early-voting sites from a half dozen throughout the county to just one in Hempstead. The county's about-face came on the same day that critics announced a mass march to the polls next week.

Early voting began Tuesday.

Waller County has faced numerous lawsuits involving voting rights in the past 30 years and remains under investigation by the Texas Attorney General's Office based on complaints by local black leaders. Those allegations, concerning the November 2006 general election, related to voting machine failures, inadequate staffing and long delays for voting results.

(Via Jack and Jill Politics)

Protecting Our Students' Voting Rights

Suffrage (from the Latin suffragium, meaning "vote") is the civil right to vote, or the exercise of that right. In that context, it is also called political franchise or simply the franchise.
~Wikipedia entry

The issue of suffrage--and the denial of it to some people and groups--has been an issue in this country since...well, since before it was "this country." Many groups have in the past and more recently had challenges to their rights to exercise this important civic responsibility. But for those of us working in higher education, we should be paying particular attention to continuing threats to our students' voting rights. A recent CoHE piece highlights some of the issues:

Before winter break, Rick Andrews thought Barack Obama was a long shot. The junior at Washington University in St. Louis liked Mr. Obama, but not his chances.

"I got a lot more excited about voting in Missouri after he won in Iowa," Mr. Andrews says.

But the deadline for registering to vote in Missouri was January 9, when he was driving back to St. Louis from his parents' house in Acton, Mass. He is still fired up about Mr. Obama, but he won't be able to vote in Missouri or in Massachusetts.

"Ultimately it's still my responsibility to keep track of all the dates and do what I need to do," he says. But early voter-registration deadlines, he adds, put students at a disadvantage.

The key issue in student suffrage is residency: are students residents of the states where their parents live or where they go to school? Can each student choose for herself or himself? What is required to prove residency status in order to register and vote? And as importantly, are these deadlines and requirements fair to students? The answers to these questions, not surprisingly, vary from state to state:

Many students who go away to college want to register to vote where they are in school. In some states it is relatively easy. Minnesota and Wisconsin, both of which allow voters to register on Election Day, had the top two youth turnouts in the 2004 presidential election: 69 percent and 63 percent, respectively.

In some other states, voters must prove an "intent to stay." Election law in Ohio has specific provisions about students, who may vote, it says, if they intend "to reside permanently in the Ohio county in which the school residence address is located."

But wait a minute. Is any other citizen required to prove "intent to stay"? What would constitute such proof for a student versus a non-student and would such requirements be fair to students? According to the Chronicle piece, courts have generally ruled that students can't be subject to questioning beyond that of any other citizen. But that does not change the fact that some students may be unaware or confused about their rights. And this lack of awareness and confusion may increase the possibility of success of intimidation tactics, as almost happened in this student's case:

Cindy Padera, a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, first registered to vote in Philadelphia in 2004, rather than in her hometown of Western Springs, Ill. "At this point in students' lives, four years is a very long time," she says, "and you make a commitment to where you're living."

But her commitment wavered in the days before the presidential election, when misleading fliers posted on the campus warned out-of-state students that voting in Pennsylvania could jeopardize their financial aid and subject them to extra taxes. Ms. Padera was almost deterred, but she did end up voting.

Fortunately, there have been several recent efforts aimed at helping younger voters more generally and student voters in particular. Student Association for Voter Empowerment (S.A.V.E.) "teaches deliberate decision-making, democratic responsibility and community involvement in order to ensure active participation for a lifetime" as well as seeks to "remove (voting) obstructions and mobilize a broad coalition of young adults committed to policy reform and thereby transparent, accountable, and fair election practices." The Rock the Vote effort has a campus campaign that provides information on student voting rights as well as a tool kit for fighting student voter rights suppression.

Searing Vision

...In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom...

~Toni Morrison, letter to Sen. Obama

Caucus Time!

Minnesota is one of the states that will be part of "Super Tuesday" next week. Everything you need to know about how to participate in the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party caucus can be found on their website here.

Now, those of you reading this from outside of Minnesota may be wondering "What the heck is a democratic-farmer-labor party?" I wondered that as well when I first moved here more than eight years ago. Well, the DFL

is the Minnesota arm of the national Democratic Party, the oldest political party in the world. Its history is distinctive, however, because it also has its roots in third-party protest movements. The DFL came into being in its modern form when the Minnesota Democratic and Farmer–Labor parties merged in April 1944.

Should be an enjoyable evening of community fun as well as important civic decision-making!

On "Diversities," New Philosophy, and Stinky Cheese

I am way behind in clearing out my drafts folder and it looks like I will end up deleting entries about a lot of worthy topics due to their (now) lack of timeliness and/or my lack of time to complete them. But I did not want to miss the opportunity to post about the special Diversity in Academe section of the Chronicle of Higher Education.

This special section has something for everyone. Really. Lest you think "diversity" only means "race," there are articles on diversity of religious beliefs ("Some Evangelicals Find the Campus Climate Chilly — but Is That About Faith, or Politics?"), diversity of sexual orientation ("Gay Professors Face Less Discrimination, but Many Still Fight for Benefits"), diversity of marital status ("Make Room for Singles in Teaching and Research ," and diversity of social class ("Elite Colleges Must Give Low-Income Students the Tools to Succeed")--just to name a few.

Of course, the section also delivers on one of the things that the CoHE does best: documenting nationwide statistics. This article breaks down faculty race/ethnicity figures at 2,700 colleges.

One of my favorite articles in the issue is this one about a small group of African American female philosophers who have found each other and are getting together to meet face to face:

When the nation's black female philosophers meet for the first time next month, the auditorium at Vanderbilt University will have plenty of empty seats. Not because no one is interested in attending, but because fewer than 30 black women are known to hold full-time jobs in the discipline.

The women — plus about a half-dozen black female graduate students — are getting together for the first meeting of the Collegium of Black Women Philosophers. The gathering will be part pep talk, part networking opportunity, and part research seminar.

