The Flawed Logic of Anti-affirmative Action Bake Sales

By Dr. Christopher J. Metzler

The Affirmative Action Bake Sale is used by conservative groups on college campuses to further polarize college campuses along racial lines using affirmative action as a hammer. Writing for Fox News, Wendy McElroy said, “Through Affirmative Action Bake Sales, conservative groups on campuses across America are satirically and peacefully spotlighting the injustice of AA programs that penalize or benefit students based solely on gender and race.” Seeking to dramatize the “ills” of affirmative action, the groups charge different prices for baked goods based entirely on race. For example, White and Asian males may be charged $1 for a muffin while Black and Hispanic males might be charged 25 cents.

Recently Bucknell University students held such a bake sale that was shut down by the university. Citing the First Amendment, Bucknell students claimed that their free speech rights were violated. Of course, they conveniently forgot that as students at a private university, the First Amendment simply does not apply. But, the issue goes beyond the technical question of the First Amendment and whether it applies to a private university. Instead, the issue is that students such as those at Bucknell, who put on the bake sale, continue to propagate the myth that only White and Asian males are qualified to be admitted to university study.

First, far too many admissions committees make decisions to admit or deny students based strictly on quantitative factors such as test scores and “standardized” tests. The reality is that in our capitalist society, the more money one has, the more money one can spend on commercial test preparation services. Let us not forget that while the income disparity between Blacks and Whites has changed some, they are not even. Thus, more Whites than Blacks are able to purchase commercial test preparation services, increasing their quantitatives and admissions to colleges and universities.

Second, the Bucknell students chose to ignore completely affirmative action for White men, which is a staple of the admissions process of many colleges and universities. Of course, given that the right wing has so racialized the term affirmative action, they dare not apply it to White men. Instead, it is admission by legacy. Legacy admissions means that colleges and universities reserve places in the class for the children of alumni who have given significant sums of money. The reality is that those admits tend to be overwhelmingly White and overwhelmingly male. In these cases, the only quantitatives that matter are the dollar value of the contribution. Often these legacy admits are outside the regular admissions process and admissions committees are blissfully unaware of them. So, why don’t the Affirmative Action Bake Sales offer a discount for legacy admits?

Third, affirmative action continues to be a divisive issue on college campuses in large part because of the elitism that affects too many universities. Students on far too many college campuses have accepted the notion that Black and Brown students who have been admitted to colleges and universities are academically inferior and could not have been admitted to the exclusive halls of academe but for naked racial preferences. Students sponsoring the Affirmative Action Bake Sale are operating from a superiority complex. The logic of that complex is that they (the predominantly White students) have been admitted strictly on merit and that the Black and Brown students were not. The Affirmative Action Bake Sale is the method by which they seek to further marginalize the Black and Brown students on their campuses. The Black and Brown students are then forced to prove that they belong by denying that affirmative action had anything to do with their admission. Of course, by virtue of the way the conversation is framed, legacy admits have nothing to prove as they are the silent elite.

Fourth, the students who have these bake sales engage in racial profiling. By choosing to offer the discount to Blacks and Hispanics, they are further advancing the stereotypes of Asians as the “model minority,” whose intellectual capabilities are on par with Whites. The assumption being that students are intelligent and thus worthy of admissions based on how close they are to a “white norm” of intelligence.

Fifth, I disagree with the Affirmative Action Bake Sale because I think that such events are ahistorical, race-baiting and political pandering of the most vitriolic kind. Moreover, students who will be our future leaders should be able to engage in serious debate without relying on divisive and trite tactics that are designed to belittle rather than engage those with whom they disagree. This is a valuable skill that they need when entering the real world. Name-calling and identity politics is in large part responsible for the racial divide that still permeates America. The students in this case are choosing to repeat these tactics. However, I do not agree that the students should be silenced in the free market place of ideas.

Finally, I am also deeply disturbed by the way the Bucknell administration chose to shut down the bake sale. Here, the school had the opportunity to mount a spirited defense of affirmative action if it assumes that affirmative action has merit. It squandered that opportunity. Wayne Bromfield, Bucknell’s general counsel wrote that students did not have the required prior permission to hand out the handbills at the cafeteria entrance.  According to Bromfield, permission is required to prevent cross-scheduling and allow management to prepare for “possible reactions” to the events, “including for the safety of those involved.”

In an academic environment, we should never send the message that academic freedom is only free when we agree with the content of the message.

Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is the author of The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a ‘post-racial’ America and an associate dean at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies.

