DWB: Apparently it exists in my city...

...Driving while black, that is.

A study from the Transportation Department found that last year, black and Latino drivers pulled over in Illinois were more likely to get a ticket or undergo a vehicle search, compared with whites.

...obvious, you say?

Well, here's the rub: Not only were minority drivers involved in traffic stops at a higher rate than their portion of the state population would indicate - accounting for 12 percent more traffic stops than would be expected - but drugs and weapons were more likely to be found in the cars of WHITE drivers.

Among other findings:
-Fifty-five percent of white drivers got tickets after being pulled over, versus 65 percent of Hispanic drivers and 62 percent of black drivers.

-Non-white drivers were stopped for a median time of 15 minutes and 60 percent received a ticket. Whites, on the other hand, were pulled over for a median time of 12 minutes, with 56 percent receiving a ticket.

-Police conducted searches on 36 out of 1,000 minorities stopped, and 12 out of 1,000 whites.

While this isn't earth-shattering news to me, as I lean on the cynical side in terms of my view of law enforcement, it does make evident some "swept under the rug" tendencies.

Also, reading other people's thoughts on the issue is pretty shocking to me. While I concede that some make valuable points - Why focus solely on race? Why not the crime that led to the traffic stop too? (valid, but see above point on drugs/weapons) - I was shocked to see how many people came to the defense of police. (Check these comments on ABC's website: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=8249671) Some of these, particularly the one that can "guarantee that 75 percent were illegal aliens," only re-sweep this under the carpet.

In another twist, the ACLU is pushing for state police to stop conducting consent searches. A lawyer for the ACLU said consent searchers are sure to be biased against minorities and that the practice is too subjective. Here, I'm between a rock and a hard place. This study suggests that yes, minorities do bear the brunt of these searches, but the searches themselves do serve a purpose in terms of stopping criminal activity. I vote in favor of addressing the study's findings first, and factoring in some of the variables the pro-cop commenters brought in, before we get rid of searches. Maybe we can attack the "subjectivity" of the practice without gutting it entirely?

So, Mayor Rahm, maybe you can add this to your to-do list? That is, after you lay off hundreds of city workers and build those bike lanes...

Photo Credit: AOL Autos/WMMJ - MAJIC 102.3 (Washington, D.C.)

Venus Williams taps into fears of black female sexuality

Venus Williams' lacy outfit at the French Open last week has ignited a firestorm of media coverage. Many of the responses to Williams' black lace outfit (see image) have been negative, or at least hardly favorable: The New York Daily News criticized the athlete's "flagrant disregard for traditional tennis attire," which the paper said, "harked back to a 19th century chorus line," while the Boston Herald referred to the outfit as "hooker couture."

Others recognized Williams' skill as a tennis player, her win over Swiss opponent Patty Schnyder and yes, her rock-solid physique. ESPN.com's Jemele Hill argues in an editorial that it is America's obsession with the body--and athletes' bodies in particular--that has fueled this controversy. Hill goes on to say that when we see images like those of Williams on the court, we cannot help but wonder how we measure up. And, as media comparisons go, we don't come out on top. Williams' outfit, says Hill, taps into our sense of inadequacy, which then breeds curiosity and resentment.

I think that the outcry and attention to Williams' outfit was not a product of our fascination with athletes nor our own bodily insecurities. Instead, her choice of dress ignited white fears of black female sexuality. Black women have been stereotyped throughout history as hypersexual and without control of their sexual urges (black men have also suffered this stereotype). Black lace, fire-engine red piping and shorts that match Williams' skin tone remind us of lingerie, which then brings us to sex. And for a black woman to display such sexually connotative clothing on national television only "proves" that black women cannot stifle their overflowing desire.

Why do I think this? Look at white female athletes in other sports. Do gymnasts, many of whom are white, get flak for their high-cut leotards? Do figure skaters get called out for their flesh-toned undergarments that are oh-so visible on those triple axels? While these wardrobes go unnoticed, Williams gets skewered for her choice. I smell a rat.

I am glad she wore the lace. I'm glad she wore it twice. Williams is the epitome of a strong woman: physically powerful and business savvy. (If you think she didn't know what she was doing when she donned that outfit, think again). When the media daily decry the poverty and devastation among single black women, why would they then turn around and scorn a successful black woman? Fear. Downright fear.

