Misplaced anger at Obama ignores white privilege, not to mention facts

The Washington Examiner called out President Obama yesterday, and not for what you may think. The paper did not take Obama to task for his handling of the mortgage crisis, health care reform or even the most recent immigration legislation in Arizona. No, they were angry at him for "leaving out white males" in his midterm election strategy.

Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason details the recently-released speech in which Obama encourages his 2008 supporters, as well as women, blacks, Hispanics and young people to rally together in the midterm election season.

What about the good ol' white folk, Mr. President?

Conservatives were upset by Obama's comments, Mason writes, and many argued that had a president called for unity among white voters, public outcry would spread like wildfire. Mason tempers this criticism with a dose of reality from Aubrey Jewett, political scientist at the University of Central Florida. Jewett says Obama's approval among white men is down and, "realistically the Democrats don't think they have a chance of getting them back between now and November." Phew. Whites can relax. It's based in fact.

Not so fast.

Jewett's inclusion is a paltry attempt at balance for the Examiner, especially when the cover of the April 27 issue reads, "Obama disses white guys: Rallies blacks, Latinos, women" (see above). When this is your front page story, and you choose the word "diss," you've got a bone to pick with our President.

The Huffington Post gives some context to the newspaper's position, arguing that the Examiner caters to the whitest geographic markets of the D.C. area. So can we chalk this whole thing up to merely cheap-shot reporting, another case of "giving the public what they want?"

Sorry, but this isn't another sensationalist piece of smut about John and Kate plus God knows how many. This is a case of whiteness feeling threatened.

First off, Obama is half white, so let's keep in mind that if Obama is ignoring white people, he's ignoring half his lineage too. Secondly, "young people" is not race-specific, so whites may have been implied in his speech.

Thirdly, I believe Obama's critics are right to insist that had the President only referred to whites, public outcry would mount strong and hard. But what if Obama's words were uttered by a white president? Would whites be upset at the lack of reference to people like them? Or would they think the president was progressive and committed to helping historically disadvantaged groups? How much of this is due to Obama's own skin color, and white fear of being dismantled from the most privileged pillar of society? I have no definitive answers here, but I can't help but think this is yet another race-based double standard.

Finally, and most importantly, let's look at what is really at issue here: Obama did not explicitly mention white people, instead choosing groups that have been explicitly excluded from social programs, economic and political opportunities and upward mobility. In doing so, the President made whites aware of their oft-taken-for-granted whiteness, and threatened by its absence from his speech. Funny that whites don't acknowledge the privileges of whiteness, but man do they jump when they feel that privilege compromised even superficially.

For whites to say their President is ignoring them is to yet again overlook the advantages bestowed on them throughout history and continuing today.

Blacks in the Jim Crow South know what it's like to be truly ignored by the government. Pre-19th Amendment women know what's it's like to be ignored. Migrant workers today know what it's like to be ignored. Those feeling dissed by our President in this case? Not so much.

Photo Credit: The Examiner

This buzzword has good intentions, but what does it mean?

In an attempt to alleviate racial and ethnic disparities in education, the Madison School District has added "cultural responsiveness" to its hiring criteria.

According to Gayle Worland of the Wisconsin State Journal, "cultural responsiveness" refers to an applicant's ability to relate to students and co-workers of different racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. The school district hopes ensuring cultural responsiveness among its teachers will help close the achievement gap between white and minority students.

So what does "cultural responsiveness" actually mean? According to District Employment Manager June Glennon, a set of precise qualifications will be used to assess job candidates' cultural aptitudes. Professor Stephen Quintana of the UW-Madison counseling psychology department has agreed to draw up these criteria.

