OPEN UNIVERSITY MARCH 6, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
by Melissa Harris-Lacewell
It is time for black political leadership to throw their full support behind Barack Obama. No more public questioning of his racial identity. No more accusations that he is disingenuous. No more demanding perfection of him when we watched you stand with O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, and R. Kelley. No more petty jealousies when we are faced with social, international and ecological crises that threaten our survival. Time to mobilize, inspire and act on Barack's behalf. And here are the reasons why.
1. Obama got it right in Selma
Barack Obama's speech in Selma, Alabama, on March 4, 2007, was one of the most powerful, accurate, and compelling discussions of civil rights and its legacy ever delivered by an American elected official. Barack helped us to remember that the civil rights struggle was not and is not a parochial, domestic effort. It was a broad, international human rights struggle. American segregation was linked with European colonialism in an international system of white supremacist domination. The struggle in the U.S. South was deeply connected to the anti-colonial struggle in Africa and the anti-fascist struggles in Europe. He was audacious, bold, and right when he challenged black leaders, "don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma." Of course he does. Any black leader, intellectual, or journalist who asserts that he does not is not honoring the fullness of the movement itself, by claiming that it was small, limited, and meant for only a few who had experienced specifically defined forms of oppression. We know better and Obama helped to remind us of that.
2. An Obama surge among black voters is good for democracy and the Democratic Party
If black voters get excited about Barack and existing black leadership throws the full weight of their organizations and inspiration behind Barack it is very good for democracy and for the Democratic Party. It is good for democracy because it demonstrates the capacity of our political system to inaugurate leaders who show courage, talent, and commitment without the benefit of family connections. It is good for the Democratic Party because his candidacy could potentially lead to a massive increase in black voter registration and primary turnout. Jesse Jackson is largely responsible for the fact that the Congress remained Democratic during the Reagan era. Why? Because the enthusiasm of black voters in 1984 and 1988 lead to huge registration and turnout increases. These new voters couldn't turn the tide against Reagan, but their participation in congressional contests and local politics helped balance power in Washington during those tough years. Black leaders need to fall in line so that we can infuse excitement and courage into black voters who will be indispensable for any eventual Democratic nominees for president, congress and local races. Even if he does not win the nomination, the most important thing that we can do as a community is to get behind him now, claim him as our own, and start the registration drives.
3. If you don't fall in line, you will find yourself leading no one at all
Obama got it exactly right when he laid claim to the "Joshua Generation" on Sunday in Selma. It was Moses who lead the people out of bondage, but Joshua who was charged with the completing the task of full liberation. We are the Joshua generation. We grew up at a time of great promise and substantial retrenchment. We have seen the progress and the backlash. We watched the middle class grow and the poverty deepen. The rhythm or our hearts is hip hop but we still know gospel. We are going to claim leadership. We have a right to be excited about Barack. We know he is not perfect, but leaders never are. We know that we will have to hold his feet to the fire of accountability, but that is what the very heart of democracy is and we are up to the challenge. We are going to support Barack and it is time for you to fall in line.
18 comments
If we take arguments about racial political obedience like this seriously, then hasn't the civil rights movement all been for naught?
- primwallflow
March 6, 2007 at 12:44pm
"Fall into Line" (being a military metaphor) really suggests strict obedience, as primwallflow suggests above. The post itself wasn't nearly so narrow-minded, but the headline (as seen from TNR's main page) gives the impression that the argument is to blindly follow the man because of a shared identity. Of course, this is a blog (not a medium that allows for much time for editing), but the choice of words is unfortunate all the same.
- larrynorton
March 6, 2007 at 1:09pm
She uses "fall into line" three times in the substance of the article.
- primwallflow
March 6, 2007 at 1:14pm
It also suggests that black Americans are a monolith, all with the same experience, ideas, status, feelings, and loyalties. There are obviously powerful group-oriented dynamics at work among African-Americans as among other identifiable constituencies, but that doesn't take away from the fact that individual thinking as well as group-thinking is good for society.