As part of my graduate minor in bioethics I took courses in the philosophy department. It did not take long for me to notice that I was only one of a handful of Black graduate students. Even though I have grown used to my Only status, it was even more apparent walking those halls. So I will be waiting with interest to see what these women will do with their new-found sense of not being Only.

The special issue is not all "pro-diversity," however. One article aims to explain "Why Diversity for Diversity's Sake Won't Work" while another claims that "True Diversity Doesn't Come From Abroad."

The latter article in particular is one that resonated with me, as it articulated well my increasing sense that "diversity" policies are being used as a bait-and-switch tactic to ignore social justice responsibilities. I wholeheartedly value an increasd emphasis on global understanding and experience--If my experience living in Germany for three years taught me anything it was that too many of us Americans are too ignorant about the rest of the world, and that we are bound to suffer greatly because of it. Yet, efforts at internationalizing our campuses and curricula should not be undertaken at the expense of addressing issues of racial disparities and discrimination within our own borders. From the Chronicle article:

Correcting the underrepresentation of minority groups, then, has little to do with international programs. The presence of foreign scholars — even those who are black, brown, or Spanish-speaking — does little to solve the problem of our universities' lack of success with Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, and black youth from across the United States. Foreigners should not count when we are talking about underrepresentation of American groups.

Diversity initiatives began in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a way to solve broad, deep, race-based problems in American society. But with its shift in meaning, diversity today is a sort of red herring. We can deceive ourselves that we are taking the right steps to increase diversity when in fact we are ignoring what is still one of this country's most troubling issues: educating our minority youth.

I'm not sure about the term "red herring" the author of the above article uses. Dictionary.com offers a second definition of the term as "something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand." I think that the rhetorical frame of diversity, or diversities, is not so much a focus on "un-real" problems. It is more that talking about multiple differences--indeed, being able to frame virtually everything as a matter of an important diversity--we are able to diffuse attention, spead it out from race to cover other things that in some cases may not be so contentious. (And the greater problem is that we seem to be spreading out the same store of attention, the same time for discussion, the same pot of resources to cover all these new areas instead of investing in more to cover more.) In the process, with each switch of diversity focus we change around who the "oppressed" and "oppressors" are such that no one has to remain the "bad guy" and everyone gets to be the "good guy" at some point.

In this environment of Everything is Diverse talking directly about race can be exhausting and frustrating. As I put things in this previous SITBB post, for example:

...I bet I am not the only person who has had the experience of, as someone on a discussion board so brilliantly put it, bringing up race and feeling as if I had "brought stinky cheese to a potluck lunch." That is, instead of being rebuked, debated, or otherwise engaged in conversation about what I have said, the reaction is a polite--but firm--avoidance. Too well-mannered to chide me for my poor choice of dish, my fellow lunchmates nevertheless steer clear of it.

This makes me think: Has "diversity" failed as a workable strategy in higher education?

In the more than two years since I first posed that question I am no closer to a definitive answer. But I have seen this trend toward multiple diversities continue to grow. I am also not close to deciding if this will end up being a good thing or a bad thing.

In the meanwhile, I am continuing to enjoy the...um, diverse perspectives in this CoHE special section. I also continue to be a fan of another higher education publication, Diverse Issues in Higher Education. This publication used to be known as Black Issues in Higher Education but it, too, was bitten by the diversity bug--Although actually, even when it was named Black Issues it covered issues related to other diverse groups, too... Well, at any rate the current issue of DIHE also is well worth the read.

Give Poverty a Chance

Two must-read blogs are currently being penned by lawmakers who are taking a challenge to live for a period of time on what Americans who receive food stamps must live on. On the second day of the Food Stamp Challenge, Congressman Tim Ryan blogged:

My biggest concern today is running out of food before the end of the week. One loaf of bread doesn’t make as many sandwiches as you’d think, and I’m running through my cottage cheese pretty fast as well. The budgeting was hard enough, rationing what I do have will present another challenge.

Meanwhile, Congressman Jim McGovern describes here how hard it is to see the wonderful spreads of food at recptions and other events when he is restricted to his $21 a day limit:

Last night I attended a banquet for the National Immigration Forum at the Mayflower Hotel, where I was a guest speaker. I had planned to eat dinner before hand -- knowing that a sit-down dinner was to be served. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee hearing on the Defense Bill went extra long. I didn't have a chance to eat.

I was extremely hungry. The hors d'oeuvres looked terrific -- so did the red wine. I settled for a glass of tap water.

Thankfully, my wife, Lisa, arrived at the beginning of the dinner with an egg and cheese sandwich on a tortilla. I ate it in 3 seconds (people looked at me as if I were crazy).

As an added bonus, he even provides a snap shot of one of his and his wife's grocery store receipts.

Two particular points of interest to me involve (1) the challenge of addressing chronic health problems that require certain healthy diets on this kind of budget, and (2) the environmental constraints inherent in the types of grocery outlets within walking/busing distance to inner city neighborhoods and the prices and selections of these stores. For those following issues of poverty, none of this will come as a surprise. But it does bring into sharp focus the ripple effects of poverty and environment and health disparities.

Of course the question remains: Will this effort--no matter how interesting--do any good?

(Washington Post story here.)

I Do NOT Like Him Because He's "Cute"!

So I'm driving in this morning to work and I hear on the radio that Senator Barack Obama will be in town to support Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar. His new book, Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, is now out. And he is all over the news these days. I guess I am not optimistic enough to think that this country is ready to send to the White House a president of African ancestry. I doubt I will see that in my lifetime, in fact.

But still. It sure is exciting to think about. And of course, I'd love to be proved wrong.