Even with Quintana's help, I'm skeptical. I hope this initiative can work as planned, but I think it will be difficult to create and implement uniform responsiveness criteria for several reasons:

1. One definition of responsiveness may not be shared by all. Some may consider mere knowledge of cultural practices to be responsive enough, while others may say you are only "responsive" to the degree that you are well-versed in a practice. If I know Ramadan is a month-long fast during daylight hours, for example, is that enough? Or should I have to know the history and nuances of the Muslim fast as well? (i.e. that women who are menstruating do not have to fast)

2. Madison is a (relatively) diverse city, complete with ethnic enclaves, and some areas may need more precise or detailed criteria than others. The large Hispanic population of Madison's south side may necessitate that teachers learn--or at least attempt to learn--Spanish in order to be culturally responsive. Other areas may not need this level of cultural proficiency (although it would not be to teachers' detriment to learn another language), and blanket responsiveness criteria may focus on certain areas or cultures at the expense of others.

3. Will this criteria apply only to teachers, or will administrative employees, social workers, guidance counselors, cafeteria workers and bus drivers be held to the same standards? I argue an all-employee-encompassing project is best, as all of these groups interact with students on a daily basis. However, this breadth greatly complicates things, as each group communicates the students in different contexts, necessitating skills perhaps not relevant to other positions in the school. For example, a cafeteria worker may need to know that Hindu students will not eat meat, but this information will not be very useful to a gym teacher. Quintana and the Madison School District would be wise to draft macro-level criteria for the entire district, as well as micro-level criteria considering various interaction contexts.

4. Who will be in charge of this project? Will individual schools oversee its implementation, or will the strapped-for-cash school district hire new staff to ensure cultural responsiveness among its teachers, social workers, administrators, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc? Considering all school employees makes overseeing the project much more difficult. Perhaps (I hope) the school district has plans in place for implementation and leadership.

5. I must caution against using "cultural responsiveness" to "solve" the achievement gap. The root causes--racism, poverty, discrimination--stretch beyond the school district. The Madison School District has taken an important step in bridging the white-nonwhite achievement gap, but we must not see this new initiative as the end to racial disparity in Madison's education system.

Photo Credit: Roger Williams University

Arizona governor approves immigration bill

As a follow-up to a previous post on Arizona's proposed immigration bill, Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law yesterday, sparking protests across the nation. From Boston to California, protesters compared the bill to South African apartheid and Japanese-American internment during World War II.

Brewer's response? According to The Boston Globe, the governor justified the bill saying, "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

The New York Times quoted the governor Friday, saying, "Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life."

President Obama called the bill "misguided," and The Huffington Post says the Justice Department will examine its legality.

While I salute the White House's opposition to the bill, I'm not so sure immigration--legal or not--is the problem here. Rather, I think rampant racism and coded language are the bigger issues. "Murderous greed of drug cartels"? What about mothers and children escaping abusive husbands or unsafe working conditions? Husbands trying to reunite with their families? "Kidnappings and violence?" What about service workers and domestic help? Why must we equate immigration--more specifically Latinos--with violence, drugs and crime? And at issue in this particular case: Why did a head of state endorse this image?

Racism, pure and simple. We attack drug cartels and we let Goldman Sachs off comparably easy. We label all Mexicans as drug smugglers, yet we don't assume all white-collar workers are wracking up billions in bonuses while their company spirals downward into debt. We think of Mexicans as dirty job-thieves, yet we take a softer hand to sexually abusive priests. Skin color, it would seem, dictates the boxes you can fall into and the punishment you can receive.

Let's just hope the Justice Department does its job better than the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Another shining example of white-collar workers at their best)

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

Giving voice to an all-too-often overlooked past

Jerry Mitchell is a hero. I stumbled upon his blog--Journey to Justice--during my daily news binge. For over 20 years, investigative reporter Mitchell has dedicated his career to Civil Rights coverage both past and present. He has helped solve cold case murders, assassinations and other high-profile cases like the Birmingham, Ala. church bombing of 1963. As part of Mississippi's Clarion Ledger, Mitchell's blog critiques current issues in the news, from hate crimes against white supremacists to calls for an end to the "N word."

In addition to Journey to Justice, Mitchell contributes to HistoryBeat.com's Civil Rights in America: Connections to a Movement. This site includes past coverage of the Civil Rights Movement, black history records and stories of Civil Rights heroes.