Racial and Religious Extremism Rears Its Ugly Head

 

By Dr. Elwood Watson

Last month, I wrote a column discussing the racial hostility, paranoia and potential violence that was increasing in America. A month earlier in April, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report that attempted to inform Americans about a potential upsurge in right wing extremist violence. While there are some who may continue to deny that such violent acts are occurring, the evidence, it seems, demonstrates otherwise. Once DHS made their memo known to the public, the immediate reaction among many conservative talk show hosts and commentators was one of ridicule, self-righteousness and defensiveness. Some on the political right went as far as to accuse the memo as being misguided, slanderous, and outlandish. It appears that such “supposed overreaction” by the Department of Homeland Security was well-founded.
By now, most Americans are aware of the horrific, outrageous murder of Black security guard Richard Johns by James Von Brunn. Brunn is an 88 year-old White supremacist who, according to a number of media outlets, was deeply involved with right wing organizations. He had spent several years in a federal prison for his violent activities and was no stranger to such fringe activity. In short, he was a dangerous person.
Immediately after the identity of octogenarian Brunn was known, various segments of the conservative right, rather than acknowledge that the seething, hostile, xenophobic, bigoted rhetoric that many of them have espoused was likely contributing to an upsurge in right wing violence, went on the offensive. Unabashed loudmouth and supposed current leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh and other right wing talk radio hosts made the foolish suggestion that James Von Brunn was a liberal and a “lone wolf.” Limbaugh’s insane accusation was supported by National Review online columnist and occasional USA Today contributor Jonah Goldberg. A number of other conservatives such as conservative pundit Monica Crowley and perennial, possibility self–hating, right wing cheerleader Michelle Malkin also attempted to deflect blame from the political right for the actions of Von Brunn and rather ascribed his irrational violence as the result of the political left. Such behavior by conservative pundits is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty at is worst.
It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that racist, anti-Semitic, and other forms of religious and cultural intolerance have become more commonplace in America. Anyone who has taken the time to peruse a number of political-oriented blogs and websites should be astute to this fact. I, myself, received a scathing, racist, hate-filled, paranoid e-mail from a conservative blogger based on a rational comment I had made last year with a reporter from ABC News.com in regards as to why Oprah Winfrey had decided not to interview to Alaska governor and then vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential election season. While the e-mail did not threaten violence, the searing, irrational, venomous hatred directed toward me and Black people in general was alarming.
Things have become so emotionally charged that even some conservative media pundits have began to take notice. FOX News anchor Shepard Smith, host of the Fox Report, has decried the level of hatred that emanating from a number of people on the right. Earlier this week, Smith went so far as to read some of the letters and e-mails (the ones that were suitable for public airwaves) to give the public an idea of the level of intolerance, especially the anti-Obama rhetoric that is brewing in various circles. As a result of his laudable efforts, Mr. Smith has become the target of hate mail and rallying calls from a number of FOX viewers calling for his firing. The fact is that Smith has the second highest rated show on the network, thus it is highly unlikely he will be terminated anytime soon. For the time being, he is a thorn in the side of FOX’s intense Obama haters. 

To be fair, not all the vehement hatred that is happening is coming from the right of the political spectrum. There are certain segments of the left that are just as deranged in some of the so-called rhetoric they promote to their followers and listeners. They should be denounced as well. Dishonest hate speech is atrocious regardless of who is spouting it.
The murder at the Holocaust museum should not be forgotten. It is the symptom of a more ominous cancer that has slowly but surely affected an increasing segment of a public that is being manipulated by some opportunistic media personalities to believe that they are being increasingly marginalized – educationally, economically, socially, religiously and in other ways. We all must be at the forefront of suppressing and if possible, indeed, prohibiting such a troubling trend. 

Dr. Elwood Watson is a full professor of History and African American Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the author of several award-winning academic articles, several anthologies and is the author of the book Outsiders Within: Black Women in the Legal Academy After Brown v. Board  (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Spring 2008).

 

HBCUs a “Land of the Lost”? I Don’t Think So

By Dr. Marybeth Gasman

Today, I came across a blog post written by a colleague who has worked in the HBCU community for many years. He titled the post “Land of the Lost“ — after the Sid and Marty Krofft TV show and more recently, the movie.  At first glance, I thought the post was a review of the movie and was ready to move on to something more interesting.  However, as I read down the page, I noticed his post compared HBCUs to the Land of the Lost.  I had to keep reading given my research.

In the post, which I encourage you to read and respond to, my colleague, based on his experience working at HBCUs and working for affiliate organizations, is highly critical of these important institutions.  He compares HBCU presidents to the tyrannical dinosaurs in the movie, HBCU faculty to the Sleestack (lizard-like creatures), and students to Pakuni (I’ll let him explain that comparison).  At first, I was enraged given what I know about stereotypes of HBCUs and their leaders — admittedly, I’m still slightly enraged.