- ironyroad
March 6, 2007 at 1:14pm
"It is good for democracy because it demonstrates the capacity of our political system to inaugurate leaders who show courage, talent, and commitment without the benefit of family connections." Great point. Obama makes for a sharp contrast to our current, fail-upwards president...and the fail-upwards system of many of our institutions (e.g. the corporate world). Obama may have went to Harvard Law School, but the dude suffered to get there. His daddy didn't help. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much good this will do for everyone who, as of now, has poor connections.
- huntlib
March 6, 2007 at 2:10pm
for this parody of multi-culti-PC-post-structuralist academic "positionality." Hilarious! Prof. Harris-Bracewell, I, for one, get the joke. Now, seriously -- what do you really think?
- 174773
March 6, 2007 at 2:11pm
OK, it's a poor choice of words. But her points are sound and the logic is hard to deny: Obama will be a fine candidate and could become a great president (that largely depends on larger events, as always). And he is the only black candidate who can speak in visionary and pragmatic terms to all races.
- mkazin
March 6, 2007 at 2:11pm
"Falling into line" may be an anti-individualist metaphor, but it's just a metaphor. Melissa isn't really asking much -- just for blacks to give their political support to a candidate who has answered the criticisms raised of him by the black community. Meanwhile, Republicans made falling-into-line behind Bush into a state religion. Criticize Bush and you're f---ing committing treason. And they fell right into Iraq.
- huntlib
March 6, 2007 at 2:22pm
Recalling MLK's line about moving beyond race-based judgments, could Prof Harris-Lacewell tell us whether she thinks it necessary more than 40 years later to continue with race-based preference schemes in univ. admissions? Especially in light of the facts that: a) such programs mainly benefit black children of the upper and middle classes, to the detriment of vastly more deserving vietnamese and east european working class high-achievers b) have done next to nothing to improve opportunities for poor blacks, whose lot is no better today than it was 30 years ago c) have been overwhelmingly struck down by the public-- despite their advocates having outspent the foes of aff action by more than 4:1-- in Calif and Mich., home to the nation's two greatest public universities 4) make a hash of the social and racial reality of 21c America, which is not made up of "two nations, black and white" but a multitude of colors and races and mixed race kids? Does the race-based approach mean that OJ's kids qualify for aff action points? Finally, why would it be so hard to suggest an income-based alternative to the current (buppie-centric) melanin-based solution? Guaranteeing a spot in Berkeley or Michigan for, say, each kid who falls in the top 2-3% of his HS graduating class across the state would do far more to help poor blacks in Oakland CA or the Cass Corridor in Detroit than the current aff action system that favors the children of an Alan Keyes or a Tom Sowell. Celebrating other people's achievements is cheap. Where's Obama on this, the most important racial issue the nation faces in 2007?
- teplukhin
March 6, 2007 at 3:36pm
Melissa isn't really asking much -- just for blacks to give their political support to a candidate who has answered the criticisms raised of him by the black community. I think making the case that an Obama presidency would be good for African-Americans is perfectly legitimate and defensible. But Harris-Lacewell went far beyond that: she's implicitly arguing that not supporting Obama means being a traitor to your race, since black ought to "fall in line" behind him. What about GOP blacks, to say nothing of moderate and liberal blacks, who have honest disagreements with the man? They would have to abandon their principles to back Obama. So you see, Melissa is in fact asking a great deal, and it's insulting. Finally, why would it be so hard to suggest an income-based alternative to the current (buppie-centric) melanin-based solution? Guaranteeing a spot in Berkeley or Michigan for, say, each kid who falls in the top 2-3% of his HS graduating class across the state would do far more to help poor blacks in Oakland CA or the Cass Corridor in Detroit than the current aff action system that favors the children of an Alan Keyes or a Tom Sowell. Well, first, where on Earth did affirmative action come from? How is that germane to this conversation? Second, to produce adequate diversity in college, a cream-the-top system relies on the very racial inequality from school-to-school that we ought to be fighting against. It's no better a band aid than affirmative action. Third, Berkeley explored socio-economic affirmative action some time ago and abandoned the idea. That's because a) it actually wouldn't improve racial and ethnic diversity markedly, it would still favor whites and Asians. Granted, they'd be poor whites and Asians, which is better than giving an edge to rich minorities IMHO, but socio-economic affirmative action is not a panacea for addressing all facets of diversity; and 2) it would be more expensive both directly and indirectly, especially to private schools: directly, because you'd basically be giving an edge to students who need financial aid, and indirectly, because now you're not admitting the rich students (many of whom are perfectly smart and qualified) whose families make large donations. Fourth, he never addresses it directly, but my impression from Obama's book is that he agrees with affirmative action, but makes a point of not viewing its opponents as racists (and certainly doesn't place all his hopes with affirmative action for improving minority education).