Two pages on this website stand out among the rest: The "Investigations" page pinpoints on a map Civil Rights cases that have yet to be solved. A list of names of those killed in these cold cases accompanies the map. It's easy to look at this list coldly or at least impersonally, without thinking about the impact an unsolved case would have on those who lost someone dear to them. I must admit I tried to do this, until I arrived at the "Share Stories" tab.

This page is a user-generated forum for people to share Civil Rights stories, experiences of racism today or memories of loved ones. The first comment I saw was that of a woman who posted a photo of her mother's gravestone in Alabama (see above). Her mother was murdered after fighting for her right to vote, says the headstone. The post below the photo, by the same woman, details the night her mother died. The author was six years old.

Stories like this cannot come from the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists and star-status newscasters. These raw, heart-wrenching stories are swords only to be wielded by the victims themselves. Lest we doubt the power of new media formats, take a look at the "Share Stories" page and you will be assured of their power and impact.

Taken together, Journey to Justice and Civil Rights in America help keep the Civil Rights Movement alive. Intertwining history with current issues, both Mitchell and HistoryBeat.com refuse to let racial justice fade into our past. With so many murders unsolved and families broken by racism, we owe it to those who can never forget.

Photo Credit: Sally_Liuzzo992

Sometimes cynicism hits it right on the nose

The Onion is many college students' main news source. The tongue-in-cheek weekly can be found on the floors of UW-Madison's largest lecture halls, and the paper's news boxes on State Street empty out faster than a keg at a sophomore house party. I've been a loyal reader for years, constantly scanning The Onion's pages for race-related issues. This week, I hit the mother load.

Titled, "I won't have my daughter bringing a black man into this house until I've tidied up and created a welcoming environment," columnist Harold Toomey turns cultural stereotypes on their heads. His article is full of fast-paced wit and irony, all hinged on our understanding of "black" and "white" culture.

Toomey's article is that of a panicked father, unprepared to meet his daughter's black boyfriend not because the man is black, but because he hasn't "prepared." He hasn't done dishes or picked the old magazines up off the coffee table, nor has he bought a good bottle of wine or stopped by the gourmet market for food his daughter's boyfriend may like to eat.

My personal favorite:

"And just think of what this will do to Lucy's poor mother! Kathryn will be absolutely devastated. What do I even say? 'Hey, honey, guess what? Your daughter is coming home with a black man and we're all out of the nice microbrewed beer.'"

I admit, the article had me laughing out loud several times. But then I realized--this article is funny because it relies on our firmly established stereotypes of what it means to be white and what it means to be black. White people drink microbrewed beer and vintage wine. They shop at gourmet markets and bring their organic food home to be prepared on perpetually-perfect granite countertops. They wear Banana Republic slacks and Tod's loafers. Black people, well, do not. Toomey knows we hold these stereotypes, and that's why his article is so clever.

The popular blog "Stuff White People Like" showcases many elements of today's "great white way," from white people's affinity for hummus to their tendency to study abroad and adopt East Asian children. Of course, it's all generalizations and stereotypes, but the blog, like Toomey's piece, relies on our views of what it means to be white in our society.

And with this understanding of what it means to be white comes an equally stereotyped understanding of black culture. If "white culture" is identified as high-brow, expensive and refined, "black culture" is its foil: low-brow, cheap and vulgar. Typifying white culture as marked by affluence and upper-class taste, we simultaneously relegate all nonwhite cultures to primitive, lower-class status.

The difference between "Stuff White People Like" and Toomey's column is that while the blog focuses explicitly and exclusively on whiteness, Toomey juxtaposes black and white to show us the stark contrast between our conceptions of the two races and the lifestyles that accompany them. I argue that The Onion article packs a greater punch than the blog by assigning what we commonly think of as "white culture" to a black man. Our laughter is a subconscious reaction to what we perceive as an inconceivable situation: A black man who drinks India Pale Ale? Couldn't be!

