Does the census perpetuate racism?

Perhaps because I was 11 in the last census and I was not paying much attention to media coverage back then, but I notice a lot more anti-census sentiment this time around. Some people argue the census is a violation of privacy, while others decry its financial cost and limited good effect. And then there are those who take issue with the race and ethnicity categories. We've already seen outcry about the word "Negro" on the 2010 Census, but others take issue with the inclusion of race at all.

As founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit group set up to safeguard constitutional freedoms, John Whitehead argues that the current census perpetuates racism by "requiring citizens to take a colored view of themselves."

Whitehead uses the "Negro" debate mentioned previously to highlight his point that asking citizens to mark their race is outright racism (He chooses to ignore, however, the racist history of that word compared to the other more neutral classifications like white and Asian). He cites an email from "an all-American citizen" named Marc who is similarly outraged by the census. Marc writes:

"There's no reason to use race to distinguish people...The time has come to lose racial identity to end racism and start seeing ourselves as fellow humans and not to assume that you can determine anything from the color of someone’s skin other than the color of their skin. I don’t want to give the government information so that they can make decisions based on race."

Whitehead applauds Marc's assertions and goes on to say that including race on the census will only make race more salient in the public consciousness, preventing us from viewing each other as people rather than colors.

I wholeheartedly agree with both Marc and Whitehead that seeing ourselves as fellow humans is an honorable goal. Ideally, color wouldn't matter. But ideally, no one would live below the poverty line either, and we would all have health care. Reality isn't ideal, and that couldn't be truer when it comes to race.

Part of the reason for including race on the census has to do with drawing district boundaries based on population change and makeup. Whether this is good or bad is another issue altogether, and one I do not delve into in this post. But race and ethnicity are also used on the census to determine resource allocation. Whether we like it or not, there are differences in income, employment rates and even household demographics across racial groups. Different groups need different services, and what better way for government to assess these needs than a nationwide, uniform census?

The 2010 Census asks our age. Do we argue that this perpetuates ageism? The form asks for household size as well. Do we think this will lead to infanticide? No, because older people and bigger households have different needs than other groups, and the government should be aware of that.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, removing race from the census would ignore the legacy of racism that precedes us. Unlike Whitehead, I do not think electing a black president "is a sign that America is becoming more colorblind." Rather, I argue that racism is alive and well (it is perhaps more subtle, but still with us), and that if we are ever to eradicate racial disparity, we cannot ignore it today. It is ignorant to overlook race, and in doing so, we are only perpetuating the white privilege that lets whites in both government and larger society turn a blind eye to inequality.

Mr. Whitehead, I commend your optimism that a race-neutral world is achievable. But until then, I'm just fine checking, "White, non-Hispanic" on my forms this year.

Photo Credit: Bossip.com/U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Black babies more likely to die in my hometown county

A new study from Children's Memorial Research Center found that Cook County's black babies are 12 times more likely than white babies to die of sleep-related causes. Even worse, black infants are 17 times more likely to die of unknown sleep-related causes.

Sleep-related deaths include sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and unintentional suffocation in bed. According to Chicago Tribune reporter Deborah L. Shelton, sleep-related deaths account for 90 deaths a year in Cook County. The number may seem small, but the racial disparity is a serious public health issue. According to the research center, almost 20 percent of black infant mortality deaths in Cook County are sleep-related, while sleep-related deaths account for less than 5 percent of white infant mortality in the county.

I commend the researchers for acknowledging that decreasing the disparity must be a public health goal. I commend the project itself. What I take issue with is the lack of probing into why these deaths occur.

Shelton takes a blaming tone when she says, "In most cases, the infants had been sleeping in unsafe situations that put them at risk, such as being placed in a bed with a parent." She goes on to say that many babies "sleep alone but not in a crib or bassinet--often on a couch or pillow on the floor." This is the first mention of why these infants die, and subsequent references mention rollovers, accidental suffocation," children falling off beds and babies sleeping on lumpy sofas or cots.