- primwallflow
March 6, 2007 at 4:07pm
"Guaranteeing a spot in Berkeley or Michigan for, say, each kid who falls in the top 2-3% of his HS graduating class" There a very few high schools in CA where top 2-3 % are poor blacks.
- jacobt1
March 6, 2007 at 4:15pm
where on Earth did affirmative action come from? How is that germane to this conversation? I seem to recall a certain phrase from the Selma era about a vision of the US in which each American would be judged on the "content of our character, not the color of our skin." Also, Obama and Prof H-L suggested in the Joshua allusion that it's time to move forward rather than look back. Race-neutral vision + moving forward = scrap the middle-class bonus program that is aff action. Second, to produce adequate diversity in college, a cream-the-top system relies on the very racial inequality from school-to-school that we ought to be fighting against. It's no better a band aid than affirmative action. Huh? Where do you get the notion that the top tier of an overwhlemingly black HS is inevitably going to be non-black? How does such an unbelievably patronizing attitude help poor black kids? This is contributing to the problem, which is not lack of diversity-- Berkeley is incredibly diverse, btw-- but continued catastrophic failure by the underclass + slacker buppie kids who can't hack it at Berkeley or U-M being admitted instead of deserving non-buppies. Third, Berkeley explored socio-economic affirmative action some time ago and abandoned the idea. That's because a) it actually wouldn't improve racial and ethnic diversity markedly, it would still favor whites and Asians. Granted, they'd be poor whites and Asians, which is better than giving an edge to rich minorities IMHO, but socio-economic affirmative action is not a panacea for addressing all facets of diversity; Nice goalpost shift, there. Income-based admissions is a huge improvement over favoring Alan Keyes' and OJ's kids, but it can't be adopted because it's not a panacea. Right. 2) it would be more expensive both directly and indirectly, especially to private schools: directly, because you'd basically be giving an edge to students who need financial aid, and indirectly, because now you're not admitting the rich students (many of whom are perfectly smart and qualified) whose families make large donations. And now we're in la-la land. Night is day, up is down. A defense of aff action based on defending wealthy kids who don't require financial aid! So X can't read at grade level? No matter, his dad makes 300 grand a year, let him in! Who needs snot-nosed little unwashed Sergei or Minh anyway? Unbelievable. Fourth, he never addresses it directly, but my impression from Obama's book is that he agrees with affirmative action, but makes a point of not viewing its opponents as racists That's nice. But please tell us again why OJ's or Tom Sowell's kid deserves to be admitted instead of the next Sergei Brin? Plus how that helps kids in South Central LA?