Hopefully The Onion audience won't toss this one on the floor of Sociology 104. Hopefully readers will recognize why the article is funny, identify its critique of America's racialization of culture, and then take Toomey's dry-as-toast satire into the real world, decoupling culture and race to embrace a wider worldview.

And they say this stuff isn't real journalism...


Photo Credit: Dvanvliet/Flikr.com

Arizona lawmakers approve racial and ethnic profiling

Arizona lawmakers approved the nation's toughest stance on immigration today, requiring police to determine a person's immigration status if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant.

The Los Angeles Times' Nicholas Riccardi reports that previous to this bill, known as SB 1070, police could only investigate one's immigration status if the person was a suspect in a separate crime. Under the new provision, lacking appropriate immigration paperwork would be a misdemeanor, and no city or agency within the state would have the jurisdiction to order police not to comply with the measure. In fact, citizens would be able to sue if they believed police agencies were not following the bill's orders.

As one would imagine, the bill has both staunch support and outraged opposition. As author of SB 1070, Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill, "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement and let's them do their job." Outside of Arizona, Mark Krikorian of D.C.'s Center for Immigration Studies supports the measure, saying that Arizona's position as the number one passageway for illegal immigrants from Mexico necessitates harsher crackdowns.

According to Riccardi, those against the bill argue that it makes Arizona "a police state." Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network worry that the bill legalizes racial and ethnic profiling. President of the ACLU Alessandra Soler Meetze says the bill criminalizes "having an accent and leaving [one's] wallet [and immigration papers] at home."

SB 1070 passed 35 to 21 in the state House of Representative, and Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to sign the bill.

Now, let's put the shoe on the other foot. If I have a "reasonable suspicion" that a white man in a suit and shiny dress shoes is engaging in shady business practices--extortion, insider trading, doling out bonuses under the table--can I insist he show me his financial records? Surely we can think of enough times when white men in suits have committed such crimes to necessitate a law requiring such "finance screenings. (Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich and Kenneth Lay, to name a few)

The answer is no. Lawmakers would never OK this. Laws this strict, laws that allow for the profiling of certain groups of people based on imprecise criteria like "reasonable suspicion," are laws driven by racism. Just as "with all deliberate speed" did little to desegregate southern schools after Brown v. Board of Education, "reasonable suspicion" allows ample room for police aggression toward innocent victims.

My feelings toward this bill are summed up in the last sentence of Riccardi's article. He quotes Rep. Tom Chabin, who says, "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we wish to profit from."

This couldn't be more true. As I said in a previous post, nonwhite laborers (in this case immigrants) are willing to work harder, longer and for less. We make money off their willingness to do more for less. And now, we want to lump them all together and pluck out those about whom we have "reasonable suspicion." America, the land of opportunity, is looking less and less so.

The wording of the bill itself may be vague, but its purpose is not: SB 1070 is legal discrimination.

Photo Credit: Gerald L. Nino

Content analysis shows stark differences in immigration standpoint

As a complement to my last post, I thought I would include the results of a recent content analysis on immigration. I conducted this analysis as part of a class on mass media and public opinion. I chose to compare Mexican immigration coverage in both Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. I examined 25 articles for each publication, randomly selected from 2000-2009.

I studied both the frames and valence of each article. As for frames, I looked at whether the article presented the story within a political frame (emphasizing policy, political actors, etc), an economic frame (a cost-benefit analysis of reform or current immigration policy, mention of a financial component--need not include specific figures) or a social frame (impact on immigrant families or deported immigrants, the "human" side to the debate).

As for valence, I determined whether each article was pro- or anti-immigration. The pro-immigration articles used words like “legals,” “migrants” and “amnesty.” These articles emphasized Mexican immigrants as hard workers determined to find a better life. By contrast, “alien,” “illegals” and “deportation” signaled an anti-immigrant tone, as did mention of Mexican immigrants as “free riders” taking our jobs and draining our welfare programs. In the event that both pro- and anti-immigration words appeared in the same article, I determined valence by the more frequent of the two.