We may be in awe of athletes and we may compare their glutes to ours, but the attack on Williams proves that our ideas about sex and race, rather than the color of her shorts, must be more closely scrutinized.


Photo Credit: StarPulse.com

Blacks at the office, blacks on TV: A study

While the news of the Pakistani Times Square suspect still percolates in the media stratosphere, I thought I'd share a recent race-based study I conducted with a group of students in a mass media and public opinion course here at UW. We will present these results and the implications of our research this coming Thursday.

We investigated perceptions of hiring equality between blacks and whites over time, and portrayals of blacks in professional positions on primetime TV for the same time period. "Professional positions" were those that required a high level of intellect or academic/managerial training (doctors, lawyers, nurses, detectives). Athletes and talent judges (Randy Jackson, e.g.) were not considered professional, as their jobs are not intellectually-based or a result of academic or managerial training.

We hypothesized that:

1. Public perception of hiring equality among blacks and whites would increase over time.

2. The prevalence of blacks in professional positions on primetime TV would increase over time.

Our public opinion data came from Gallup polls. From 1963 to 2009, Gallup collected responses to the following question:

"In general, do you think that blacks have as good a chance as white people in your community to get any kind of job for which they are qualified, or don’t you think they have as good a chance?"

Graphing the responses revealed a trend toward greater public perception of hiring equality over time (see top graph above).

For the media analysis portion of our project, we coded for the presence and number of black professionals in each of the top 10 shows (in terms of viewership) for each year from 1963-2009. We used the Internet Movie Database for character lists and descriptions. After testing intercoder reliability (98%), each of the five researchers coded 94 shows.

After combining our coding results, we found an increase in both the number of shows with black professionals and the number of black professionals in each show. For simplicity's sake, the graph above shows only the increase in the number of shows with black professionals, and not the increase in the number of black professionals per show.

The above graphs compare the public opinion and media trends. These graphs indicate that as perceptions of hiring equality among blacks and whites increased, so too did the prevalence of blacks in professional positions on TV. These results support both our public opinion and media hypotheses.

Of course, every study has its limits. We only looked at the top 10 shows for each year, and there may have been other influential shows that did not make that list (Roots, e.g.). Furthermore, our data collection began with the Civil Rights years, and that is undoubtedly an influential factor to be considered in any subsequent analysis of race politics over this time period.

It is important to note that we cannot claim causation from our results. But even so, the correlation between public opinion and media content leads us to ask: What does this mean?

These results are hopeful, indicating that we have made progress both in society and on screen. These results speak well of Equal Opportunity Employers and their commitment to their claims, and they speak volumes about the progress minorities--blacks in particular--have made in the entertainment industry.

We should also take these results with a grain of salt. It would be wrong to look at these trends and claim, "See! We're equal!" Hardly. Workplace discrimination is not only yesterday's problem, and whites, professional or otherwise, still outnumber blacks on screen.

In sum: Progress? Yes. Success? Not so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

The 'Who' behind "Who Dat"

In a previous post, I lamented the use of the word "Negro" on the United States census. There are countless examples of words like this--words that can be traced back to racial stereotyping and discrimination. But after reading Hollis Robbins' essay on the origins of the New Orleans Saints' slogan, I know "Who Dat" isn't like the rest.

"Who Dat" has its beginnings in black poetry and entertainment. African American poet Paul Laurence Dunbar used the phrase in his 1895 poem "When Malindy Sings." At the time, Robbins writes, "the idea behind writing dialect was that the language evoked the real speech of the folk population."

Dunbar would later team up with African-American composer Will Marion Cook to write lyrics for a Broadway show. The all-black cast, a feat in itself in 1898, was a big hit. Not only did it draw in audiences, but it proved black musicians and writers to be savvy business people.

Opponents to "Who Dat" cite its use in minstrel shows. Others say the use of dialect in song and poetry portrayed African Americans as dumb or inferior. I urge these people to look not at the use of the phrase in its most harmful context but its overall use throughout history.

With its origins in African American poetry and song, "Who Dat" is no more harmful than "Hijo" or "Ese," commonly used in Hispanic households as a term of endearment. To be sure, mass media could manipulate these terms to belittle the groups to which they refer, but these words are not intended for that purpose. Unlike "Negro," which began as a socially constructed marker designed to promote racial hierarchy, "Who Dat" has roots in black empowerment and success.