Despite what my husband thinks, I do not like Obama because of his looks. I do not know why it is impossible for many folks to conceive of women supporting a candidate--who just happens to be a pleasure on the eyes--for reasons more complex than looks. And it would be interesting to read any scholarly studies about "looks" and the fate of candidates at the polls, such as whether "ugly" male candidates are generally more successful than "ugly" female ones.

Anyway. Welcome to Minnesota, Senator.

And to you and everybody else: Happy Monday!

SITBB Vault: "A Long Train of Abuses"

I may do nothing else "meaningful" on observances such as today. (Cleaning the grill in preparation for the mister cooking kabobs does not count.) But I at least like to try to re-read original documents. This is a good site for the Declaration of Independence. (You can even sign your name to the document!)

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Of course, as eloquent and symbolic as it may be, this document did not have a whole lot of meaning for any ancestors of mine who may have been hanging around the embryonic US at the time. That meaning would come later, with the Emancipation Proclamation. It is truly important to read this document, to recognize just what it did and did not do. For example, it did not apply to all of the states where people of African descent were enslaved. Also, interesting is how some mention was directed at us Black folks, telling us to be nice and work hard now that we were free:

...And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages...

But the point of both documents to me is in the ideals and possibility they represent. They are less "artifact" and more "to do list." The train of abuses is, indeed, long. And it hasn't yet stopped on its tracks. That's the work we have ahead of us--No matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court or in the Oval Office.

So. Happy Independence Day.
And a belated (appropriate!) Happy Juneteenth.

Why, Indeed?

Carleton College has a special place in my heart: another Minnesota institution of higher learning, in the same town where my kids' favorite breakfast cereal is made, academic home of the late Paul Wellstone, and my husband's alma mater. So it was with great interest that I read this report of Carleton's historic academic response to Hurricane Katrina in today's IHE. (Also see this story from Carleton's alumni magazine, Voice.) If I had a hat, it'd be off in recognition of one institution's commitment to not forgetting, and for using that memory as a true teaching moment.

...[F]ollowing a faculty vote, the college announced that it would do something today that it has never done before: call off all classes and replace them with a day of programs on a single theme of Katrina. While some colleges call off classes for teach-ins following a local or national crisis (such as 9/11), the Carleton program is a bit different — planned over several months, yet also related to a single recent event.

...[A]t the heart of the plans for the day is learning: history, politics, the environment, culture. Oden, the president, said that one inspiration for the day came from a book he read before Katrina that he wishes more people had read. Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America focuses in part about decisions made by the government — and how those decisions helped and hurt various groups of people, with some tragic effects, particularly on poor people.

That issue of knowledge is why he returns to the theme that as meritorious as it is for colleges to encourage students and faculty members to build homes in New Orleans, imagine what might have happened if more colleges encouraged more people to read such works — and to truly reflect on them and keep that information with them.

Said Oden: “The question we have to think about is: Why do we forget so soon?”

Crossing Wires/Crossing Minds

These two stories have been sitting checkmarked in my Bloglines "to-be-potentially-bogged-about-later" section for some time now. Not together, mind you. But both there. (Along with many, many other interesting stories, news reports, and blog posts I will probably not get to.) I happened to re-read them both today, back to back.

And the juxtaposition was startling.

I have a lot to say, but have been unable so far to put my thoughts into words. Except to say, I guess, that to me the overlap in these stories is meaningful. Even though they seem to be totally different on the surface, deeper down both stories are about similar issues of privilege and race and class and gender and higher education and entitlement. These issues criss-cross in unexpected, even profane ways--like those children's puzzles that allow one to mix heads, bodies and legs from various images to create nonsense creatures...

I know I'm not making sense so I guess I'll just let the stories talk for themselves.

From USA Today via Family Law Prof Blog:

Five years after a trade group tried reining them in, fertility clinics and brokers are bidding up prices for eggs sold by cash-strapped college women with top test scores and picture-perfect looks.

Advertisements in campus newspapers and on websites plead daily. "Egg Donors Needed. $10,000," says one in The Daily Californian, the student newspaper at the University of California, Berkeley. The ad, from a San Diego broker called A Perfect Match, seeks women who are "attractive, under the age of 29" and have SAT scores above 1,300.

...One of the biggest clinics, Genetics & IVF Institute near Washington, D.C., offers an online catalog of 100 donors in a database searchable by race, height, eye color, blood type and education. Profiles feature snapshots of donors taken when they were children to better visualize babies their eggs might produce.

There's audio, too: Downloadable recordings of donors interviewed about, say, a favorite gift. Donor No. 583 — a 5-foot-4 day care provider with a criminal justice education — recalls a pair of barrettes her son made for Mother's Day. "I had to wear them all the time," she says, laughing about the memory in her digital interview.

Sites adorned with photos and vital statistics create "a sense that you are choosing a person, rather than genetic material," Spar says. "It feels a lot like online dating."

Prospective parents want donors who look and behave much like the baby they dream of, even though there's no guarantee. The result: escalating fees for beautiful women with perfect grades — a "morally troubling" development akin to eugenics, the ASRM warned.

...Blond hair and blue eyes are big sellers. A 28-year-old lawyer near Washington with those very looks plus a good education says she earned a total $7,500 from Genetics & IVF last fall for 15 eggs....

She has started a second cycle and expects another $7,500. The payments will help pay $175,000 in school debt, she says. She says she would give eggs for free to a friend or relative. But not strangers. "I am going through injections daily and all sorts of medication," she says. "I should be compensated."

From Inside Higher Education:

...At a gathering in an off-campus home, some members of the highly ranked team were gathered — and drinking. Lacrosse is a sport largely played by white athletes — 46 of the Duke squad’s 47 members are white. Those at the party called an escort service to provide two “private dancers,” who arrived to put on a show for the students. One of the women was also a college student — at North Carolina Central University, a historically black institution also in Durham, Duke’s home.

This woman, a mother of two, was helping to finance her education by working for the service.