What did I expect to find? I wasn't entirely sure what I'd find with the frames, but I was confident that Newsweek would be more pro- and U.S. News more anti-immigration. My hypothesis and rationale:

"I expect to find more socially framed, pro-immigration coverage in Newsweek, and more politically framed, anti-immigration coverage in U.S. News. According to Pew Research Center’s 2004 News Consumption Survey, Newsweek is seen as a more liberal news source, and many user-generated comment sites (Epinions.com, Answers.com) regard U.S. News as more conservative. Pairing these findings with Ansolabehere’s assertion that “Democrats are seen as…protecting the rights of minorities and the underprivileged,” while “Republicans are generally considered better able and more willing to maintain the nation’s national security” (1993), I hypothesize that Newsweek’s coverage will stress the humanity of Mexican immigration (social) and the need for amnesty and pro-immigration reform, while U.S. News will focus on anti-immigration as a means of national security."

My findings partially supported this hypothesis. Newsweek's Mexican immigration coverage was overwhelmingly pro-immigration, most often framed politically or socially. U.S. News, on the other hand, was mostly politically framed anti-immigration coverage. (See graphs above)

Why might this be? Well, the valence of each publication's immigration coverage corresponds to its partisan bias. The lack of a landslide majority for any one frame reflects the diversity of newsmagazine content, which is frequently divided into politics, business, arts/culture and technology. The publications may also choose frames based on which would support their position on the issue, which may explain U.S. News' lack of economic frames. If they thought the economic angle would lend support to the pro-immigration side, U.S. News' editors may have scrapped that frame at the morning meeting.

My analysis stands as a warning to all your devout Newsweek and U.S. News readers: If you read one, read the other. You are not getting a full picture of the Mexican immigration issue from either of these magazines. Better yet, read and listen to a whole host of sources. Bias is alive and well, and if you want to make smart decisions, triangulate your news consumption.

Maybe I should look for post-grad work as a Merry Maid

As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) toil away at immigration reform, Ruben Navarette Jr. at the San Diego Union-Tribune is getting angry. He's not mad at the senators, who he says "are demonstrating real leadership." His beef is with me. And you. And all of us.

In an editorial for CNN.com, Navarette traces the recent history of immigration policy, from the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act to today's partisan platforms on the issue. While acknowledging policy change and progress, Navarette says that we will never resolve the immigration debacle without addressing one question: Why do we have so much illegal immigration in the first place?

The answer, Navarette argues, is an uncomfortable one for many. It has nothing to do with a fence and even less to do with NAFTA and Mexico's economy. The answer lies in Americans' willingness to work hard.

Immigrants both legal and illegal, he says, accept "hard and dirty jobs that our grandparents did without complaint--and that now, these many years later, most of us won't do without complaining." As immigrants mow our lawns, bus our tables and wash our dishes, many native-born Americans negotiate higher pay, come to work late and clock out early, check their email at work and surf the Web, all while sitting in what is most likely a comfortable, central-aired office.

Because this realization points the finger at the American people, Navarette argues that Congress, eager to please constituents, will never mention this facet of immigration. Instead, we'll proceed with our fences and border patrol.

Navarette makes a bold statement, and whether or not we are solely to blame for our immigration quagmire, we surely have a hand in it. As a soon-to-be-college graduate, I can vouch for the "I will work certain places for certain pay" mentality. Yeah, as an entry-level journalism major, my span of cities is probably wider and my desired pay a great deal lower than a 30-something corporate big-wig (or a finance major, for that matter). But still, the selective mentality holds true.

One thing Navarette doesn't answer is: How do we solve this dilemma? If Congress won't point out our role in the illegal immigration problem, who will? And even if the public knows about it, who's going to willingly say, "OK, you're right, I'll work as a dishwasher." No one.

Pointing fingers might be the first cathartic step, but there are many more along the way. Can we offer manual labor jobs with benefits packages and perhaps higher wages? Can we build some sort of education component into our immigration reform bill? How can we close the immigrant achievement gap?