However, after re-reading the post several times, he makes some interesting points (albeit his criticisms could be lodged against any institution regardless of racial history).  With regard to college presidents, he calls for more transparency and more open debate.  I agree that open debate and clear processes should always be the goal on a college campus.  With regard to faculty, he points out the heavy teaching loads at HBCUs and how these loads stifle creativity.  Although HBCUs are primarily teaching institutions, it would benefit these colleges and universities if they more readily encouraged research and exempted faculty from some of their teaching duties to pursue research (funded and unfunded). With regard to students, although my colleague believes in their potential, he thinks they need to more deeply explore this potential — defying peer and parental expectations.  This could be said for all college students, by and large.

The problem my colleague has, as well as others who heavily critique HBCUs, is that he fails to realize that the problems with leadership, heavy teaching loads, and unexplored potential are issues at all institutions.  Yes, these issues manifest at HBCUs, but they also surface at historically White institutions and have for centuries.  Merely pointing to problems within the HBCU context as if they are race-based problems is dangerous.

A perpetual believer in what is good and right, my colleague ends with the following:  “HBCUs must be relentlessly creative in making education relevant and continue to be a fearless advocate for those whom society would consign to the abyss of hopelessness.”

Now this is something about which we can both agree.

Check out Land of the Lost and participate in an open debate at http://dlpeterkin.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/land-of-the-lost/

An associate professor of higher education at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Gasman is the author of Envisioning Black Colleges: A History of the United Negro College Fund (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007) and lead editor of Understanding Minority Serving Institutions  (SUNY Press, 2008).

Black Males Need the “Old School Approach”

By Jim Ewers

The behavior of some Black males has always been called into question. Adjectives like intimidating, aggressive and rude have been labels that have been affixed to us for as long as I can remember. It seems at times in today’s one-strike-and-you’re-out society that these aforementioned adjectives trump our education and our socio-economic status. It is said by some that no matter the education, the wealth or fame that we as Black men achieve, we are all placed in the same gumbo of indifference. I have often wondered why we carry this cross. Growing up in the South my parents wanted for me what all parents, Black and White, wanted for their children and that was for me to be successful.

This attainment of success was also coupled with a code of civilized behavior. In some ways, I believe, Black parents back in the day thought that appropriate behavior was just as important as being successful. I believe their thinking was that it didn’t matter how successful you were if you didn’t know how to behave. In fact, I am not sure that you can have one without the other. There was really an unspoken rule in my neighborhood that said you represented your family, your neighborhood and yourself. As a result, we wouldn’t just come out and impugn our family’s name. For example, having it said in the neighborhood that you committed some infraction was simply unthinkable. There was a time during my elementary school days that I used some inappropriate language. Word spread in the neighborhood, and I was completely ashamed. It never happened again.

Unfortunately some Black men made some missteps and exercised poor judgment. These errors in principles can be attributed to several factors, some of which are well documented. What has occurred over time is the creation of a negative perception about Black men. So, for far too many people, all Black men are to be feared. While some may disagree, this is what we wake up to each day. The pressure is on to do our best and not to cave into the stereotype of what people think we are. Despite the positive actions and the dignified behavior, there are those who still cast aspersions. Take for example the White woman in the Philadelphia area who said that two Black men kidnapped her and her daughter. The alleged victim gave police a convincing story, and off the media ran with it. I won’t spend a lot of time on this, but what got the media’s attention? Was it the kidnapping or was it that two Black men did it? I will let you answer the question.

Black parents and grandparents who are raising Black boys face some particular challenges in the new millennium. It seems to me that there should be some “old school” rules implemented. First off, Black boys must know who is in charge, and it is not them. We as parents cannot compromise on discipline. We must be parents and not friends to our male children. Furthermore, we cannot let technology babysit our kids, thinking that the latest gadget will satisfy them. Nothing takes the place of human interaction between parents and children. Black boys need nurturing from their mothers and guidance and discipline from their fathers. You can add more to this equation as I won’t quibble with you. I can remember when your parents said no, and the answer was no! There was no equivocating on the answer no. Black parents back in the day did not have to explain themselves. Go back to the old school!

The expression “it takes a village to raise a child” was practiced back in the day. I was chastised by adults in my neighborhood even before I got home for my transgressions. Obviously the times have changed. We must become more visible in our schools as volunteers. If we want to know what is happening in our schools, then we must go and find out. Put on a school badge and volunteer your time. You will feel good and your child will feel better. The library was a staple in my neighborhood. We must foster and promote reading in our homes. Lastly, but most importantly, we as Black parents must ensure that our boys have a spiritual foundation. Sundays must return to the Sundays of old when we went to church and had dinner together as a family. We can change the prognosis for our Black boys if we go back to the “old school”.