According to the woman, she thought she was going to a small gathering, and was shocked to find herself and her fellow dancer surrounded by more than 40 college men, who shouted racial slurs at them. She also says that three members of the team raped her in a bathroom at the house.

...Particularly upsetting to Haagen and others at Duke is the impact this incident is having on the university’s image in Durham....Durham has a large minority population and many people in the city think of Duke as a wealthy institution compared to their own means.

“I suspect that whatever happens in this investigation, even if the DNA testing comes back negative, people are going to think there was a cover-up. This will become a reality,” Haagen said.

And that reality of course looks different at North Carolina Central than at Duke. Most of the public attention has been about Duke, but there are also issues raised by the fact that a college student felt she needed to support herself by working for an escort service.

...[Roland Gaines, vice chancellor for student affairs at North Carolina Central] said that many students at the college are indeed “financially challenged” and that he regularly receives visits from students who can’t make ends meet and are desperate for some sort of help or another job. The student told The Raleigh News & Observer that she typically took three assignments a week from the service, and that while she did not like the work, it paid well and fit her schedule.

“It’s obviously a real concern that we have a student who feels she needs to go to an escort service for additional income,” Gaines said. “It never, ever crossed my mind that we would have students do that”...

Leave NO(LA) Child Behind

As a follow-up to my post about the reopening of Bishop Perry Middle School, is this piece, Missing School in the Big Easy, from Salon.com:

...Before the storm, New Orleans operated 117 public schools for 65,000 kids -- over 90 percent of them African-American. Today, only 20 schools are open. School officials say that by August, as families, now scattered across the country, begin to return to New Orleans, the district will open more schools and be able to handle a total of 25,000 kids. But the current lack of available schools is about more than the physical destruction wrought by Katrina. To many activists, it points to serious inequities in the massive transformation of the New Orleans public school system. Long one of the nation's worst, the school system is being re-created as a laboratory for charter schools, a type of reform often favored by conservatives and opposed by teachers unions and others who see it as a gateway to privatization. Nearly 90 percent, or 102 schools, could ultimately be run as charters. Nothing on this scale has ever been tried before.

Brenda Mitchell, president of United Teachers of New Orleans, says she is not a conspiracy theorist, but when she considers the new charter system, she is not sure how else to think. "It's all part of the privatization and social engineering of the city, limiting the return of poor people and African-Americans," she says. "If you're not providing housing for them, if you don't want to provide schools to educate them, how are they going to come back to rebuild the city"...

...And what about Minotaurians?

What can I say about President Bush's recent foray into bioethics policy that is not hilariously captured in this post.

By the way, Dr. Berube failed to include statements from Were-folk and Vampires. I see no reason why the voices of Centaurs should be privileged over those from horror cultures.

(Also see this post.)

MLK Day Link Round-Up

"Does progressive action come with that spirituality?" (Leigh E. Schmidt says Yes):

A good sense of the continuing moral and political import of this American vocabulary of the spirit comes from Barack Obama, the recently elected Democratic senator from Illinois. Obama has said that, despite the results of the 2004 election, it “shouldn’t be hard” to reconnect progressive politics with religious vision: “Martin Luther King did it. The abolitionists did it. Dorothy Day did it. . . . We don’t have to start from scratch.”

Perhaps Obama’s most telling remark came in his observations about his mother’s faith: “My mother saw religion as an impediment to broader values, like tolerance and racial inclusivity. She remembered churchgoing folks who also called people nigger. But she was a deeply spiritual person, and when I moved to Chicago and worked with church-based community organizations, I kept hearing her values expressed.” Obama’s invocation of “spiritual” as an inclusive term, inextricably interwoven with the “broader values” of American democracy, is important and carefully chosen diction. It not only conjures up Whitman’s ghost but also suggests some of the poet’s own audacity. As a concept of consequence in American culture, spirituality was born of the romantic aspirations and ethical passions of Emersonians, Whitmanites, and other religious liberals. Its history is worth recovering from the heap of critical commentary, as both a counterweight to the Religious Right and a resource for the Left (which is now so often tone-deaf on spiritual matters).

"I don't wanna wait in vain..." (But why I am, perhaps, anyway):

The legacy of King has become so twisted that more white Republican conservatives spout "I Have Dream" and "We Must Be Judged, Not By The Color of Our Skin But, By The Content of Our Character" than socially conscious African Americans seeking to realize the achievement of King's "Promised Land." King "reasoning" has become King "rhetoric" as hostile forces use King's name, likeness, intellect and legacy to shift the social construct toward race neutrality and away from social justice. By using "King-isms" to deflect the same arguments for racial and social equality King made in his last two books, Why We Can't Wait and Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (two books I read during every King week to not get caught up in all the "dream talk"), America was able to stop King's revolution of conscience right in its tracks. They took our focus off achieving equality, or reaching a "promised land," and put it on celebrating a holiday - in rhetorical ways that suggest that they too believe in King's "dream" of a colorblind society. Yet, colorblindness has become a barrier to discussion about what made the King phenomenon: racial inequality and social injustice. The desire to be a "colorblind society" called a halt to the discourse on race in America. Without being able to talk about race, you can’t talk about racial disparities, thus you can’t address racial inequities. But, we all profess to believe in the doctrine of King. Not really.

"I'll have a double" (...dose of MLK on NPR, that is):

Martin Luther King, 'At Canaan's Edge'

In Taylor Branch's history At Canaan's Edge, Martin Luther King Jr. is a citizen of his time. The Alabama peace marches; the Watts riots of 1965; the Vietnam conflict that dominated the late '60s -- King dealt with them all....

At Canaan's Edge begins in Selma, Ala. -- just before a bloody confrontation on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Sunday, March 7, 1965, between state troopers and marchers on their way to petition Gov. George Wallace for the right of black people to vote. The book ends in 1968, on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tenn., where King was shot and killed.

