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.)

"Dressed for Distress": This is news?

DISCLAIMER: This post deviates from the "Race" component of this blog, but I still thought it worthy of discussion.

I read this article about a week ago in the Chicago Tribune, but it also ran in Newsweek. The first thing I noticed, on a Trib page filed with news about the UN summit coming to Chicago, further signs of global warming and presidential candidate conjectures, was that its author, Robin Givhan, is a woman. Why not let John Kass tell the relatively lighter fashion story, rather than his prime-positioned commentary on concealed carry in Illinois (or lack thereof)? Looking at her website, I saw that Givhan actually considers herself a "fashion critic and style writer," but I still wince at the idea - just as I do when I think racial/ethnic minorities are getting the "minority beat" - that women get the "fluff" news.

Next, I wondered: Why is this particular story worthy of reporting? Who really cares what Huma Abedin, aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, wears on any given day? Pre- or post-Twitter debacle, Abedin's "flattering corn-silk blue, slim black trousers, and a fuchsia sliver of a belt" provide little, if any, insight into this woman. I get the whole "fashion is a declaration of who you are" argument, but in such a heavy dose, it serves in my mind to reduce Abedin to her wardrobe. We saw the same thing with First Lady Michelle Obama - "Look at her in that affordable J Crew dress!" - and thankfully Michelle was able to push beyond it and force the public to look at the issues she stood for rather than the heels she stood on.

Abedin has, as have likely all slighted spouses in Washington, been through the ringer. Her husband was unfaithful (and very, VERY un-Internet savvy), the media storm went on far too long and she undoubtedly paid dearly for Weiner's errors. Pregnant to boot? Clearly, Abedin has a pile and a half on her mind. But, Givhan says, "she looks like herself. She exudes control and calm. And most important, she looks relevant."

We would do well not to let her relevance - or that of any other "political wife," as Givhan calls her - stem from her suiting.

Photo Credit: Susan Walsh/AP

One more mob musing

As I thought about that previous post, the part of me that is quick to jump on any sort of white bias wondered why these attacks got so much coverage, relative to the incidents that undoubtedly occur citywide on a daily basis. Why does a robbery, or two or three, on Michigan Avenue or on the Red Line CTA get the attention of multiple media outlets when Englewood shootings, South Side beatings and Back of the Yards child neglect get 100 words on the Trib's Breaking News ticker? At first glance, it's maddening to think that because the mob scene haunted fancier hoods the issue got more press. The portion of non-whites, it seemed to me, was indirectly proportional to the amount - and perhaps perceived value - of reporting on a given area.

But on second reflection, I was able to set down the jaded a bit. These were crimes in close succession, supposedly stemming from the same set of perpetrators. The victims were seemingly random, and the criminals appeared to target people with electronic toys (iPods and the like) in tow. In short, I now think there were many things about these crimes, aside from their whereabouts, that made them worthy of heightened coverage.

Am I off base? Did this receive undue discussion? Could/Should it have been talked about more? Why do you think this story was covered as it was? Would it get the same attention if it happened in Englewood?

Photo Credit: Jordan Fischer/The Examiner

New mayor, new blog bent...

...well, maybe not "new," as in "I've-now-merged-with-AOL," but new as in, I want to change the direction of this blog. My year hiatus, albeit unintentionally, taught me that I'm less interested in what I think and more interested in what the world is saying about race and media. And so, with that, I pick this up again, but now I invite a conversation. Please post, get mad at me, "Amen" me, send me material you see around you. A blog - hell, any media - gets its value from the ripple effect is brings.

Living in Chicago (ok, ok, Evanston) for what will be a year next month, I've seen more than enough "Man, I should blog about that" moments, but none has piqued my interest quite as much as this city's recent wave of "flash mobs." (For more on this, search "flash mobs" on ChicagoTribune.com, or click here.) Basically, a group of young'ns launched a series of robberies in the city's downtown area, physically assaulting the victims and taking their belongings. The mayor--Mayer RAHM--spoke on the topic; police vowed to get to the bottom of the issue, even assign more cops to the streets near Michigan Avenue shopping Mecca; and several arrests were eventually made.