Sports slogans and mascots are often attacked for their racial undertones, and many teams and groups alter or change their slogans to placate the public. I am not arguing that these changes are a bad idea by any means. The Washington Redskins? Awful. The Cleveland Indians, with their smiley, red-faced mascot? Deplorable. But "Who Dat?" Historically, and even today as the downtrodden city of New Orleans celebrates its Super Bowl win, these words evoke camaraderie and celebration of success.

Click here for more "Who Dat" history.

Photo Credit: TVByTheNumbers.com

Buying into a 'Brand of Blackness'

It's no secret that blacks are underrepresented in Hollywood films. As msnbc.com contributor Michael Ventre reports, black actors have made great strides in the entertainment industry, but a closer examination reveals persistent racial inequality in film.

Ventre focuses on three of Hollywood's most bankable celebrities: Denzel Washington, Will Smith and Tyler Perry. Their films consistently bring in millions, Ventre writes, and Will Smith is the only actor in history with eight consecutive films grossing over $100 million each. Surely, we've come a long way since "Birth of a Nation" and Blaxploitation.

But a closer look at blacks in Hollywood reveals there is much work to be done. As Ventre's article points out, the roles these actors play do not require any acknowledgment of race. Much like the "Safe Blacks Era" of the 1950s and 60s, today's films show easy black/white integration. As University of Wisconsin-Madison Journalism professor Hemant Shah says of the Safe Blacks Era, "Black access to white society came at a price: Suppression of self-identity." Blacks in film today are not recognized as such, and thus an important part of their character is ignored.

Some may argue this easy integration speaks highly of our society, as we begin to identify with characters regardless of race. But a lack of racial consciousness in these films also ignores the important ways race informs one's life and opportunity in American society. It allows us to say things like, "Racism doesn't exist. Look at Will Smith/Jamie Foxx/Mos Def and all of their success!" (Just think how often we've heard people use the same logic about President Obama.) It also ignores the years of hard work behind black success in entertainment and in the characters black actors portray.

We do not always ignore black actors' race. USC Ph. D. student Leah Aldridge argues that when a film with black actors is not a smash success, we are quick to say "Black doesn't do well" and label them "high-risk ventures." But when Jennifer Aniston or Matthew McConaughey tank at the box office, no one attributes the failure to their race.

It appears we mention race in entertainment when we can use it as a scapegoat, and we ignore it when it carries any consequence or obligation for society.

While the author deconstructs blackness in Hollywood, Ventre does not weave other oft-stereotyped groups into his analysis. Particularly relevant to his topic, Ventre doesn't touch on issues faced by black female actors, save for a brief mention of Halle Berry. (Berry's only reference notes that she makes less at the box office than the black males mentioned.) Their absence from this article begs the questions: Are black female actors not advancing at the same rate as black male actors? What institutional/social structures prevent such success? How does this perpetuate racism/sexism in film and in society?

Arguably, the inclusion of female black actors in Ventre's analysis would lend depth to a piece on black entertainers in Hollywood. If we don't examine the whole picture, race and gender and class, we cannot completely evaluate the -isms we perpetuate. It is important to confront whiteness, but it is just as important to attack maleness and social status.

Photo Credit: Zade Rosenthal/Columbia Pictures

Racism in a 'post-racial' America

It was the shot heard 'round the world: After President Obama's State of the Union address last Thursday, Chris Matthews remarked, "I forgot [Obama] was black tonight for an hour."

As soon as I heard this, I laughed at Matthews' gaff. His comment seems almost silly in today's world. At the same time, Matthews fell right into my stereotype of upper-class, white political commentators--looking down at minorities, the poor, the sick--basically anyone who doesn't play 18 holes at the country club and sip iced tea with lunch.

Then again, maybe we, myself and Matthews included, can learn from this blunder...

Matthews' comment highlights a truth we often overlook: As diversity lawyer Natalie Holder-Winfield reports on The Huffington Post, "There are well-meaning white men who do not associate intellectual greatness and leadership with people of color."

Like Holder-Winfield, I don't think Matthews is a racist. But his comment proves Holder-Winfield's point. That a black man could stand in a room of mostly white men and deliver an eloquent speech as the most powerful man in the world is an anomaly in the minds of many white people. Whether we blame the agenda setting function of the news media or ourselves or both, we feel the need to remark when a black person succeeds.