+

Trading an Education for Thug Life

By Dr. Christopher J. Metzler

In the past several weeks, we have witnessed “two Black men in a Cadillac” being accused of kidnapping a White woman. The truth was that the woman had voluntarily gone to Disney World and could not tell her husband. He would find it hard to believe that she would go to Disney. It was easier, she reasoned, that he and indeed the world would believe that Black men in a Cadillac would kidnap her. After all, according to her logic, we have a reputation for that.

We also learned that yet another plain clothes Black police officer was shot by one of his colleagues who mistook him for a criminal. We also mourned the shooting and killing of a security officer at the Holocaust Museum by a White supremacist. Leading me to ask the question: “Where can a brother go to get his reputation back?”

Ever since “Birth of a Nation” it has been popular to portray Black men as thugs and criminals.  Despite the passage of time, these image have not faded from memory. Instead, they have been used to justify racial profiling of suspects leading to the crimes of “Driving While Black,” “Walking While Black” and “Shopping While Black.”

These stereotypes apply to Black men no matter our position, education or social status. The impact of this societal marker is a sullied reputation in the minds of society as a whole. Thus, the fact that we have achieved great success and/or education does not exempt us from having our reputation come into question.

Let’s be clear that Whites are not exclusively responsible for the racial caricature of Black men as criminals.

Also bearing responsibility are some hip hop artists and scores of young Black men who would rather show us the crack of their behinds than the power of their brains. The result is a reputation for violence and base vulgarity that is coming close to being beyond repair.

First, there are simply too many White people in America, who, with reckless abandon, act on their closely held racialized stereotypes of Black men, resulting in our murder and further marginalization. What is even more disturbing is that the White people of whom I write simply refuse to admit their fidelity to the racial stereotypes. Instead, they choose to blame the routine occurrence of the murder of Black plain clothes officers by their White colleagues as “mistaken identity.” If this is to be believed, why don’t Black plain clothes officers mistake White plain clothes officers as criminals in as high a number?

Second, Susan Smith, Charles Stewart and other racially conscious criminals understand that their stories have more currency with law enforcement if the alleged perpetrator is a Black man. To be sure, both Tawana Brawley and Crystal Gail Mangum blamed their assaults on White men and both lied. Both women relied on stereotypes. The question, however, is whether their reliance on stereotypes has sullied the reputation of White men in general. Do people see White men more so as criminals now as they did before the allegations? Are Black women likely to claim that they have been abducted by White men in order to cover up a crime? Do White women clutch their pursues when White men are in the elevator with them? Most likely not. This is because in the United States few people have internalized stereotypes of White men as prone to random violence as a result of their race.  They have, however, uncritically done so with Black men.

Third, some hip hop artists, athletes and other Black celebrities are also complicit in perpetuating the stereotype of Black man as criminal and thug. One need only look at the penis-centric image of the gangsta life purveyed by the people of whom I write. They are among the most crotch-holding, gyrating images anywhere.  There is no excuse for the violent lyrics, misogyny and overreliance on the feigned masculinity they use to make their living. Their profanity-based brand of Black male masculinity is nothing more than a modern day reincarnation of the images that we fought so hard against in the Jim Crow era. The plantation has gone digital, virtual and viral. So while they crank out their latest hit, they also sell out the reputation of Black men knowingly and willingly and then decry racial profiling. Have they no shame?

Fourth, young Black boys and men have bought into the Black man as thug reputation in alarming numbers. Many of our young Black boys are choosing to fail in school because they confuse masculinity with thug life. For them it is not about how hard you study, but how hard you are. Half-dressed and half-educated, they enter a world that has already decided their fate based on a reputation that is part racist, part undeserved and fully difficult to overcome.  The reputation of Black men as strong, responsible, intelligent, contributing members of a sometimes hostile American society is close to extinction.

So, where does a Brother go to get his reputation back?

Dr. Christopher J. Metzler is the author of The Construction and Rearticulation of Race in a ‘post-racial’ America and an associate dean at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies.

Understanding the “Tools of Whiteness” (Notes from AERA, Part 2)

By Emery Petchauer

A common figure in teacher education is that roughly 90 percent of public school teachers in the United States identify as White. As the percentage of ethnic minority students continues to rise, teacher training and professional development often include diversity training or a focus on multicultural education. Alternative routes into teaching such as Teach for America, which place teachers most often into “urban” (read: ethnic minority) classrooms, also devote a significant amount of training time to these areas. Though this focus on diversity in professional education is a good starting point, I often think that it is a major error in reasoning to think that the mere existence of it will affect teachers in any meaningful way.

These currents in teacher education, in my estimation, are what make the work of Dr. Bree Picower of New York Universityso important. Her work illustrates how some white preservice teachers actively maintain dominant racial hierarchies in the midst of multicultural training by using what she calls “Tools of Whiteness.” This means that when white preservice teachers encounter ideas, theories, or perspectives that might cause them to re-examine notions of privilege, power, or oppression, there are systematic ways that they can actively resist doing so. 