There is no mention of the economic and social barriers that lead to these deaths. Do parents have the resources to learn about proper infant care, let alone buy a safe crib? Do cultural differences impact where babies sleep?

The only mention of economics comes from Sheila Sanders, project coordinator for the Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coaliton. She says some low-income apartments are often too small to fit a crib and an adult bed, forcing parents to bring their infant to bed with them. She does not explain why parents find themselves in such a predicament.

With shocking research like this, both researchers and reporters would do well to explore the deeper causes of such disparity. Parents may be partly to blame, but there are other societal forces at play here as well. It might be easier to blame the mother for snuggling up to her baby at night, rather than look beneath the surface to examine the cultural and social forces that bring that baby into bed with her.

We cannot make progress unless we unveil both the cultural underpinnings and the systemic disparities in income, education and both pre- and post-natal care. The cynic in me wants to say some are loathe to bring the black infant mortality to par with that of whites, but I refuse to let that attitude prevail. Rather, we should see this study not as a finger-pointing attack on black parents, but as a jumping off point for saving babies both black and white.

Photo Credit: University of North Texas Health Science Center

White supremacists: Our racist scapegoats

White supremacists may not be attending plays about racism, but they sure are cropping up on television. In the Mar. 22 issue of Newsweek, reporter Joshua Alston examines the prevalence of these white-power radicals on primetime television:

--The new FX series Justified centers on a U.S. Marshall who returns to his childhood home, only to find that his childhood friend now leads a violent white-supremacist group.

--Sons of Anarchy's second season focused on a battle between a motorcycle gang and the white-separatist "League of American Nationalists."

--The serial killer drama Dexter now features a white supremacist hanger-on.

--Law & Order--all three renditions--dealt with crimes precipitated by a white-power organization.

Why so much white bigotry? Alston hits it right on the mark:

"The reason the card-carrying white supremacist lingers in the public imagination is not just because he's scary, but because he fortifies our self-regard in an area where we all occasionally need some convincing."

To some extent, Alston says, we are all racist:

"On some level we all recognize this, and to acknowledge—-or even inflate—-white supremacists is to assuage our guilt with the knowledge that there are people out there far more prejudiced than most of us could ever be."

White supremacists are a catch-all for white guilt. We can look at the white KKK robes and say, "How awful!", without registering our own biases. White supremacists on TV gives us a means to cast aside our own white guilt. We can argue, "I'm not THAT bad," and ignore the bigotry within us. With enough exposure to these characters, we begin to think THEY are the problem, and we erroneously believe our comparably small prejudices are inconsequential.

While I tend to take a cynical view of Hollywood and say that producers are in it for the money, making shows with least common denominator content with the broadest appeal, I will try to be hopeful. If TV producers truly want to help us understand the ills of white supremacy, which Alston says is on the rise in America (a result of a black president, illegal immigration and an economic recession), I suggest they de-radicalize these groups. Showing viewers that radical bigotry exists not only at KKK rallies, but at the neighborhood barbecue, the office party or even the local book club meeting can do wonders to curtail white scapegoating. TV execs should not show us the "glorified worst," but they should incorporate into their programs a more mundane, dare I say relatable conceptualization of white power.

TV producers take note: Not only are you perpetuating whiteness, but you are endorsing its worst brand. We cannot confront our own biases until you bring racism to our level.

Photo Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi

If ignorance is bliss, what is knowing mockery?

Whenever I come home to Chicago (yes, the actual city), I immediately remember why I love this place: The diversity of people, neighborhoods, languages, food, religions and other cultural practices is evident on every corner. A ten-minute walk from my house lands you in the midst of Indian sari shops, while a trip in the other direction would have you buying produce at a local mercado.

This diversity extends to Chicago's arts and entertainment offerings as well. A read through the Chicago Tribune's event listings for this weekend boasts African dance workshops, Ukrainian vodka tastings and Capoeira performances.

Of particular note was a listing for a play by Young Jean Lee. "The Shipment," writes Tribune reporter Doug George, "is a play that puts cultural images of black America on stage and lets the audience sort them out."