We saw this when Obama accepted the bid for President. A black man. For President. Did it matter that Obama was black? Are we acknowledging racism by even discussing his race? How much attention, if any, should we pay to Obama's skin color?

I don't think we can recognize the successes of any racial group as "the successes of the ____ race." Rather, these successes need to be those of individuals. As much as Matthews' words are deplorable, I'm glad he made them. In a world he dubs "post-racial," Matthews shows us how much work we have to do to overcome racism. Lynchings and school segregation may be a thing of the past, but they've given way to a more subconscious, some may say more dangerous form of racism. If Matthews forgetting Obama was black helps us recognize, and hopefully combat, this invisible racism, I'd say Matthews has done more good than harm.

De-racializing at work in Haiti coverage

When Hurricane Katrina struck over four years ago, rapper Kanye West criticized the media for applying the term "looter" to black people exclusively. He said the media referred to white people as "looking for food," while black people were labeled as criminals for doing the same thing.

In sum, the word "looting" was racialized by the mainstream media. That is, the denotative meaning of the word, "stealing or scavenging illegally," was expanded so that its connotative meaning included racial implications. Like "welfare," "affirmative action" and "honors student," we have given a race to an otherwise colorblind verb.

Aware of the political landmine of using terms like "looter" and "looting," the news media have once again employed the terms in their coverage of the crisis in Haiti. And similar to Hurricane Katrina, most of those affected by the earthquake are black. The difference is that this time, the words are decoupled from criminal activity.

Instead of images captioned, "A looter carries bags of food and medical supplies through the wreckage," captions are more forgiving of the displaced:

The Charities Aid Foundation writes, "According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), many Haitians are hungry and thirsty, leading some to loot destroyed buildings for supplies." Similarly, TIME magazine reports "The absence of any effective authority in the five days since the tremor has led hungry and desperate residents to loot and fight over the crumbs to survive."

Offering the rationale behind the looting, rather than just reiterating the powerfully tragic images in print, broadcast and online media, lends an understanding and sensitivity that was absent in Katrina coverage. There are still the racialized captions and stories, but the coverage has taken a more sympathetic tone.

In response to a Christian Science Monitor article asking "Is the term 'looting' racist?", I say no. It is a verb, used to describe illegal scavenging or stealing. It is not inherently a racial term, but we have made it so.

As in many things, context is everything. Haitians are hungry. Their families are dead or missing. They are without basic medical care. The images, I'm sure, do not begin to describe the desperation and wreckage. The aftermath of the earthquake is not a race issue, but a fight for survival. And as media outlets now recognize, we owe it to Haiti to recognize their fight.

Photo Credit: New York Times

Black, and female to boot

Last week, Newsweek reporter Raina Kelley wrote on the media coverage of Harry Reid's comments about President Obama. (Reid was quoted in a new book, saying he supported Obama because he was "light-skinned" and lacked a "Negro dialect).

Kelley praised the media for their recognition of three main points:

1. Harry Reid's gaffe is very different from Trent Lott's years ago. Whereas Lott attributed today's (well, 2002's) problems to racial integration and the end of segregation, Reid supported a black man for president.

2. Reid should not be forced to resign. This would only anger voters who support Reid and distract from the real issue: race relations in America.

3. Reid chose his words poorly, but there is some truth to his statements. Researchers, Kelley said, have found that people are more receptive to perceived threats when they see darker faces. Reid's stereotypes about black people are misguided, but there exists psychological backing as to why he holds these ideas.

So what do we make of this? If a black woman is pleased with coverage of the Reid race comments, that says something about progress in America. But beyond what Kelley argues, there is another element:

Why was this column written by a black woman?

There are a plethora of possible answers, from "she chose this topic and pitched it to her editors," to "she and Ellis Cose are the token race reporters here at Newsweek." I hope the latter is not the case.

Whenever I see Rev. Jesse Jackson lament racial profiling in urban areas, I wonder how much power his comments would have been were they echoed by a white person. In the same vein, I wonder if writing a column as a black woman--a column about race--dilutes the pool of receptive readers? Does it fail to fully integrate Newsweek's newsroom by giving "race" to the minority reporters? I would say so.

For the American Society of News Editors' most recent data on minorities in the newsroom, click here.