TIMOTHY NOAH NOVEMBER 2, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Isaac Chotiner]
Several years ago, I was having dinner at a friend's house when there arose a discussion of Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of Washington D.C.'s public schools. My friend had several young kids who attended district schools, and she was attempting to explain why so many of her fellow parents opposed Rhee. In essence, she said, people simply could not stand Rhee's attitude. They found her dismissive, condescending, and insensitive. When I asked about her actual policies—the changes she was pushing, in particular—my friend explained that she (my friend) was supportive of them, as were many of her friends. But they just could not abide Rhee's personality. Supporters of Rhee's reforms, my friend explained, had to understand what was driving people to oppose her.
What was strange to me about this conversation was that my friend and I took completely different lessons from her story. She thought that although people were wrong to oppose Rhee's policies, the parents doing so at least had an understandable excuse. I thought the opposite: if the people opposing Rhee (at least the people my friend was discussing) opposed her policies sincerely, that would be perfectly understandable (whether it would be misguided is a question I will leave to education experts). Instead, these parents were putting their own personal feelings—their bruised egos or sense of being disrespected—ahead of important public policy. What could be more solipsistic? This excuse was not just bad; it inadvertently made Rhee's opponents look small-minded.
In The New York Times yesterday, Frank Bruni addressed a completely separate issue: homophobia in the African-American community. As Bruni writes:
In some perfect world where human nature is less messy and history less fraught, any and all people who had ever suffered discrimination would find common cause, gathering together under one big anti-bigotry banner. In our world there are divisions and even tensions among minority groups, and the quest to legalize same-sex marriage—now permitted in six states and Washington, D.C.—has met particular resistance from African-Americans. This isn’t a topic that advocates for gay rights or their many black supporters relish discussing, because it focuses on a wedge where they wish there was a tighter bond. But polls indicate that support for same-sex marriage lags among black Americans.
Bruni goes on to mention that African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, the ballot measure in California that prohibited same-sex marriage. And he notes that much of the opposition was based on religious grounds. But then he adds this:
But it’s also important to recognize that people lobbying for gay rights have at times given African-Americans pause by appropriating “civil rights” language and arguments in too broad a manner. Wade Henderson, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted the existence of phrases like “gay is the new black” and said that attempts to equate the persecution of gay and black Americans can be “deeply offensive.” African-Americans were enslaved. And during their brutal struggle for justice, they couldn’t make a secret of what set them apart from others, said Henderson, who supports same-sex marriage, during a phone interview Friday. When gay men and lesbians glide over such details, he said, it feels “inherently disrespectful to the black experience in this country.”
Again, what's fascinating here is that Henderson (and perhaps Bruni, given his use of the phrase "important to recognize"), thinks this explanation of voting behavior is exonerating. Henderson is saying that African-Americans are so offended by phrases like "gay is the new black" that they decide to vote against gay marriage. This is almost an exact definition of reactionary conservatism, and I see no reason why anyone (particularly Henderson and Bruni) should find it exculpatory. I have no idea whether this is actually one of the reasons that African-Americans voted against Proposition 8, and I hope it isn't. But it is disturbing that anyone thinks that it even approaches an excuse, or an understandable explanation for denying gay people the right to marry.
15 comments
On what basis is it "almost an exact definition of reactionary conservatism"? I wasn't aware that reactionary conservatives in the United States are noted for any particularly sensitivity to either the question of black identity or the history of slavery.
- ironyroad
November 2, 2011 at 12:49am
"Instead, these parents were putting their own personal feelings—their bruised egos or sense of being disrespected—ahead of important public policy." That, I believe, is what Chotiner is referring to as "reactionary behavior" in the context of African-Americans and gay rights. [As a legal matter, the Court employs a different (i.e., less demanding) equal protection standard (strict scrutiny vs. rational basis) for groups other than racial and religious groups, although some reactionaries have expressed alarm that the Court might, might apply strict scrutiny to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The sodomy case (Lawrence v. Texas) was decided on substantive due process grounds, not equal protection, though Justice O'Connor used equal protection rational basis review in her concurring opinion (no doubt as a shout-out to those who might, might wish to apply strict scrutiny). Gay definitely is not the new black when it comes to equal protection.]
- rayward
November 2, 2011 at 7:47am
I think the Reactionary Conservatism Isaac was describing was "When X socio/cultural phenomenon appears, it means we need to legislate to turn back the clock to the good old days when 'X' wasn't around." 'X' could be Gay rights movement, Birth Control, Abortion, Flag Burning, what have you. --jt
- modelj
November 2, 2011 at 8:32am
I think the evidence that Michelle Rhee's policies were sound despite her own personal foibles is debatable. How someone treats the people they are meant to lead impacts how well that person does their job. I also think that Michelle Rhee is just a relentless self-promoter with a shallow understanding of how to fix urban education.
- aylwards
November 2, 2011 at 10:01am
A superintendent offends and berates the parents of the students in her school district and it is the fault of the parents that they have animus towards her and do not trust her leadership? The parents had sound reasons to distrust Rhee and to believe that her policies would fail.
- aylwards
November 2, 2011 at 10:26am
Spoken like a true supporter of the educational establishment, ayl.
- liberalref
November 2, 2011 at 10:36am
Spoken like someone skeptical of Rhee's self promotion and spoken like someone not convinced that teachers and their unions are the most pressing problem in schools. I recognize that my viewpoint has some holes, just as the educational reform movement does. I also think that any excuses used to deny gays the right to marry are specious.