A King Celebration

The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra pays tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- and to fellow civil rights icon Rosa Parks -- with inspirational music and readings. The glee clubs of Morehouse and Spelman colleges also lend their voices to the annual celebration.

"Stevie, take it to the bridge":

You know it doesn't make much sense
There ought to be a law against
Anyone who takes offense
At a day in your celebration
‘Cause we all know in our minds
That there ought to be a time
That we can set aside
To show just how much we love you
And I'm sure you would agree
It couldn't fit more perfectly
Than to have a world party on the day you came to be

I just never understood
How a man who died for good
Could not have a day that would
Be set aside for his recognition
Because it should never be
Just because some cannot see
The dream as clear as he
that they should make it become an illusion
And we all know everything
That he stood for time will bring
For in peace our hearts will sing
Thanks to Martin Luther King...

Racial Gamesmanship: The Campus and the N-Word (Part 2)

So, last time I discussed an account of the controversy over a student newspaper running a cartoon depicting Kanye West holding "the race card" and Condoleezza Rice addressing him with a "N****, please!"

Today I want to focus on one aspect of this controversy that has been pushed to the background, the very issue of "playing the race card." I have heard this phrase a lot, especially since the O.J. Simpson trial. I have most often heard it used by non-Blacks or by conservatives of any stripe in situations where Blacks and others make an assertion that some phenomenon has racism, racial discrimination, or racial bias as a central feature.

To the persons making this claim, if I understand what is going on, folks who bring up race in some (most? all?) such circumstances are "crying wolf." They are seeing racism--all the time and where racism is actually not an issue--often in an attempt at attention-getting or deflecting from real causes of the phenomenon such as lack of personal responsibility. Somewhat like in games of cards, pulling the "race card" out and slamming it on the table of discourse is seen to be an act of rhetorical desperation, a last ditch attempt to win a hand (a losing hand) that the player cannot or will not play using accepted strategies: A blunt by-pass of the more nuanced moves of fair play.

College campuses have been one site for this "race card" claim phenomenon. What I believe is that the claim itself is becoming a form of "politically correct" speech: In other words, in my view of many of these cases the claimant is playing the "playing the race card"-card.

I've found it helpful to think of the race card claim as an anti-epithet. I was introduced to this term last year in one of J. David Velleman's posts (here) at Left2Right. He coined this term to apply to labels like "homophobe," "racist" and "anti-semite" as they have come to be popularly applied in recent years:

I call these terms anti-epithets because they impute attitudes that are themselves typically expressed with epithets -- racial and ethnic epithets, or epithets for gays and lesbians. I call them anti-epithets when they are used in the same way as the latter terms -- specifically, for the purpose of social disqualification.

Calling someone a nigger or a kike or a faggot is a way of disqualifying him from social participation and inflicting on him the emotion of disqualification, which is shame. Calling someone a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe is similarly aimed at disqualifying him. We don't listen to racists, anti-semites, and homophobes; we don't deign to argue with them; and we expect them, on being so called, to feel ashamed. (Original emphasis)

Velleman asserts that such usage goes beyind description to imply a "psychological diagnosis" of someone's attitude, or "mere psychology-as-insult."

Such is true, in my opinion, of the race-card phrase. In this case, though, a neat rhetorical feat is achieved: The claimant distances herself from actually applying a label to a person by applying it to a person's actions, thus offering the illusion that the claim (unlike, presumably, the original erroneous race-crying) is "nothing personal."

But it is personal. No one wants to be accused of "cheating." No one wants to be seen as taking "shortcuts" in the logical reasoning process, moves not based on true ability, knowledge, and intelligence. Least of all no one in higher education, the very nurturing ground (or is is a demonstration ground?) for such intellectual gamesmanship. I only have anecdotal evidence, but my hunch is that in academia folks of color (especially, but not exclusively or even automatically all...) are well aware of the possibility that they may be so accused if they bring up issues of race.

In my experience, everyday life on campus is not by any means a hot, active game of high-stakes racial rumble. However, I bet I am not the only person who has had the experience of, as someone on a discussion board so brilliantly put it, bringing up race and feeling as if I had "brought stinky cheese to a potluck lunch." That is, instead of being rebuked, debated, or otherwise engaged in conversation about what I have said, the reaction is a polite--but firm--avoidance. Too well-mannered to chide me for my poor choice of dish, my fellow lunchmates nevertheless steer clear of it.

This makes me think: Has "diversity" failed as a workable strategy in higher education? I know I just made a jump here, but bear with me for a moment. Two points:

One: At one time the focus in higher education was on affirmative action. This was a system meant to redress wrongs that occured in the past, wrongs that resulted in Blacks (and others) being effectively shut out of access to higher education.

Two: At some point, this focus on affirmative action shifted to a new framework: diversity. The old policy was aimed at assisting members and descendants of members of the wronged group. By contrast, the new policy was packaged as a way to help everybody--for instance by "preparing all students to be citizens of a diverse global community." (Look at your own university's mission statement on diversity and insert any random goal above and my point will still be made.)

Now. Also shifting have been the strategies of those opposed to policies specifically targeting minorities. Now it can be claimed that having people of color in the University, in and of itself, is not having the positive effect desired by the proponents of such actions. For example, folks are not interacting with each other or becoming more tolerant: People automatically clump in groups of other people with whom they feel comfort and like-mindedness. Or it may be that the curriculum has become so "inclusive" to be, at best, meaningless or worse, pedagogically suspect.

And of course the claim: No real conversation about anything can occur because Blacks on campus are quick to play the race card. This is insult to injury: Blacks got in the game via a shortcut (because they obviously were admitted/hired over more qualified Whites), and then once at the university they take the easy route again if they play the race card instead of painstakingly building their flush or straight or two-pairs like everyone else.
Thus (so the claim goes), Blacks "cheat" twice. And by extention, White students, faculty members, and others are disadvantaged twice.