The phrase “Tools of Whiteness” is particularly revealing when we consider the social mechanisms that buttress dominate (and dominating) ideologies such as white supremacy. Tools such as hammers and screwdrivers are small items with even smaller counterparts (nails, screws), but they are the fundamental units that make sophisticated and towering structures resist forces that might alter them. Similarly, it is unexamined assumptions and taken-for-granted notions that maintain complex ideologies.

In the realm of teacher education, Dr. Picower illustrates through empirical research how Tools of Whiteness generate from three main areas: teachers’ emotional experiences, existing dominant racial ideologies, and performances of identity. In other words, when teachers are challenged to think beyond their current white-normative ideologies, they draw from these three areas to avoid, refute, or subvert issues that would have them do otherwise. Findings such as these illustrate the important point that it is less passive resistance and more active protection that sustain dominant ideologies in teacher education.

It is important to note that it is not the intent of this research to demonize teachers who hold such views nor suggest that all phenotypically white teachers hold them. Essentially, the concern is for both the students and teachers. Paulo Freire reminds us that oppression dehumanizes both the oppressed andthe oppressor. In this way, having a better understanding of Tools of Whiteness helps teacher educators better strategize how to create learning experiences and curricula that will enable their preservice teachers to see the inadequacies and inaccuracies of their views and the need to develop more inclusive ones.

Related Links:

New York Collective of Radial Educators

Social Justice Teacher Plan Book

Dr. Emery Petchauer is an assistant professor of education at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania; his current research includes teacher preparation for ethnic minority students particularly at HBCUs and how involvement in hip-hop implicates students’ educational approaches, experiences, and lives.

 

Intellect and Discipline: The Keys to a Successful Academic Career

By Dr. Marybeth Gasman

I have a good friend who is the most brilliant individual I know.  He has a mind that most of us would kill for — at least most academics would.  He is well-read, possessing a deep, almost stunning, knowledge of diverse subjects.  He thinks in innovative and refreshing ways.  He also has the “proper” educational background to succeed as a professor.  In fact, given what is often valued in society, he could go just about anywhere with his three Ivy League degrees.  What is the problem you might ask?  He lacks discipline!  He is fascinated by everything, yet easily bored.

I typically feel confident in my intellect.  However, I did have a professor in graduate school once tell me, “Marybeth, you may not be the smartest person, but you work harder than anyone I know.”  Of course, he was probably right no matter how much the comment stung.  He had a point now that I think about it.  One can be wonderfully, almost beautifully intelligent, but it doesn’t amount to much unless you are disciplined. 

Often students and faculty members will ask me — “How on earth can you be so productive?”  The secret is discipline.  As an academic, you must find time to write and I have learned over the course of my career that you need to compartmentalize your days.  There is always something to do — ideas to explore — and your work will spill over into every aspect of your life if you let it. 

Work expands (read that in a book once and firmly believe it).  So, what do I do?  I write every day but Saturday.  During the week, I usually begin at 9 a.m. and write (and do research) until roughly 2 p.m.  I schedule all meetings and teaching after 2 p.m. unless absolutely necessary. On Sundays, I write in the evenings after my daughter goes to sleep.  I’m not saying everyone needs to do this — but you need a routine, you need discipline.

Why this writing schedule and why this discipline?  As I explained to another  good friend the other day, most academics have a mission that they work toward fulfilling — they live life for a bigger reason than themselves.  I am one of these folks.  I don’t live merely for material possessions, but instead I thrive on the exploration of ideas and the solving of problems.  I consider research a mystery and writing the pathway to solving a mystery.  I am not a dreamer but a doer!  Without this kind of passion and discipline, intellect will get you and more importantly, society nowhere. 

I tell my doctoral students, as well as those masters and undergraduate students interested in a faculty career, that crafting a workable routine that is rooted in discipline will help them succeed.  Having a sense of discipline also means knowing when to say “no” — this is especially important for women and people of color who tend to be asked more than others to do service-related work in the academy.  Having discipline also means learning how much time to spend on teaching and advising.  These areas are probably my favorite part of my job, but I realized long ago that being productive in terms of publications gives you a stronger voice in the academy — a voice that leads to more freedom in the classroom and a greater ability to take care of and advocate for your students.

Lastly, discipline means knowing what you are good at and focusing on that area.  Too often academics try to be good at everything — becoming a ‘jack of all trades, master of none’.  We forget that as professors we have a lifetime ahead of us to explore new ideas.  Focusing on a few ideas at a time — becoming an expert in one or two areas — works to our advantage.  Plus, no one likes a “know it all”!

So back to my friend mentioned at the beginning of this post.  I am working diligently to help him increase his level of discipline.  I’m modeling good behavior.  Hoping that the issue is nurture not nature at play because “A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste.”