The coverage had dwindled quite a bit when I came across this from Chicago Reader reporter Michael Miner. "When Race Isn't Mentioned" focuses on the coverage - or lack thereof - of the racial identities of the assailants in these "mob attacks." Miner reviews three viewpoints as to why this is so, also summing up the thoughts of various Tribune reporters. According to Miner, the lack of race could be the product of one of these:

1. "The papers don't want any responsibility for the vile commentary sure to erupt from a noxious element of the readership. Better to be accused by those readers of gutless PC liberalism than be accused by more high-minded citizens of enabling the rabble-rousers." - I take this to mean that "the papers" wanted to absolve themselves of any responsibility for racist/bigoted comments.

2. "The Robert Frost school of news management," as Miner dubs it. I take this to mean, based on his subsequent definition, that the press was cagy in its lack of coverage. "If we don't write about race, we can write about the people who DO." Essentially, the media ignored race to ensure the editorial meetings were fruitful.

3. "The press was simply a little ahead of the curve." It is here that Miner is most optimistic. People, he posits, don't look at race as much as they used to. Race doesn't matter like it once did. From this perspective, "the initial race-free coverage of the flash mob outbreak can almost look like progress."

I think there may have been little coverage of race for all these reasons simultaneously. The last thing journalism needs is more grief about what it covers, what it doesn't cover, what it means and what effect it has. Better safe than sorry, as the saying goes. As mom always says, "You never regret saying nothing."

If media doesn't need a spanking over its coverage, what it does need, is coverage in the first place. And a spate of theft across the city is prime coverage, ripe for the reporting. And why not squeeze out every last bit of juice from the story by leaving blanks to be filled by others? (Which can then be fodder for columnists...)

To the third point - that race is less important than it once was - I say this is a half-truth. Sure, it may be more important that someone roughed-up Billy Corgan's brother than what the suspect fills out on the census form, but the mere fact that Miner's column, and those of all the Tribune reporters he reviews, land in the papers is evidence that race - out in the open or hushed out of print - is still an issue in our society. Whether this is good or bad is certainly a matter of debate, as are the reasons why race was largely left out of this news coverage. (Some may argue, of course, that race WAS prevalent in the mob reporting, and I'd love to hear from those people.)

Which reason of Miner's rings most true to you? Which is the most preferable, in terms of societal progress? Are there others to be considered?

Bigotry and ethnocentrism at the heart of opposition to Ground Zero mosque

Plans for construction of a mosque at Ground Zero have riled both supporters and protesters. According to the New York Times, politicians and social advocacy groups alike have come out on one side of the issue--New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called the plan "an aggressive act that is offensive."

The mosque in question, if approved by the city Landmarks and Preservation Commission tomorrow, will be built two blocks from Ground Zero. "Park51," as the facility is to be called, is expected to include a prayer space fit for 2,000, a gym, a pool, a theater and a gallery space. Building partner Daisy Khan, who is also married to the cleric leading the effort, said classrooms and lecture halls will provide space for "a robust debate on the critical issues of radicalization, extremism and terrorism." Khan told the Wall Street Journal that the board running the center will include members of other religions "to protect the interests of the center and to ensure the center has the highest standards of transparency."

The more I read about this issue, the more I question opposition to the facility. The argument that angers me most is the "Don't do this to the families of the victims" bent. First off, let's not forget that Muslims also died on Sept. 11. And secondly, what exactly is this mosque doing to the families of victims? Facilitating dialogues between groups? Exposing the city to an oft-feared and more often stereotyped faith, with a rich history and culture? Trying to blast through the "Islam=jihad" stigma that runs through our veins, perhaps most fervently through those who believe "Islam killed my father/mother/brother/sister/wife/husband, etc."? The motives for Park51 seem pure and good, while the motives to oppose the plan seem bigoted and ethnocentric.