I know I have travelled some distance from the Condi/Kanye cartoon. So let me close by turning to yet another cartoon in yet another college-serving newspaper. And to yet another IHE piece:

Minority students were outraged at the use of "ghetto" and "zoological," as well as by a cartoon that was printed (and that Imperialist editors say that they never intended to edit out). The cartoon depicts an "almost hyper sexualized, or tribal," Gordian [editor in chief] said, black woman, with bangle bracelets and a ghoulish face, pointing a finger at a young, dollish looking white girl. The caption reads: "Black student confronting a white supremacist on campus." The point, Gordian said, was "that when black students accuse a white student of being racist, that student is as helpless as a little girl."

Again, the image of Blacks being quick to play the race card. Again, the (implied) anti-epithet, disqualifying the views of a person of color--even when those views are in response to "a white supremist on campus." Again, the ensuing controversy.

Has "diversity," then, been a successful strategy at these two institutions (and by extension, at any college or university)? Maybe. The first cartoon presented two Black public figures who it was assumed (likely, correctly) would be easily recognizable to a large segment of the paper's readership. The cartoon presented an episode of inter-Black interaction that is apparently no longer private, no longer just "a Black thang," but instead "understood" by a wider demographic. With the second cartoon, the editor of the paper that published it apologizes and also offers that he is "part Puerto Rican," thus having apparently learned well the language of diversity as it relates to personal background.

But maybe the "diversity" experiment has not been so successful. Or perhaps, for many folks of color in the academy, it has been a game of bait and switch. Perhaps it is time for someone to suggest exploring a return to the affirmative action framework. Or perhaps the time is right to suggest exploration of other frameworks--but frameworks in which the main intention is head-on confrontation of race and ethnicity and racial/ethnic bias, instead of vague notions of "benefit for all."

On the other hand, it is likely that anyone making such a suggestion would be immediately accused of "playing the race card." Lest she be so branded, anyone even thinking to suggest such alternative frameworks would probably keep the idea to herself and play her hand out as dealt: Better a "house n*****" than a crybaby...

So instead of true conversation we will likely continue to see these campus explosions from time to time. We'll have these in place of true, ongoing dialog that would honestly consider and respect all viewpoints at the card table. And this is unfortunate, because--even if, a la stinky cheese, they may not smell so nice--such conversations are very necessary.

The Campus and the N-Word (Part 1)

This time I am not talking about the "other" n-word (though so far at the start of the semester I have already repeatedly exercised my right to utter it). This time I am, in fact, talking about the capital-n N-word.

Recent events, as reported in this IHE piece, have reminded me once again what a combustible topic this is. (The comments to the piece are as informative as the original article.)

The Independent Florida Alligator, the student newspaper, ran a cartoon last week that criticized [Kanye] West�s statements by showing him holding a large playing card marked �The Race Card,� and having Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, exclaim with scorn at West: �Nigga Please!�

The cartoon, perhaps predictably, has started quite a controversy. The main issue largely revolves around the use of the word n*****--or, in popular (in some circles) parlance: n***a. Is the use of the word by a (I assume from the description of the cartoonist's ancestry in the IHE piece) non-Black person "racist" (or "insensitive" or any other more or less inflamatory adjectives)? Is the publication by the newspaper--independent of, but serving, a university campus--"racist" (again, or insensistive, whatever)?

The cartoon depicts one Black person calling another Black person that word. And, as is very apparent to anyone who has listened to rap music (including the music of Kanye West) this intra-group use of the word is widespread in some circles. Is that "racist" or a depiction of "self-hate" or just wrong? Does the use by some Blacks mean it is OK for other non-Blacks to use the term?

These questions are so old to me I can barely muster the strength to discuss them. I can only speak for myself, I guess. And as for myself, I did not grow up hearing that word used "lovingly" or "ironically"--or at all--by other African Americans in my immediate environment. But then again, the "other African Americans in my immediate environment" generally consisted of my immediate family. Most in my immediate environment--teachers, neighbors, friends, etc--were White. I heard that word enough in that environment. And I am pretty confident in my perception that these uses were never "loving" or "ironic."

So for me: Black people-> N-word = Not OK; White (and other) people-> N-Word = Not OK. So much so, in fact, that I cannot even bring myself to use the word in a relatively "scholarly" context like this. (It will be interesting to see if I can bear leaving the word in the direct quote above.)

However. I do consider myself to be censorship-averse. Thus, my general support of Kanye West's comments (see this post). Thus, my general support of the newspaper's right to print the cartoon. But also, my support of the university administration's and the protestors' rights to assert that, in this case, the press's free speech may have actually been yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

More interesting to me than the fact of the use of the N-word are several other issues related to rhetoric and race relations on US college campuses that this controversy suggests to me. But more on that next time...

Already had one copy...

Now, after this, I plan to buy ten more. (Video here.)

Justice Deferred...

Sometimes justice can be so elusive, can't it? Bad enough that often it is overdue. But then, when it finaly seems within our reach, it sometimes slips away...or we're only able to grab hold of a little piece of it...

These days eyes tend to be directed to the U.S Supreme Court, and the future of the battle over abortion choice and access. In this social context, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that historically, for many women the central reproductive struggle has not involved abortion rights. Instead it has involved the right to conceive, bear, and provide for their children, as well as the right to maintain the authority to be parents of their children. From the buying and selling of the children of African-ancestry parents to the forced placement into "boarding schools" of the children of Native American parents to current day social service practices regarding the termination of parental rights that disproportionately affect parents of color--This country has a pretty shameful history when it comes to disallowing some people their rights to become and remain parents.

A particularly egregious example of this is the history of forced sterilizations in this country in the name of "genetic fitness"--otherwise known as eugenics.