These are loaded questions, implicating longstanding racism, Not In My Backyard thinking, economic concerns, and our own self concepts. And while I don't offer a comprehensive solution, each of us would do well to examine our own taken-for-granted expectations.

And consider giving our housekeepers a bonus next time...

Photo Credit: Paul Connors/The Associated Press

Damn. This woman beat me to it

It's almost a perfect response to the "Texas Textbook Massacre": Nell Irvin Painter's book, The History of White People, details the rise and reign of whiteness as we know it. Newsweek's Raina Kelley reviews this book, saying, "This book has no problem telling you that everything you think you know about what Western civilization is based on is actually distortion of fact and inflated ego dreams."

Boom. There it is. America was not founded on honorable principles of integration and melting pot social policies. Rather, racial taxonomies have legitimized oppression and exploitation of nonwhites. As Painter says, "Any nation founded by slaveholders finds justification for its class system, and American slavery made the inherent inferiority of black people a foundational belief."

Painter traces racial categories from ancient times to the present, explaining that what constitutes "white" has changed over time. Although Jews and Slavs were at one time outside the bounds of whiteness, they are now lumped with others into one big white group. But as Painter explains in an NPR interview, the definition of whiteness may change, but the point of racial categories--"to put people down"--holds steady.

Also of note--Painter explains why white people don't want to give up the power of whiteness, let alone acknowledge it: If whites did so, they'd have to "admit the chanciness of privilege," which would, I believe, bring feelings of guilt and an uncomfortable obligation to level the playing field.

It's a story that needs to be told, that's for sure. American history--and world history for that matter--are not as we know it. Will this book be a less-than-leisurely read for many? Absolutely. Am I concerned that the potential for cognitive dissonance will steer away readers? Definitely. Without even opening the book, I share Raina Kelley's concern that Painter's more academic, textbook style approach won't "captivate the masses or much media attention." That being said, Painter's book is a step in the right direction. If subsequent authors have to simplify the content for the less scholarly reader, so be it. At least Painter has begun to unravel the web of whiteness that clouds our perceptions of past and present.

Read an excerpt of The History of White People here.

Photo Credit: Robin Holland/Bill Moyers’ Journal

Madison org's ad generates race-based controversy

The Madison School and Community Recreation Program (MSCR) ran an advertisement promoting its summer programming in Isthmus newspaper on March 5. The ad (seen at left) was then posted on Fail Blog for all the world to berate. And joke we did. Comments ranged from the more subtle, "Must be a tanning salon," to the more blunt and outright, "White men can’t jump, so send your basketball playing kid to MSCR and we’ll replace him with a black one."

Jay Leno also did a bit about the ad on The Tonight Show last Monday. See it here. (Skip to 2:00 to see the ad reference)

The advertisement and subsequent commentary generated enough controversy that MSCR decided to run a different ad (the cover of their 2010 summer programming guidebook) in Isthmus this week.

What to make of this ad? When I first saw it, I wasn't offended. I thought, "MSCR makes kids happy." And I believe this is what MSCR intended for readers to think. But lest we forget, America is far from colorblind, and readers injected race faster than you can say Madison School and Community Recreation Program.

My thought on the racialization of this ad is, "Wouldn't it have been worse if the kids were switched?" If the white kid was the happy kid, and the black kid was the pre-MSCR sad face? Switching the kids would tap into a historic fallacy that black=bad, sad, downtrodden and without opportunity, while whiteness=good, happy and upwardly mobile. (Side note: Look up "black" and "white" in the dictionary. A professor had our class do this once, and man was it shocking.)

Say what you will, but I applaud MSCR. Yes, applaud. Their advertisement shows an effort toward diversity in advertising. By including nonwhites who defy stereotypical notions of blacks in America, MSCR helps break down racial barriers and integrate the races. The ad's presence on Fail Blog and The Tonight Show speaks not of MSCR's goals but of society's constant awareness of race. In criticizing MSCR, we are actually making a statement about our own hyper-awareness of color, to the detriment of our society.

Photo Credit: Madison School & Community Recreation