An associate professor of higher education at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Gasman is the author of Envisioning Black Colleges: A History of the United Negro College Fund (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007) and lead editor of Understanding Minority Serving Institutions  (SUNY Press, 2008).

Diversity at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

By Dr. Marybeth Gasman

Why is it that people assume that Historically White Institutions are diverse, yet in the same breath assume that Historically Black Institutions are not?  And, when I say people — I mean all kinds of people — of various racial and ethnic backgrounds.  If you take a look at the nation’s Historically White Institutions (HWIs), you’ll find that most are not that diverse unless they are located in urban areas.  These institutions, although legally no longer segregated, are far from integrated — especially the more elite, selective institutions.  If you look at the faculty of HWIs, it is not heavily integrated.  Most tenured faculty members are still White and male. 

However, if you look closely at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), you’ll find student bodies that boast considerable diversity — especially if you examine the public HBCUs.  According to statistics gathered by the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, for example, 8 percent of public HBCU student enrollment is White, 2 percent is Latino and 1 percent is Asian.  Of note, over the past 30 years, Latinos have increased their presence at HBCUs by 124 percent.  Moreover, the faculty at HBCUs, both public and private institutions, has always been diverse.  HBCUs have opened their doors to the best faculty regardless of racial or ethnic background and continue to do so.  Among HBCUs, Blacks (including Africans and Caribbeans as well as African Americans) make up roughly 60 percent of the faculty, with Whites accounting for 30 percent and Latinos and Asians the remaining 10 percent.  It would be very hard to find this kind of diversity at most HWIs.

Yet, time and time again, HBCUs are looked upon as “segregated” environments that don’t represent the “real world”.  If you have been studying the projected Census data, you know that HBCUs now represent the very real world of the future.  By 2020, the percentage of people of color in our country will be 40 percent and by 2040 the percentage will increase to 50 percent.  HBCUs are preparing students for a very realistic world.

In order to counter misconceptions, HBCU leaders must promote the diversity on their campuses.  This is ever more important given falling enrollments at some HBCUs.  Many students of various racial and ethnic backgrounds could benefit from the nurturing, yet challenging environments at HBCUs as well as the lower tuition. 

Some worry that becoming more diverse will dilute the “HBCUness” of HBCUs — true,  but I doubt that diluting will take place to any great extent.  Culture runs deep and traditions can be maintained with effort.  Just look at the nation’s Historically White Institutions — many have “integrated” but continue to, unfortunately, hold fast to only the culture on which they were founded.  I have a feeling that HBCUs can maintain diversity — thrive from it — and still be the centers of African American culture that they have been for decades.

It is High Time for a Black Woman on the High Court

By Dr. Pamela D. Reed

“Make me do it.”
-Barack Hussein Obama

The relevance of the above challenge issued by then-Senator Barack Obama will soon become obvious.

For now, let me first congratulate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the soon-to-be vacant seat of retiring high court Associate Justice David Souter.

Obama’s historic nomination of the first Latina to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) comes on the heels of a months-long full court press by Hispanic organizationslike the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund and the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, not to mention Women’s groups, all advocating for just such a groundbreaking pick.

No sooner than it was determined that Hispanics accounted for 7.4 percent of the 131 million people who voted in November–of which 67 percent cast their votes for the Obama-Biden ticket–the Hispanic judicial lobby moved into high gear.

Mind you, these numbers pale in comparison to African Americans who comprised a record 12.1 percent of the total vote, 95 percent of whom voted for Obama.

But who’s counting, right?

Ramona Romero, Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) president, certainly was. Almost immediately, the HNBA launched the Hispanic Appointments Project, and she reached out to President-elect Obama, only 10 days after the election–and months before he took office.

“The presence of a Latino or Latina at the conference table could add a needed ‘special voice’ to the Supreme Court’s deliberations and decisions– a voice that can speak about the law as it affects U.S. Hispanics with the authority that only firsthand knowledge can provide,” she wrote.

In other words, they “made” him do it…and good for them (and hopefully for all who would otherwise be marginalized judicially).

Of course, Team Obama insists that politics did not factor into the Sotomayor nomination, and that the president simply–organically– chose “the most qualified person for the job.” And, in all fairness, President Obama might very well have made the same choice, absent the very public lobbying effort.

But since Hispanics left nothing to chance, we’ll never know, will we?

Whatever the case–assuming that Sotomayor is confirmed to the SCOTUS–there will now be two representatives of the female perspective on that august judicial body, and one of the Hispanic. In my view, this is a beautiful thing.

What is profoundly problematic, however, is the fact that there is still not one solitary Black advocate.

Indeed, this is a glaring and unacceptable omission on the high court. Sure, there’s Clarence Thomas, but, in every way that matters, his is not a “Black seat.”