Lee says this off-Broadway play, which debuted last year, is not intended to be an "identity-politics show." Rather, the playwright intends to show you your biases and help you question them.

This clash of biases and assumptions is clear from the play's title. "The Shipment" alludes to both a shipment of drugs and the African slave trade. Using comedy, song and dance, the play's actors act out racial prejudice, at times making sharp racial divisions into sharp wit and comic fodder.

Is this a step forward, or a big leap backward? Is it good that we can talk about these ideas in a comedic way, or that we can talk about them at all? Or is this presentation of racial bias not "anti-racism" enough to elicit change?

Without seeing the play, I can't say much about how Lee makes us aware of our own prejudices. What I can say, however, is that I think theater-goers seeking out this play are probably some of the more progressive thinkers out there. These people are probably not outright racist; they are most likely comfortable examining their beliefs and thinking critically about how race impacts their lives. Self-selection, then, dulls the impact of the play.

But even if the white supremacists among us won't be watching, public awareness is the first step to change. Watching black actors play to black stereotypes may seem like a step backward to some, but the real regressions are things like the Texas textbook debacle, in which we not only fail to analyze, but we fail to acknowledge racism and prejudice throughout history as well.

Criticisms aside, Lee's success shows us we should never underestimate the power of humor and satire to start conversations. I think John Stewart would second that...

Photo Credit: Paula Court

New study shows HUGE disparity between white, minority women

A recent study out of the Insight Center for Community Economic Development shows tremendous wealth inequality among women of different races. Among the findings reported by Democracy Now, the report shows about half of all single black and Hispanic women have debt that exceeds their assets. Thus, they have zero or negative wealth.

Wealth, as defined by the authors of the report, refers to the value of your assets--money held in checking or savings, retirement benefits, real estate--after subtracting debts and liabilities like mortgage and loans. Separate from income, wealth can be said to indicate your long-term financial security.

The most shocking finding, however, is in the comparison of minority women to white women:

The median wealth for single white women is just over $41,000. The median wealth for single Hispanic women is $120, and the median wealth for single black women is $100.

This data is a staggering reminder of the legacy of inequality that continues to this day. The Insight Center points out that wealth can be passed down through generations, and this surely accounts for much of the wealth disparity by race. Policies intended to keep minorities below whites in terms of political, economic and social power have stifled the voices and progress of countless minorities. Residential segregation has kept minorities out of areas with good schools, good jobs and opportunities for growth, a phenomenon referred to as spatial mismatch. The racialization of welfare (think "Cadillac-driving welfare queens") has been followed by reduced support for welfare programs (think Reaganomics and trickle-down theory).

We have outlawed segregation, but many of these roadblocks still exist today. Gerrymandering, or drawing residential boundaries based on demographics of the area, is still allowed, and white flight is alive and well, with many professional jobs following suburb-bound whites. Racial stereotypes persist, both at work and in society, resulting in many minorities' internalization of inferiority.

In short, black and Hispanic women's lack of wealth is the product of history. Rather than a failure to spend responsibly or save diligently, their lack of wealth is a product of generations of hardship and racial prejudice. While white women have had a chance to build wealth and pass their assets onto their children, minority women have struggled against government and social policy to survive.

This report shows that those who extol racial equality speak too soon. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, this report underscores the need for action. The Huffington Post lists some of the solutions offered by the Insight Center, but none of these address the legacy of inequality behind the wealth disparity.

We must examine our policies in all areas of life--housing, employment, education, health, etc--that contribute to minority women's lack of wealth. We must tailor existing policies and create new policies geared toward minority women specifically, as any policy intended to help all women will also give white women a leg up and only serve to maintain this racial disparity. We must recognize that any effort at reform that does not look back at the years of discrimination is only a band-aid. We must bear in mind that while white women pass down thousands in wealth, black and Hispanic women pass down years of racism.

Photo Credit: Bet.com

Can everyone shut up about Gabourey Sidibe's weight?