As the New York Times reports, the Anti-Defamation League came out against the mosque last Friday, citing opposition by the victims' families as pivotal in the League's decisions. When asked why the victims' families were so crucial to the decision, national director Abraham H. Foxman replied:

"Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational. [The families'] anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted."

Pardon? So do black people get to be bigots in exchange for years of slavery? Do Chinese people get rally against white people in exchange for their exploitation during the Gold Rush and the railroad boom? How about Mexican immigrants who went through hell to come to the U.S. legally? Do they get a blank check to spit on Capitol Hill and rail against the largely white male legislature that makes it increasingly difficult for them to bring their families here legally? What, Mr. Foxman, is the statute of limitations on "survivor bigotry?"

And today, on the eve of the decision to greenlight Park51 or not, Islam shatters another stereotype: That women are oppressed and shuttered by the men who "keep them." Just look at the previously-mentioned Daisy Khan. She, and not her husband and business partner, spoke to the Wall Street Journal about the project. She addressed criticisms and offered solutions to ensure extremism was kept at bay. Described by the Journal as "steadfast," Ms. Khan spoke in macro terms of the "Americanization of a religion" and the importance of facilities like Park51 to ensure the intersection of the Islamic community and the community that surrounds it. Khan is far from the cloistered, meek version of Islamic women so often shown in the media and lodged in our perceptions, proving yet again the utility of places like Park51 in combating said stereotypes.

The opposition may think they are protecting us and safeguarding the memory of those killed in 9/11, but in reality they are only preventing us from learning, understanding and letting go of our fears.

Photo Credit: WyBlog

Chicago columnist forgets the power of racialization

How fitting that a mere three days before I move to Chicago I am reminded of the plethora of blog coverage in my hometown city.

Last week, Chicago Sun-Times Columnist Mary Mitchell (at right) wrote a column titled, "Ghetto parenting dooms kids." In this column, she listed the components of said "ghetto parenting," including brawling with your significant other in front of your child, cursing at your child, and putting your child off on family and friends so you can "hang out on the street."

As one might imagine, the column invoked some strong reactions. Lisa Belkin of the New York Times blogged about Mitchell's use of the word "ghetto" as a term for lousy parenting, asking readers to offer their thoughts. Many said Mitchell's writing was downright racist, while others said Mitchell was merely misguided and still another replied (rather rudely I'd say,) "Ghetto is as ghetto does."

Mitchell eventually wrote a follow-up column, "C'mon, you know ghetto when you see it," in which she insisted, "it's not about race or poverty, it's just plain foul behavior." She cited Britney Spears as an example of ghetto parenting and Lindsay Lohan as an example of ghetto behavior. Mitchell asserted that the ghetto is no longer a place where poor black people live, "trapped in a cycle of poverty and despair."

While Mitchell may not have intended for "ghetto" to link up with race so plainly, she failed to recognize and take into account the tremendous historical racialization of the ghetto. Just because she herself does not think the ghetto refers to Chicago's housing projects does not mean others do not conjure up racialized images when they hear or read about "ghetto parenting." As commenter 12 on Belkin's blog stated:

"Mitchell is overlooking a very important point in this discussion: the word 'ghetto' has a history and a meaning; she may have attempted to coin the phrase 'ghetto parenting' but she didn't coin the word 'ghetto' and it is simply not at her whim to decide what it means."

If Mitchell is correct that the definition of ghetto has expanded to include Spears and Lohan, it certainly hasn't departed from its former designation to poor black families and neighborhoods. Typing "ghetto" into a Google search yields the following Wikipedia explanation:

"Recently the word 'ghetto' has been used in slang as an adjective rather than a noun. It is used to indicate an object's relation to the inner city or black culture, and also more broadly, and somewhat offensively, to denote something that is shabby or of low quality."

(I know, I know, Wikipedia is not the most reliable, but many people get their facts from the site. Furthermore, because Wikipedia is user-generated/edited, the information presented can be said to be a consensus on a given topic.)