The targets of these forced sterilizations were folks who evidenced various combinations of being Black, poor, uneducated, deemed to be "promiscuous" or potentially promiscuous, deemed to be "feebleminded" or potentially so. These practices of sterilizing women and girls (and some men and boys) against their will and often without thier knowledge sometimes went by the name "Mississippi appendectomies." A particularly aggressive program, however, occurred in North Carolina. From an excellent multipart program on the North Carolina efforts, "Against Their Will":

They were wives and daughters. Sisters. Unwed mothers. Children. Even a 10-year-old boy. Some were blind or mentally retarded. Toward the end they were mostly black and poor. North Carolina sterilized them all, more than 7,600 people.

For more than 40 years North Carolina ran one of the nation's largest and most aggressive sterilization programs. It expanded after World War II, even as most other states pulled back in light of the horrors of Hitler's Germany.

Some of these folks are still alive, still seeking justice--which means, of course, that they have had to come forward and publically share their stories:

In the file of Ernestine Moore, for instance, who was sterilized in 1965 in Pitt County at the age of 14, a social worker wrote that the people who lived near her were �of low incomes and low morals.� Moore was classified as feebleminded, even though she wasn�t.

In fact, the social worker wrote, �Ernestine has no appearance of retardation.� Upon reading what was written in her file, Ms. Moore, 54, told The Journal that North Carolina should �pay for the pain� and suffering she�s gone through since her sterilization.

In recent years, the state of North Carolina has agreed (story here). But, as fate would have it, carrying out this justice has not gone smoothly. Issues abound, regarding such things as where to get medical records to prove forced sterilization, whether or not such records are still available or had ever been kept at all, and adequately staffing efforts to process claims.

All signs look like justice will be delayed. Again. And my cynical side is whispering that there's a good chance justice may not come at all for these folks. Once again, they may have to make do with an official apology. For whatever (if anything) that is worth.

But. The hopeful side of me still has...hope. In the meantime, I will enjoy our State Fair this year much as I have every year since I began learning more about this country's eugenics past: With the ghostly narration in my mind of contests aimed at promoting good human stock along with the best ears of corn or plumpest sows.

(Image ID: 14) Title: Kansas State Free Fair, Topeka, Fitter Families Contest examining staff and "sweepstakes" winning family; Archival Information: AES,Am3,575.06,55

From the excellent site Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement:

At most contests, competitors submitted an �Abridged Record of Family Traits,� and a team of medical doctors performed psychological and physical exams on family members. Each family member was given an overall letter grade of eugenic health, and the family with the highest grade average was awarded a silver trophy. Trophies were typically awarded in three family categories: small (1 child), medium (2-4 children), and large (5 or more children).

All contestants with a B+ or better received bronze medals bearing the inscription, �Yea, I have a goodly heritage.� Childless couples were eligible for prizes in contests held in some states. As expected, the Fitter Families Contest mirrored the eugenics movement itself; winners were invariably White with western and northern European heritage.

I've mentioned before about how important it is for me to keep such history in my mind as I continue with my interests in researching issues of families and genetics. Late summer, right before the start of another school year is as good a time as any to give myself a booster shot of memory. Memory for the "non-placers" in the clean genes fairground competitions. Memory for the folks who were denied the chance to bear children to take to fairs in the first place.

Whether or not to use the F-word

Whenever I read any writing having to do with feminism, I do a quick scan-through of the text, table of contents, or index to see whether and where issues of race are brought in. On the third page of the cyber edition of this Salon article I found it--and in a big and wonderfully blunt way--kicked off by Rebecca Walker:

In the interview, Walker continued, "The left is getting our collective ass kicked because of just this kind of romantic, na�ve attachment to movement narratives and aesthetics of 20 and 30 years ago." She also pointed out that "many women of color do not feel an affinity with the term because, among other things, we know firsthand that people who call themselves feminists are not always our friends," she said. "They have not de facto done their work around race ... though [they] would become appalled if we suggested that some 'feminists' were also racist."

What do I do if, after my text scans, I do not see evidence that issues of race are discussed?

I do not read the piece.

These Good Daughters are Poor Citizens

"Vanderbilt Agrees to Leave the Word 'Confederate' on a Building, Ending a 3-Year Fight"

...Vanderbilt dropped "Confederate" from the dormitory's official name in 2002, after more than 20 years of debate and efforts to create a more "welcoming environment" on the campus, said Michael J. Schoenfeld, a university spokesman. The United Daughters of the Confederacy, which partly financed the building, sued Vanderbilt for breach of contract when it decided to permanently remove the name from the dormitory's pediment.

..."The building is a memorial for the Confederate soldiers, and our great-great-grandmothers literally saved nickels and dimes for this. Yes, slavery was bad, but it wasn't the only issue in the War Between the States. You can't erase pages of history just because a lot of bad things happened"...

"A Long Train of Abuses"

I may do nothing else "meaningful" on observances such as today. (Cleaning the grill in preparation for the mister cooking kabobs does not count.) But I at least like to try to re-read original documents. This is a good site for the Declaration of Independence. (You can even sign your name to the document!)

...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Of course, as eloquent and symbolic as it may be, this document did not have a whole lot of meaning for any ancestors of mine who may have been hanging around the embryonic US at the time. That meaning would come later, with the Emancipation Proclamation. It is truly important to read this document, to recognize just what it did and did not do. For example, it did not apply to all of the states where people of African descent were enslaved. Also, interesting is how some mention was directed at us Black folks, telling us to be nice and work hard now that we were free:

...And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages...

But the point of both documents to me is in the ideals and possibility they represent. They are less "artifact" and more "to do list." The train of abuses is, indeed, long. And it hasn't yet stopped on its tracks. That's the work we have ahead of us--No matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court or in the Oval Office.

So. Happy Independence Day.
And a belated (appropriate!) Happy Juneteenth.

Because I haven't engaged in Obama-worship for a while...