The story exploded onto the news sites and blogs last week. Shock-jock Howard Stern declared Oscar-nominated actress Gabourey Sidibe too fat for Hollywood, and his comment spurred countless discussions on whether, in fact, she was too big for the movie business. Everyone, from talk show host Joy Behar to Glamour magazine, took on the topic, and many seemed to miss the mark.

Is Sidibe overweight? Yes. Is this a health risk? Yes. Is her weight or overall health any of our business? No. Rather than focusing on her ability as an actress, a majority of the discussions centered around the perils of obesity. And yet where is the discussion of James Gandolfini's beer gut or Kevin James' double chin? It's as if we forgot Sidibe is paid to act, and not to be Hollywood's mascot for fat hate.

While it is doubtlessly true that Hollywood perpetuates a thin ideal, we should be reminded that this ideal is often unhealthy and/or unattainable. Why should Sidibe take advice from an industry that lets James Cameron's wife walk the red carpet with forearms larger than her biceps?

Sidibe's weight might be a roadblock to her success in Hollywood, but Howard Stern and others overlooked the fact that not only is Sidibe overweight--she's also black. Dark black. San Francisco Chronicle blogger Margot Magowan identifies this omission in the Sidibe dialogue, saying, "Even if the talented actress lost weight, she'd still be too black for Hollywood."

In a previous post, I wrote about dark-skinned black women's underrepresentation in music videos. The absence of dark-skinned black women extends to Hollywood films as well. Think of today's popular black actresses: Halle Berry, Zeo Saldana, Jada Pinkett Smith. All of these women are considerably lighter than Sidibe.

Sidibe broke onto the scene in a movie about black struggle. Her struggle to maintain relevant in Hollywood hinges not only on the scale, but on the darkness of her skin as well.

Photo Credit: HelloBeautiful.com

Georgia's new pro-life campaign preys on black fears

A new ad campaign sponsored by Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation declares black children an "endangered species."

As Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz explains, the eighty some billboards feature the face of a scared black child, the slogan "BLACK CHILDREN ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, and the website address toomanyaborted.com.

Pro-choice advocates nationwide have rallied against the campaign, arguing it is both inaccurate and dehumanizing. As Schultz reports, Planned Parenthood's Vice President for Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins believes "endangered species" makes African Americans "less than human." Outraged by references to black women's abortions as "womb lynchings," Cullins argues the billboards are an attempt to revoke black women's control over their bodies and their lives.

Caroline Davis, minority outreach coordinator for Georgia Right to Life, remains adamant that Planned Parenthood wants to get rid of black babies. Citing evidence that black women have more abortions than white women, Davis says she is just providing the information necessary to help black women make sound decisions.

Sound decisions for whom I wonder. If Cullins is correct in her assertion that black women have less access to affordable health care and birth control, we can reasonably assume these women have less access to health information as well. How can a 15 X 7 foot billboard provide the well-rounded information needed to make an educated decision on abortion? It can't.

If black women seek out more abortions than white women, telling them black babies are endangered isn't going to solve the larger problem. It might make women ashamed to get an abortion, but it won't stop unplanned pregnancy. It might make women less likely to discuss sexuality with their families or doctors, a problem Cullins cites as detrimental to the health of the black community, but it won't make women better prepared to handle the challenges of pregnancy or the decision to abort.

And if the billboards do cause black women to avoid abortion, are these women any better prepared to care for their children? I think not.

These ads feed off inequality. Without equal access to information and resources, black women are left looking to propaganda to make life-altering decisions. If Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation really wanted to help black families, they would offer sex education, parental training courses and emotional support for pregnant black women. Instead, they push their agenda on those most at risk for accepting it.

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

Not on my Bascom Hill: UW papers show racial bias

I pride myself on attending such a historically progressive university as UW-Madison. Despite (well-founded) criticisms of our lack of diversity, I think the university makes a strong effort to represent and honor diverse cultures and ideas. But when I picked up both campus papers this morning on my way to class, I realized I may have been giving this campus too much credit.

The Daily Cardinal ran a news brief on a woman who was robbed on Langdon Street last Friday night. They wrote:

"According to the police report, a woman walking home alone was unlocking her front door when a black man grabbed her purse and sprayed her with pepper spray when she struggled."