- teplukhin
March 6, 2007 at 4:25pm
- teplukhin
March 6, 2007 at 4:25pm
- teplukhin
March 6, 2007 at 4:25pm
where do you get the notion that the top tier of an overwhlemingly black HS is inevitably going to be non-black? Keep your pants on and can the self-righteousness. My point was only that in order for a cream-the-top system to work reliably -- diversity-wise, at least -- you need schools that are entirely minority. And while in some cases there's nothing sinister about a school being all-black or what have you (it's merely a function of local demographics), in all too many instances, schools are homogeneous because of white-flight and neglect (I'll let others sort out which comes first). And now we're in la-la land. Night is day, up is down. A defense of aff action based on defending wealthy kids who don't require financial aid! So X can't read at grade level? No matter, his dad makes 300 grand a year, let him in! Who needs snot-nosed little unwashed Sergei or Minh anyway? Try going back and actually, y'know, reading my post if you're going to respond to it. The graph on socio-economic affirmative action was not my defense of it, it was the reality why universities don't adopt it. And as a former admissions officer at Berkeley, I'm in a position to know. I hate to disillusion you, but admissions, especially at private schools but increasingly so at public schools, is a balance between the poor kids who speak directly to your social mission and the rich kids who pay tuition in full and whose families give loads to the endowment later on. And before you pile on them, remember that those fat checks allow more disadvantaged students to come. So pardon the pun, but it's simply not black & white. I guarantee you that every year, schools like Stanford receive enough applications from outstanding students whose families make below the national median income to fill a whole class. Why don't they? Well, because they don't have the resources to have a class entirely of needy kids, not without eating away at their endowment. So suddenly, admissions becomes a cost/benefit issue: how many rich students who can pay versus how many poor students who will reap the greatest proportional benefit from a university education. So you see, any meaningful socio-economic affirmative action is infeasible.
- primwallflow
March 6, 2007 at 5:18pm
I think it's a great point that too many in the old-school African-American leaders have been perfectly willing to stand with O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Mike Tyson, and R. Kelley -- but somehow they get all persnickety and queasy about Barack Obama. Of course, it's not clear why the endorsement of those who stood with Simpson, Jackson, Tyson, and Kelley should get much weight at all in anyone's mind. But if these old-school black leaders are going to stand up for group identity of African-Americans when criminal behavior is at issue, it seems ridiculous (or perhaps revealing?) that they won't do so for Obama.
- timothytaylor
March 6, 2007 at 5:49pm
My point was only that in order for a cream-the-top system to work reliably -- diversity-wise, at least -- you need schools that are entirely minority. Here's the nut of it. Success to you means "reliably" attaining some kind of "diversity" threshold. Trying to reclaim the word "diversity" to actually mean "diversity" is a lost cause, but never mind; we all know we're talking about "black" and "hispanic" students. But then, even if you buy the logic of forced numerical outcomes-- which is also silly IMO but I'll accept for the sake of argument that it's a good thing to gather and try to manage to some kind of race-based metrics of progress-- you run into more problems with these 1965-era racial categories. Who's "black"? Are OJ's kids black? Or should they get 1/2 as many melanin points as, say, the children of Dick Parsons or the Symantec CEO or the Merrill Lynch CEO? Mixed marriages account for a very large and rapidly growing number of kids applying to college. When you start trying to engineer race-based outcomes by slotting kids into racial categories, all kinds of mischief results. Berkeley's administrators are embarrassed to no end that their entering class is now 43% Asian (graduating classes are certainly higher due to the much higher dropout rate for the white and "diversity" candidates). UC-B wants fewer Asians and more "diversity" candidates. So what does the UC-B admissions board do with a Tiger Woods? Is his application a wash-- bonus points for dad's melanin, offset by demerits for mom's asianness? You want to go by the numbers. OK, so what exactly is your algorithm that will acomodate an American racial reality that has even more permutations and combinations, more varieties of multi-colored quadroons and octoroons, than could be imagined by the racemongers of the Old South? Seriously, do you see how ridiculous this has become? Re. elite colleges' tendency to sort applicants via the price mechanism, let's be clear: this is a *bad* thing. To be avoided. Against democracy. Not progressive, bad for the nation. Anyone who calls him/herself a progressive should oppose this tendency tooth and nail, not shrug it off and sneer at fellow libs who oppose it.
- teplukhin
March 6, 2007 at 6:13pm
1. She shouldn't have said "fall in line" for reasons already said. 2. Jackson and Sharpton have a VERY fall-in-line mentality. They've always acted like they represented all black people, unelected by anyone for anything though they are. And now they are falling in line behind Hillary [literally! see photos], and it looks like just a bunch of opportunistic power broking garbage, the very thing that people hate about Hillary. But it shows their true feathers I think.
- psantillanalove
March 6, 2007 at 11:00pm