- aylwards
November 2, 2011 at 11:16am
These comments seem to confirm that it's almost impossible to separate the personal from the policy, something that Obama's recent poll numbers seem to reflect (his policies didn't change, just his new-found populist demeanor) and as the reason for my half-hearted defense of the Americans Elect movement (to give just two examples of the phenomenon). Of course, by far the biggest example is RR, whose policies were unpopular (when separated from his personality, something that he and his advisors made every effort to avoid) but whose sunny personality most everybody loved and admired.
- rayward
November 2, 2011 at 11:57am
"'X' could be Gay rights movement, Birth Control, Abortion, Flag Burning, what have you." Yes, jt, but none of those are the same as slavery, unless I'm missing your point. To object to, say, the proposition that "flag burning is the new black" is not -- in my book at least -- the definition of reactionary conservatism. Reactionary conservatism is far more likely to argue some combination of: slavery had its positive side, states' rights take precedence, and blacks are just trying to make whites feel guilty.
- ironyroad
November 2, 2011 at 12:48pm
Two observations I have with regards to the black community's negative reactions to the gay rights movement. One is that there has been a cultural 'covering' if you will, within the black community when it comes to being gay. The second is the perception regarding the ill-chosen appropriation of 'civil rights' by the gay community. The black community, right or wrong, view the 'civil rights' movement as their 'civil rights' movement and the only 'civil rights' movement. Whereas the gay community tries to make a connection to the civil rights movement in the 60s the black community doesn't see being 'gay' as a anything other than a choice. So if any minority group (in this case the gay community) that chooses to claim a civil right denied them, it becomes reactionary by some in the black community to not support such a claim as it denies, devalues or equivocates their civil rights fight with something they see as less a civil right. Similarities abound in the Hispanic community as well with regards to the gay rights / marriage / homosexuality / lesbianism. Except the Hispanic community doesn't elevate the civil rights claims of the gay community and simply ignores the issue all together. Again these are observations from conversations I've had with friends in both groups. Including those that are gay. My interpretation of 'civil rights' is one in which a minority group - regardless of skin color, sexual preference or sexual identity, ethnicity, etc- has been historically abused or persecuted or marginalized to a great extent. We continue to see the institutional marginalization of Native Americans. The fact that tribes have to get "approval" from the BIA tells you a lot about how we've institutionalized racism and the civil rights of Native Americans that is still going on. We still see (on some level) the marginalization of the gay community and minority communities - but these tend to be cultural and less so institutional. One would think that any repressed group would support the efforts of another because it would only further legitimize the claims of those repressed groups but delegitimize the claims of the authority groups. But as we can see...it's hard to separate the self from the whole.
- singlspeed
November 2, 2011 at 1:49pm
Liberalref, why do I have to be pigeonholed as blindly supporting the educational establishment? Making America's public schools, especially its urban ones, is an incredibly difficult and complex endeavor and it seems to me that it requires input and deep thought from viewpoints across the spectrum, left and right, pro-reform, pro-union, pro-teacher, etc. I believe that teachers are more competent and more dedicated to their profession than they are given credit for. I also believe that there are myriad factors contributing to the problems in America's schools and that teachers are pretty low on the list of those worthy of blame.
- aylwards
November 2, 2011 at 4:37pm
Liberalref, why do I have to be pigeonholed as blindly supporting the educational establishment? Making America's public schools better, especially its urban ones, is an incredibly difficult and complex endeavor and it seems to me that it requires input and deep thought from viewpoints across the spectrum, left and right, pro-reform, pro-union, pro-teacher, etc. I believe that teachers are more competent and more dedicated to their profession than they are given credit for. I also believe that there are myriad factors contributing to the problems in America's schools and that teachers are pretty low on the list of those worthy of blame.
- aylwards
November 2, 2011 at 4:39pm
"In some perfect world where human nature is less messy and history less fraught, any and all people who had ever suffered discrimination would find common cause, gathering together under one big anti-bigotry banner." Would that it were so. In Namibia, the Owambo people (Bantu) form a majority over the Damara people (Khoisan), and the Owambos have total control over the government. Both groups suffered under South African apartheid oppression, and both are black though they are of quite distinct physical types and for the most part are visually distinguishable from one another. In no other circumstances in my life have I witnessed such casual, unthinking and pervasive racism as that perpetrated by the Owambos against the Damara people. The moral for the story for me was that being a victim of racial oppression does not in any way inoculate people against racism. I suspect that if anything, racial victimisation tends to increase distrust of other groups among the victimised.
- AaronW
November 2, 2011 at 9:29pm
Rather like in that Brian Aldiss science-fiction story, in which two combative starship commanders trapped on Earth live out their lives as crusty old Greek peasants always meeting each other over a hostile game of dominoes in the local cafe, people may have a sense of another existence from the one in which they are locked into tedious and inexplicable relationships with each other.
- ironyroad
November 3, 2011 at 12:59am
If Isaac were to volunteer to work for a candidate and do so for many hours and one day to find himself face to face with that candidate and start to talk but the candidate does worse than blow him off, he berates him for not knowing not to speak to him I have a feeling that all the goodwill that Isaac felt would disappear in an instant. I am with aylwards on this, Rhee was arrogant and dismissive, I read some of the things she said and was glad to see her get the boot. Being right about something doesn't make anyone less of an ahole.
- blackton
November 3, 2011 at 11:32am