In one week, President Obama covered the waterfront on racial politics. Although, in his address to the delegates at the NAACP’s Centennial he said, “an African-American child is roughly five times as likely as a white child to see the inside of a jail,” he also used the same “personal responsibility” rhetoric as he has every time he has spoken to African American audiences as candidate and president. Just days later, he would answer a question at a prime time press conference regarding the arrest of African American Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. that would place him in the middle of the debate on racial profiling.
“Personal responsibility,” a Republican vocabulary word born in the Reagan era, plays politically well among moderate and conservative Whites, and even among some White liberals who, unfortunately, have a hard time distinguishing reality from the right-wing noise machine. The “personal responsibility” argument suggests that there is some inherent pathology within African Americans that is disabling. “Personal responsibility” is the modern day replacement for the antebellum term that endured through the middle of the 20th century — “shiftlessness.”
Today, Republicans argue “personal responsibility/shiftlessness” most frequently with the statistic that 70% of African American children are born to single mothers. But according to the Institute for Policy Studies, “the increase in the share of White children living in a single parent home has been much higher (229%) than for Black children (155%) since 1960.” Yet Whites are never accused of lacking personal responsibility or preached to about the subject. And sometimes we Democrats, Lefties and Progressives are too quick to repeat what the Right has popularly propagandized without a careful analysis of this rhetoric’s roots.
I criticized the president for feeling the need to include “personal responsibility” repeatedly and exclusively in front of African American audiences (not to mention his admonition while in Ghana for Africans to get over colonialism). Even he mused aloud to the Washington Post‘s Eugene Robinson after his NAACP speech about the attention he received. “I’ve noticed that when I talk about personal responsibility in the African American community, that gets highlighted,” Obama said. “But then the whole other half of the speech, where I talked about government’s responsibility . . . that somehow doesn’t make news.”
Enter Gates. Literally. Or Gates attempt to enter into his own home. An arrest is made. The Harvard professor charges racial profiling, and most of us who are African American can immediately identify. Countless studies have proven that African Americans are disproportionately stopped and detained Driving, Walking and Flying While Black. Hence, the NAACP has introduced a mobile rapid response system for African Americans to report police misconduct. I co-founded the Washington, DC NAACP Police Task Force that pressured the DC Police to implement their own profiling study using data collection and analysis. (I even taught a course at the police academy on racial profiling and the historical relationship between African Americans and law enforcement. So, I would love to talk shop on racial profiling instruction with Gates’ arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, a reported fellow teacher on the subject.)
There is no question that the president is an African American who has genuinely lived the African American experience. So when asked about Gates’ arrest he gave an answer which unlike his NAACP speech was unscripted. He said that “the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home…what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”
Immediately, the political punditry and police unions focused on “acted stupidly,” and demanded an apology from the president. The demographic to whom “personal responsibility” rhetoric was appealing a week earlier was at risk of alienation. The White House then began Walking Backward While Black. The president invited first, Crowley, then, Gates, over for a beer.
But this does not erase the most important part of the president’s statement at the press conference: “There is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
White House refreshments are insufficient to end racial profiling. As a student of Abraham Lincoln, President Obama knows that Lincoln’s diplomacy by appeasing the South with a plan for gradual emancipation failed to stem the tide of the Civil War. Injustices must be pulled promptly by their very roots.
Why not invite stakeholders on all sides to a National Conversation About Race and Policing as the National Black Police Association has suggested? Why not endorse the reintroduction and swift passage of the End Racial Profiling Act in Congress? This bill would require state and local jurisdictions to practice data be collected by race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, and religion, so as to determine the extent to which profiling exists in a jurisdiction, if at all. For both sides of this debate, this legislation puts the proof in the pudding.
Mr. President, refreshments are insufficient. Without a national conversation and passage of this important legislation, there can be no post-racial America before we achieve an era of post-profiling. With your gifts, Sir, and as president, getting us there is your personal responsibility.
If race were the only issue, there would be much less hyperventilation about Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s unpleasant run-in with the criminal justice system. After all, it would hardly be the first time a black man had unjustly been hauled to jail by a white police officer. The debate — really more of a shouting match — is also about power and entitlement.
This is a new twist. Since the triumph of the civil rights movement, minorities have been moving up the ladder in politics, business, academia, just about every field. Only in the past decade, however, has a sizable cohort of African Americans and Latinos broken through to the tiny upper echelons where real power is exercised.
I’m talking about President Obama, obviously, but also Citigroup Chairman Richard Parsons, entertainment mogul Oprah Winfrey, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and many others — a growing number of minorities with the kind of serious power that used to be reserved for whites only. In academia, the list begins with “Skip” Gates.
He’s a superstar, one of the best-known and most highly acclaimed faculty members at the nation’s most prestigious university. A few years ago, when he made noises about leaving, Harvard moved heaven and earth to keep him. The incident that led to his arrest occurred as he was coming home from the airport after a trip to China for his latest PBS documentary. Following the traumatic encounter, he repaired to Martha’s Vineyard to recuperate. This is how the man rolls.
Obama’s choice of words might not have been politic, but he was merely stating the obvious when he said the police behaved “stupidly.” Gates is 58, stands maybe 5-feet-7 and weighs about 150 pounds. He has a disability and walks with a cane. By the time Sgt. James Crowley made the arrest, he had already assured himself that Gates was in his own home. Crowley could see that the professor posed no threat to anybody.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Crowley’s version of the incident is true — that Gates, from the outset, was accusatory, aggressive and even obnoxious, addressing the officer with an air of highhanded superiority. Let’s assume he really recited the Big Cheese mantra: “You have no idea who you’re messing with.”