Not until the next paragraph does the author provide further description of the suspect:

"The suspect is described as being 200 pounds and wearing a black baseball hat, white shirt and blue jeans."

I've taken enough reporting classes to know that mentioning a suspect's race is dicey territory. Would we mention the suspect's race if he were white? Does the race of the victim matter? What effect will the inclusion or exclusion of race have on society's stereotypes of crime in America?

I am not arguing for the total removal of race from crime coverage. However, the Daily Cardinal's placement of "black man" in the paragraph above his size and clothing descriptions indicates to the reader that "black" is the most important descriptor of this criminal. In a three paragraph story, race stands out, and readers are inclined to look more carefully for black men on Langdon than white shirts and blue jeans on fraternity row.

Clearly, despite the Daily Cardinal's claim that UW is colorblind, the paper's crime briefs are not.

While Badger Herald reporter Alexa Sunby refrained from using race in her coverage of the Langdon incident, the Herald committed another racial gaffe.

The front-page teaser for a story on a Madison Police Department investigation that led to a heroin bust features two black actors, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. This picture (seen above) comes from the movie Bad Boys II, in which Smith and Lawrence play narcotics detectives investigating the flow of ecstasy into Miami.

The South District Community Police Team, the group that conducted the investigation, has only one black officer on the team. (The rest are white, Asian or Hispanic.) Why then, accompany the story with a picture of two black men?

Maybe the Badger Herald is trying to diversify its news pages with more images, and hopefully stories, showing minorities in a positive light. It was not as if the paper used two black actors to illustrate the drug dealers in the story. Even so, we must be careful when we pair race and crime. Students and faculty without time to read the article on the heroin bust may not look into the photo's relevance to the story, and quickly make assumptions about suspects or the investigating officers. In a society that is clearly not colorblind when it comes to crime (as the Daily Cardinal demonstrates), that risk is too great.

The Badger Herald and Daily Cardinal may have had the best intentions in publishing their stories as they did. But given our society's racialization of crime, I argue race should only come into play when it bears directly on the story and when it is accompanied by fuller descriptions of all parties. If the Daily Cardinal wanted to refer to the robber's race, they could have included it next to the details of his clothing (although I'm not sure how relevant the suspect's race is at all). Similarly, if the Badger Herald wanted to run a photo with their heroin bust coverage, they could have used a photo of the police team, the officer in charge or any number of drug-related images.

If my campus wants to maintain its "we welcome diversity" reputation, student papers should be more cognizant of the pictures they paint and the messages they send.

Photo Credit: The Examiner

White America: Coming to a textbook in Texas

It's referred to as the "Texas Textbook Massacre," and it's easy to see why. Last Friday, the Texas Board of Education approved a "template" for all elementary and high school history, sociology and economics textbooks--a template that ignores or falsely attributes many contributions and achievements of minority groups.

According to author Diane Ravitch of The Daily Beast, the Texas state board is the largest textbook buyer in the state, which bestows on it the power to say what should and should not appear in the books. While FOX News says the revisions are an effort to be sure "our children will know about the founding principles of this country," others lament changes they believe rewrite history.

Among these changes, New York Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr. reports, the board approved a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement. The board voted to include both the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers and emphasize the role conservatives played in the passage of civil rights legislation. The board also approved the inclusion of the "unintended consequences" of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation, all of which were meant to alleviate inequality and racial injustice.

At the same time, the board voted to emphasize the success of the "free-enterprise system" (because "capitalism" has too many negative connotations) and the central role of Christianity in shaping America. (Thomas Jefferson was removed from a list of writers who inspired revolutions, only to be replaced by St. Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.)

On the upside, the media I reviewed tended to disparage the Texas board's decision, emphasizing that there were no historians, sociologists or economists included in the decision-making process and detailing the pitfalls of the board's control over textbook publishers. However, these criticisms do little to help the third graders who may grow up thinking the Selma to Montgomery march was started by Orval Faubus (the Arkansas governor who prevented nine black students from entering Little Rock Central High School after Brown v. Board of Education).

