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.)

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

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

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