Not on my Bascom Hill: UW papers show racial bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo Credit: The Examiner

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