How do we prevent a generation of students who know little about the contributions of black protesters, Hispanic migrant workers or Asian railroad workers? We could hope students make it to college, where the textbooks aren't controlled by the state. But that would be letting non-college bound students slip through the cracks and enter the workforce with a high school diploma and a skewed version of America's past.

Like so many periods in American history (many of the very periods the Texas state board chose to rewrite), the effort to include minorities must be led by a pioneering group of teachers, parents, students and media. Teachers can and should supplement their curriculum with coverage of minority contributions, while parents can provide the counter to "America=white + Christian" at home. Both white and minority students can rally together to start discussions on minorities' role in American history, and the media should take it upon themselves to feature these discussions and their implications. If the University of California is any indication, both students and teachers are actively invested in race issues in the educational system.

While it may be asking a lot of parents, teachers and students to look outside the template laid out for them, the Texas state board is asking even more of minority students to forget their place in American history.

Photo Credit: Texas Tribune

On Hollywood's biggest night, the red carpet seems shockingly colorful

At first glance, I took a cynical approach to the Oscars: "Ninety-nine percent white celebrities all decked out and dripping in diamonds. This will make a perfect post."

But after watching the award show, I realized that Hollywood may still have a long way to go, but no longer is the red carpet the whiteout it once was. Mo'Nique, Gabourey Sidibe, Jennifer Lopez, Mariah Carey, Penelope Cruz, Forrest Whittaker, Morgan Freeman and Tyler Perry were just a sprinkling of the minority stars in attendance at "Hollywood's biggest night."

And the heterogeneity stretched behind the screen as well. As the Associated Press reports, the Best Director category was perhaps the most diverse in history. Kathryn Bigelow ("The Hurt Locker") is the fourth woman to be nominated for, and the first to win, Best Director, while Lee Daniels ("Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire") is the second black director up for the honor. (John Singleton was the first, nominated in 1992 for "Boyz N the Hood.")

Many films boasted minority nominees tonight: "Precious" for Best Director, Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress (which Mo'Nique won); "Invictus" for Best Actor (Morgan Freeman); "Nine" for Best Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz); and "The Princess and the Frog" for Best Animated Feature (It should also be noted that this film is the first Disney princess movie with a nonwhite leading female.) For a complete listing of the nominations, click here.

While we should applaud this progress, we shouldn't overlook the inequalities faced by minorities in Hollywood today. One need only look at the cover of Vanity Fair's March issue to see that minorities are not given equal billing. Nine slim, white women adorn the cover, and the headline reads, "A New Hollywood." Where was the Oscar-nominated Gabourey Sidibe? Funny you should ask. In response to the apparent snub, Sidibe told Access Hollywood, "At first I thought, 'Hmmm, should I be there?' Then I very quickly got over it. I think if I were a part of the shoot I would have felt a little left out anyway."

Why would she have felt left out? She is surely just as worthy, given her heart-wrenching performance in "Precious." While she fits the bill of "New Hollywood," she is neither white nor slim, and the fact that she feels her skin color and/or size are incompatible with the VF cover speaks volumes about Hollywood today.

The Associated Press reports 613 minority members in the Directors Guild of America, which has a total membership of almost 14,000. While Hollywood may be moving in the right direction, we'd do well to pick up the pace.

Photo Credit: USA Today

Light, dark, half naked and objectified

If music videos are emblematic of our popular culture, as Andre Sanchez of SoJones online magazine asserts, there may be a hard lesson to be learned for black females: Being dark skinned is undesirable and unattractive, but if you're a light-skinned black woman, you can be sexy and dripping in jewelry.

Sanchez examines the argument of JoyDailytv.com host Joy Daily, who says that music video producers cast light-skinned black women in music videos and avoid dark-skinned models. The reasons for this, Daily says, range from an emphasis on multiculturalism and racial mixing, to the greater visibility of light-skinned blacks' facial features and expressions on screen.