A Google image search is even more off-putting, as a majority of the photos feature black men and women.

I believe that Mitchell had good intentions. I don't think she intended to speak in racialized (or worse yet, racist) terms. Mitchell's hope that ghetto does not equal black is well and good, but it is idealistic and untrue: Society has yet to decouple ghetto and black.

And if the issue of "what ghetto means" is beyond the scope of Mitchell's intended argument, perhaps she should not have tried to reinvent poor parenting in such a racialized way.

Photo Credit: Chicago Sun-Times

Russell Simmons sends conflicting messages to poor and minorities

Hip-hop mogul and entrepreneur Russell Simmons took to Capitol Hill last month in an effort to help low-income consumers. Simmons successfully lobbied for changes in the financial services reform bill--changes that would exempt prepaid debit cards like his RushCard from fee regulation by the Federal Reserve.

Sound complicated? It is. Robert Schmidt and Patrick O'Connor over at Bloomberg Businessweek do a nice job of summing up the bill, but the shorthand version is this:

When a consumer pays by debit card, the retailer pays a small "interchange fee" to the consumer's bank. The retailer then shoulders that cost, which retailers estimate to be almost $20 billion annually.

Illinois Senator Richard Durbin has been pushing to reduce these interchange fees for years, and he recently won an amendment to cap the fees and let the Federal Reserve, rather than the debit card companies, set the fee rates. This all boils down to more profit for retailers and less for Simmons' RushCard. (Sold by Cincinnati-based UniRush, this card is just a prepaid Visa.)

Now for Simmons' involvement. The mogul argued, both on Capitol Hill and in a Huffington Post blog, that low-income people rely on prepaid debit cards, as they cannot afford checking accounts and are often denied for credit cards. Allowing the feds to set the fees, Simmons said, would force him to charge higher fees to already-financially vulnerable RushCard holders. Simmons said in his blog he doesn't "give a damn about the profits of big banks" and that he "has no hidden agenda." He just wants to protect the poor.

I wholeheartedly applaud Simmons for using his fame and notoriety to give voice to low-income groups and minorities (who too often fall into the former group). Any time a Bentley-driving celebrity comes out in favor of the little guy, I think we're getting somewhere.

But a deeper dig into this issue reveals Simmons' efforts would be better spent elsewhere. First, as the Washington Post's T.W. Farnam points out, the RushCard is not free. Cardholders pay a $3 activation fee, a $9.95 per month "membership" fee, $2.50 for an ATM withdrawal, $1 per debit card transaction and 50 cents to check their balance at an ATM.

Looking at the costs of the prepaid card, one begins to wonder if this card is really the best option for non-checking/credit account holders. And the resounding answer in my mind is "no." Prepaid cards, like payday loans, can be helpful at times, but as a lifestyle they delay the inevitable. Simmons' efforts, it seems, would be better spent helping low-income consumers get to a place where they could afford a checking account and could avoid monthly membership fees. Surely he has some real estate he's not using. I say sell the yacht and start a financial literacy program.

I also can't ignore the contrast between what Simmons says he stands for and what he does. I know, I know, a business has to make money, but are $62 Phat Farm jeans and $40 T-shirts really helping the little guy? Simmons participates in the "marketing of hip-hop"--buy this to attain this hip-hop star lifestyle filled with gorgeous women, money and cars (for further proof, watch Simmons and his ex-wife Kimora in the reality show, Kimora: Life in the Fab Lane)--which can only land the poor in deeper debt and further from financial stability.

I believe that Simmons has good intentions. I don't think his trip to Capitol Hill was a publicity stunt in the slightest. However, the hip-hop mogul would do well to look to the root of the problem his RushCard claims to address: A consumer culture based on the attainment of a star-studded lifestyle much like his own and a lack of financial skills to boot. Prepaid debit, fees or no fees, is merely a BandAid.

Photo Credit: NewsOne