...a collection of some recent cyberink about/from the freshman Senator. (All the below are excerpts, well worth the 20 minutes or so to click through and read the entire pieces.)

Great Chicago Tribune article (via Negrophile):

"When I hear `With malice toward none, with charity toward all' being quoted, and all we have around here is malice toward all and charity toward none, it gets me frustrated," Obama said after he returned to Washington. "There are risks in including that kind of approach in a speech like that because it's a feel-good event, but one of the things that I'm trying to be mindful of is not starting to get so comfortable or risk-averse that I end up sounding like everyone else.

His recent Knox College commencement address, evidencing some brilliant progressive framing:

How does America find our way in this new, global economy? What will our place in history be? Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn't much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government - divvy it up into individual portions, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, education, and so forth.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism, every man and woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job - life isn't fair. It let's us say to the child born into poverty - pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

And finally, Obama's perspective on the Senate's recent historical and/or hypocritical (depending on your perspective) lynching apology resolution:

There is a power in acknowledging error and mistake. It is a power that potentially transforms not only those who were impacted directly by the lynchings, but also those who are the progeny of the perpetrators of these crimes. There is a piercing photographic exhibit in Chicago right now that displays some of the lynchings that occurred across the country over the past two centuries. These photographs show that what is often most powerful is not the gruesome aspects of the lynching itself, nor the terrible rending of the body that took place. No, what is most horrific, what is most disturbing to the soul is the photographs in which you see young little White girls or young little White boys with their parents on an outing, looking at the degradation of another human being. One wonders not only what the lynching did to the family member of those who were lynched, but also what the effect was on the sensibilities of those young people who stood there, watching.

Now that we are finally acknowledging this injustice, we have an opportunity to reflect on the cruelties that inhabit all of us. We can now take the time to teach our children to treat people who look different than us with the same respect that we would expect for ourselves. So it is fitting, it is proper, and it is right that we are doing what we are doing today.

However, I do hope, as we commemorate this past injustice, that this Chamber also spends some time doing something concrete and tangible to heal the long shadow of slavery and the legacy of racial discrimination, so that 100 years from now we can look back and be proud, and not have to apologize once again. That means completing the unfinished work of the civil rights movement, and closing the gap that still exists in health care, education, and income. There are more ways to perpetrate violence than simply a lynching . There is the violence that we subject young children to when they do not have any opportunity or hope, when they stand on street corners not thinking much of themselves, not thinking that their lives are worth living. That is a form of violence that this Chamber could do something about.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama for President, '08!

Collateral Damage

Wachovia Bank's website encourages people to "dare to dream" and offers its own full menu of financial services to "help find the best way to finance it."

At one point in the bank's history, that help apparently included accepting slaves as collateral for loans. Thus, just as the bank "owns" the house you call yours until the mortgage is paid off, two of this bank's predecessor institutions "owned" humans.

Now available online is a statement by the bank and reports from the History Factory (a very interesting outfit the company hired to conduct the research):

...Due to incomplete records, we cannot determine precisely how many slaves either the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company or the Bank of Charleston owned. Through specific transactional records, researchers determined that the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company owned at least 162 slaves, and the Bank of Charleston accepted at least 529 slaves as collateral on mortgaged properties or loans, and acquired an undetermined number of these individuals when customers defaulted on their loans...

(Via Afro-Netizen. See here for complete statement and links to reports. For a related story, see the California Slavery Era Insurance Registry.)

Sounds of Silence?

As a card-carrying member of NCFR, I received this same letter.

I did not, however, read it the same way as the commentators at FamilyScholars.org (in this post).

Anyway. Should be an interesting conference this November.

(To say the least.)

What Dr. King Had in Mind

...Black Barbie and Dora the Explora sitting down together at the table of sisterhood...Winnie the Pooh and Care Bear joining hands with the Cat in the Hat and Tigger...all the children's toys--gophers and wolves, big bears and small bears, Disney characters and PBS Television characters singing in the words of the old Romper Room classic:

The more we get together
Together
Together
The more we get together
The happier we'll be

(This entry was originally posted January 7, 2005. See this entry for my original follow-up post.)

OK, so now I'm recycling entries. But I owed a post from the other day. Plus, I had to have an excuse to tell a few "cute kid" stories about my daughters and King.

1) One of my girls was talking on the phone to one of her grandmothers. She mentioned that we were right in the middle of reading a book about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Her grandmother asked if she knew who that was. She said, "Yes, he was our president." Thinking this cute, her grandmother laughed and repeated "Oh, he was the president." To which my daughter in all seriousness corrected, "No, he was our president!"

2) Still under the impression that King was a former president of our country (at least for some of us), both girls were in a heated discussion the other day about which denomination of US money he was on. (Note that there is a real life effort to get Dr. King on some money. See: http://www.putkingonthe20.com/.)

3) We have a ritual that goes along with our nightly family meals: holding hands around the table and saying "Bon appetit" along with saying any other special greeting relevant to the day--e.g., "Happy Valentine's Day" "Happy Birthday, Daddy." Last night one of the girls noted that Dr. King's birthday had passed but we had failed to say happy birthday to him at dinner that evening. So last night, after wishing each other a good meal, we wished Dr. King a very happy belated birthday.

King for a(nother) Day

Very exciting! If you're in the Twin Cities, don't miss this broadcast tomorrow. (Thanks, S.M., for the tip!)

MLK's Lost Speech
tpt2 Sunday, January 16 at 2PM
tpt17 Sunday, January 16 at 8PM

While doing research for the documentary North Star: Minnesota's Black Pioneers, the producers found an unexpected treasure: a tape of a speech given by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the University of Minnesota in 1967. The themes of the speech are just as powerful today as they were 40 years ago.

King for a Day

Following up on my previous posts (here and here) about Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday:

Good local first hand account in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder on making the trip to the March on Washington:
http://spokesman-recorder.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=52391&sID=16