There, I said it.

I mean, we all know that his has been the deciding vote in a number of decisions that have all but wiped out affirmative action and other racial gains made during the tenure of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to sit on the SCOTUS. (And isn’t it just the cruelest of ironies that Thomas was the Sr. Bush’s choice to replace Marshall, the civil rights lion?)

It is as Romero said, “being Hispanic doesn’t always mean that you are grounded in the culture.”

By the same token, and for all intents and purposes, Clarence Thomas should not count in the “minority” tally on the Supreme Court, as he has shown no evidence of being willing or able to articulate–or appreciate, even– the predominant African American world view, shaped by centuries of enslavement, Jim Crow and continuing racial discrimination.

And am I the only one who finds it troublesome that, of the four widely reported finalists for the open SCOTUS seat–all women, three of whom were White–there was not one African American among the elite group?

Not one.

This is all the more vexing when one considers that, according to a Pew Research Center report, “overall, among all racial, ethnic and gender groups, Black women had the highest voter turnout rate in November’s election [68.8 percent]–a first.”

So, are we to assume that there are no “qualified” African American female jurists worthy of even symbolic consideration for the Supreme Court? (And we are way beyond symbolism at this point.)

What about the Honorable Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, the 57-year-old Rhode Island Superior Court Justice, who–in April–was recommended by both Rhode Island senators for the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals?

Then there is the Honorable Ann Claire Williams, the 59 year-old U.S. Seventh Circuit Appellate Judge and globally acclaimed legal scholar. Among her many public service efforts, Judge Williams lead and taught at the first Kenyan Women’s Trial Advocacy Program for domestic violence attorneys. Williams has also been a prosecutor and faculty member at both Northwestern and John Marshall Schools of Law.

Of course, President Obama knows of these and many other imminently qualified Black female esquires worthy of elevation to the high court-including several law school deans. The question is: Why did the Obama Administration not even float any African American names?

Could it be because Black advocacy groups didn’t “make” him?

After all– when asked if he would be able to forge a lasting peace in the Middle East–Obama himself advised this very course of action to the questioner at a presidential campaign rally. Syndicated columnist Amy Goodman recounts this story in her commentary “Make Obama Keep his Promises.”

Obama is said to have repeated the famous story of how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt–upon hearing A. Philip Randolph’s assessment of the plight of Black America and what corrective actions were needed–reportedly issued this very same challenge to the civil rights legend.

Specifically, FDR reportedly challenged Randolph with this call to arms: “I’ve heard everything you’ve said tonight…and I agree with everything that you’ve said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit… But I would ask one thing of you…and that is, go out and make me do it.”

The presidents’ words echo and confirm Frederick Douglass’ learned declaration of almost a century earlier: “Power concedes nothing without demand.”

African Americans would do well to remember these historic lessons during the presidency of Barack Obama–along with the contemporary counsel of Sandra Finley, President and CEO of the League of Black Women, in her article “The League of Black Women’s Role in President Obama’s Administration: Homecoming.”
“You’ve watched this amazing election unfold for two years, don’t blink now,” Finley wrote. “The President-elect has promised to talk directly to you. Pay attention. Call, email and write your legislators. Tell them exactly how you want them to vote on funding health care, education, and your jobs in this economy.”

I would add that we must also make our voices heard with regard to the changing composition of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, we will emerge from the Obama era with Clarence Thomas still the lone Black face among the nine.

And if we were to sit by mutely and idly, allowing this miscarriage of justice to happen, we would deserve it. But, in that event, at least we would still have our “I was there” buttons, our Obama calendars/posters, and our J. Crew cardigan twin sets to show to our children and grandchildren.

What I am trying to say here is that African American organizations, particularly women’s, must get past the novelty of President Barack Hussein Obama, Black Man. Only then will we begin to place collective expectations on him, just as all valued political constituencies do in the American body politic.

As Finley wrote, Black women, have “worked together to help lift and elect Barack Obama to the highest office in the land.” Yes, we have done the heavy lifting, which is nothing new.

Zora Neale Hurston observed, in her classic novel Their Eyes were Watching God, that the Black woman has historically been “de mule uh de world.”

Well, I say, no more. I agree with Finley: “This is our moment too.” In other words, it is high time for a Black woman to sit on the high court.

And this is not to dismiss the fact that President Obama has numerous highly visible, highly placed Black women in his administration, like senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, United Nations Ambassador, Dr. Susan Rice, or Desiree Rogers, White House social secretary, among others. Without question, these are all very important appointments, many of them firsts. For this, he should be applauded.

But the Supreme Court is a horse of another color.

Dr. Pamela D. Reed is a diversity consultant, cultural critic, and assistant professor of English and African-American literature at Virginia State University.