While Sanchez agrees that the music industry endorses and perpetuates a "truly ridiculous standard set for the definition of beauty," he also criticizes the sensitivity of Daily and those in her camp. Will we need to see darker girls in every video now? Will media coverage of this supposed "light-skin bias" just make women angrier and ignite other criticisms? Sanchez concludes that women need to remember that they are beautiful, regardless of the media's images.

Pardon me, Mr. Sanchez, but if self-esteem and confidence were that easy--if we could just convince ourselves that we are beautiful and intelligent and worthy--no one would even be able to make music videos! These "cultural snapshots" depend on a steady flow of women willing to take their clothes off and parade around as the playthings of men, wooed by big houses, fast cars and expensive clothes. If we let women--black women in this case--believe that they are capable of more and that security lies within themselves--the music video industry as we know it would cease to exist.

That is not to say there aren't black women who are empowered by their sexuality and performance in these videos. Absolutely there are. And that is not to say many of these women don't find huge financial success in the music video industry. I'm sure there are women who carve out a pretty good living on these productions. But looking at the image above (which was embedded in Sanchez' article), women aren't doing themselves any favors in the broader sense. With her backside spilling out of her bikini and her hair up, this woman looks ready to "service" popular rapper Ne-yo. Sure, maybe this is a doctored image, but it speaks volumes about gender portrayals in music videos.

While I think Sanchez' "Just-remember-beauty-comes-from-within-and-forget-that-women-like-you-aren't-on-screen" argument is weak, if not null and void, the man has a point. Color--light or dark or black or white--isn't the issue. Rather, I argue it's the portrayals of women of all colors in these videos. It's the need to change the depictions on screen and the values in society, to applaud and honor strong, independent women with a sense of self-worth and dignity.

Click here to see Joy Daily's documentary feature on this topic.

Photo Credit: SoJones.com

Immigration law is not Jim Crow

Should illegal immigrants be admitted to U.S. high schools? Should they be able to enroll in our colleges or enlist in our military? And if they get a degree, should they be able to apply for any job for which they are qualified?

The answer to all these questions is yes, according to the Dream Act, a federal bill that would impact 16 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Claremont Graduate University professor Will Perez, Ph.D, reports on the Dream Act and the United We Dream Coalition, advocating for passage of the Act and detailing the social and economic benefits of granting said rights to undocumented immigrants. He presents a solid argument, listing the challenges faced by these undocumented students and stressing that many of them came to the United States with their parents; they had no choice in the matter. Should they be punished for their parents actions? Perez says no.

Perez draws on his research to show that undocumented students are some of the most socially active today. Pair this with increased economic output from allowing them to get into higher-level, and higher paying, jobs, and you have greater returns for all of us, he says.

So what are the problems with Perez's assertions? For one, I'm not sure he's going to convince any anti-immigration stumpers that the Dream Act is right and good. You can present all the arguments in the world, but at the end of the day, these students are not American citizens. I consider myself pretty pro-immigration, pro-amnesty and pro-education, and this essay was even hard for me to wrap my head around. Unless Perez focuses more on personal relevance for the anti-amnesty camp, those against the Dream Act will continue to prevent its passage.

The other, more glaring problem with this article is Perez' comparison of the Dream Act to another fight for equality: "The similarities between the civil rights movement and current immigration reform movement are numerous," he writes.

I disagree. While the general theme--equal rights--may carry through both movements, the circumstances are not comparable. Under the 14th Amendment, African Americans living in America became U.S. citizens. Under the 15th Amendment, blacks were given the right to vote. Undocumented immigrants have not been granted citizenship or voting rights. The civil rights movement was a fight for rights granted by U.S. citizenship, while the Dream movement is a fight for the extension of citizenship rights to non-citizenship in America.

While the idea of granting undocumented immigrants the rights of citizens may rile anti-immigration groups, the comparison to civil rights may distance the pro-amnesty/immigrant rights groups from both his argument and the Dream Act itself. A well-meaning article then becomes its own worst enemy, to the detriment of 16 million.

Photo Credit: The Orlando Sentinel