Sonia Sotomayor: A Fabulous Choice For The Supreme Court

by Dr. Elwood Watson

Even before she was considered to be the front runner as the next Supreme Court Justice, there were rumblings from political conservatives about the “problems” with Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Now that she has been officially nominated by President Obama, certain segments of the right have come out swinging and kicking. One could argue that they are fouling pretty badly as well. The noise has been loudly obnoxious.

In his most recent article, Faiz Shakir of The Progress Report e-newsletter discussed some of the outlandish accusations that have been hurled at the nominee. Among some of the blatantly bigoted and sexist comments have been conservative commentator Pat Buchanan referring to Sotomayor as an “affirmative action candidate” and former House Speaker  Newt Gingrinch denouncing her as a “Latina woman racist.” According to FOX News conservative pundit and Weekly Standard magazine columnist Fred Barnes, Sotomayor  is rumored to be “sharp tongued and occasionally combative.” Perennially angry radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh tagged the esteemed legal scholar as a “reverse racist.” Former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo on a CNN talk show made the claim that Ms. Sotomayor “appeared to be racist.” Former Bush strategist Karl Rove questioned how “intellectually strong” the probable future Supreme Court judge was. Conservative radio’s newest darling, Glenn Beck, describing his reaction to President Obama’s selection of Sotomayor, said “Hey, Hispanic chick lady! You’re empathetic…you’re in!”.

Some of her critics have even decried the fact that she has an affinity for Puerto Rican food. Wow! Imagine! A person of Hispanic origin who likes Latino food!? This should certainly make her a questionable choice for the Supreme Court. ( I am being sarcastic.)

Yes, things have become increasingly foolish in the often delusional world of the radical right.

The statement that has caused much of the brouhaha was the response to a speech that Sotomayor delivered several years ago at the (University of California) Berkeley La Raza Law Journal annual symposium. During her talk, the judge argued that a person’s gender and race can influence their decisions on race and gender discrimination cases. She further stated that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a White male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is racist and sexist language? I don’t think so!

In fact, during his confirmation hearings in 2006, Justice Samuel Alito made the following remarks “when I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of gender. And I do take that into account.” He basically made a similar argument. Where was the outcry from the political right about Alito’s remarks?

This sort of ambush rhetoric and brash judgmental behavior is surprising and quite frankly, hypocritical coming from individuals who have made a career out of attacking and engaging in polarizing, racist and dishonest behavior. Rush “I hope Obama fails” Limbaugh once told a Black caller “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” Tom Tancredo referred to Miami, Florida as a “third world country.” The ethically-challenged Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education with “ghetto life.” Glenn Beck was recently called out and exposed for his dishonest behavior by Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldberg on the ABC daytime television program “The View”. 

Although they are trying to appeal to their political base and varied audiences, the truth is that many of these men are hardly poster boys for exemplary behavior and should not be in the business of attacking or questioning anyone’s else’s character.

In all fairness, there have been some conservatives, such as Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist Peggy Noonan, Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Utah senator Orrin Hatch and political strategist Mark McKinnon, who have denounced extreme partisan politicking from their fellow GOP brethren. The ever poetic Republican party chairman Michael Steele made it clear that certain members of his party need to stop “slammin and rammin” on Sotomayor.

The nominee’s life history is the example of a female Horatio Alger story. The product of Brooklyn housing projects, Sotomayor was born to Puerto Rican  parents who migrated to the American mainland when she was a young girl. Her father died when she was nine years old. She was diagnosed with childhood diabetes when she was eight. Her mother was a nurse, who often worked two jobs and instilled in both her children (her brother is a medical doctor) the importance of hard work and education. Sotomayor’s mother  sacrificed much to ensure that her children would inherit a better life than she had.

Sotomayor went on to become valedictorian of her high school class. She holds two Ivy League degrees. She graduated summa cum laude and second in her class at Princeton University. She served as a member of the Yale Law Review. She has been the recipient of numerous awards. The list goes on and on.

On the contrary, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove do not have college degrees. None of the aforementioned critics of Sotomayor had distinguished academic records themselves. Some of their accomplishments, while significant, still do not compare with those of the distinguished judge. And yet, they have the audacity to question her academic qualifications? Such behavior smacks of racism, sexism, hypocrisy and arrogance at its worst.

Barring any unforeseen bombshell, Sonia Sotomayor is going to be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States. Even many of her detractors are aware of this. Her qualifications for the job are stellar. Her extensive judicial experience speaks for itself. Her selection is a brilliant, fabulous, and inspirational one.

Dr. Elwood Watson is a full professor of History and African American Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the author of several award-winning academic articles, several anthologies and is the author of the book Outsiders Within: Black Women in the Legal Academy After Brown v. Board  (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Spring 2008)