I lived in Cambridge for a year, and I can attest that meeting a famous Harvard professor who happens to be arrogant is like meeting a famous basketball player who happens to be tall. It’s not exactly a surprise. Crowley wouldn’t have lasted a week on the force, much less made sergeant, if he had tried to arrest every member of the Harvard community who treated him as if he belonged to an inferior species. Yet instead of walking away, Crowley arrested Gates as he stepped onto the front porch of his own house.
Apparently, there was something about the power relationship involved — uppity, jet-setting black professor vs. regular-guy, working-class white cop — that Crowley couldn’t abide. Judging by the overheated commentary that followed, that same something, whatever it might be, also makes conservatives forget that they believe in individual rights and oppose intrusive state power.
There was a similar case of collective amnesia at the Sotomayor hearings. Republican senators, faced with a judge who follows precedent and eschews making new law from the bench, forgot that this is the judicial philosophy they advocate. The odd and inappropriate line of questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) about Sotomayor’s temperament was widely seen as sexist, and indeed it was. But I suspect the racial or ethnic power equation was also a factor — the idea of a sharp-tongued “wise Latina” making nervous attorneys, some of them white male attorneys, fumble and squirm.
Is a man of Gates’s station entitled to puff himself up and remind a police officer that he’s dealing with someone who has juice? Is a woman of Sotomayor’s accomplishment entitled to humiliate a lawyer who came to court unprepared? No more and no less entitled, surely, than all the Big Cheeses who came before them.
Yet Gates’s fit of pique somehow became cause for arrest. I can’t prove that if the Big Cheese in question had been a famous, brilliant Harvard professor who happened to be white — say, presidential adviser Larry Summers, who’s on leave from the university — the outcome would have been different. I’d put money on it, though. Anybody wanna bet?
Isn’t it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation’s Capitol?
I’ve been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence.
If they believe that, why don’t they live by it?
Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn’t NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?
Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn’t Congress set an example in its own workplace?
So why not let Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pack the weapon of his choice on the Senate floor? Thune is the author of an amendment that would have allowed gun owners who had valid permits to carry concealed weapons into any state, even states with more restrictive gun laws. The amendment got 58 votes last week, two short of the 60 it needed to pass.
Judging by what Thune said in defense of his amendment, he’d clearly feel safer if everyone in the Capitol could carry a gun.
“Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially because the Supreme Court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from other individuals,” he said. I guess that Thune doesn’t think those guards and the Capitol Police have any obligation to protect him.
He went on: “The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed.”
In other words, keeping guns out of the Capitol makes all our elected officials far less safe. If just a few senators had weapons, the criminals wouldn’t know which ones were armed, and all senators would be safer, right? Isn’t that better than highly intrusive gun control — i.e., keeping people with guns out of the Capitol in the first place?
“Additionally,” Thune said helpfully, “research shows that when unrestricted conceal and carry laws are passed, not only does it benefit those who are armed, but it also benefits others around them such as children.”
This is a fantastic opportunity. Arming all our legislators would make it safer for children, so senators could feel much more secure bringing their kids into the Capitol. This would promote family values and might even reduce the number of highly publicized extramarital affairs.
During the debate, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) quoted a constituent who told him: “When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon.”
Why shouldn’t Vitter feel equally safe in the Capitol? Why should he have to go out on the streets to carry a gun?
The pro-gun folks love their studies. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) offered this one: “A study for the Department of Justice found 40 percent of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared the potential victims would be armed.”
That doesn’t tell us much about the other 60 percent, but what the heck? If it’s good enough for Barrasso, let the good senator introduce the amendment to allow concealed carry in the Capitol.
Barrasso already dislikes the District of Columbia’s tough restrictions on weapons. “The gun laws in the District outlaw law-abiding citizens from self-defense,” he complained. So go for it, Senator! Make our nation’s Capitol an island of firearms liberty in a sea of oppression.
Don’t think this column is offered lightly. I want these guys to put up or shut up. If the NRA’s servants in Congress don’t take their arguments seriously enough to apply them to their own lives, maybe the rest of us should do more to stop them from imposing their nonsense on our country.
The Huffington Post – Posted: July 24, 2009 02:17PM
The best news about the Professor Gates arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts and its aftermath is the very fact that it is news — big news. And I believe that is positive. I think that too many White Americans thought that with Barack Obama in the White House, we could just skate through the next four or eight years without having to deal with this annoying and uncomfortable “race” issue, since Obama as president should quiet those kinds of unsettling issues. I warned sometime ago that I feared that too many black Americans thought that with Barack Obama in the White House, we could just skate through the next four or eight years without having to deal with a lot of “race” issues since his being president would somehow make things better and magically reduce the instances of racially motivated incidents in the country.
Nothing could be further from the truth. From country club swimming pool incidents in Pennsylvania, to “birthers” demanding to see the president’s birth certificate because they “want their country back” quoting from one angry white female at a protest meeting, to cartoons about the First Lady with racial overtones, to — how much time do we have here — we have seen a nationwide outbreak of incidents that are or imply an extension of racially insensitive and hurtful motivation.
I have a theory about that which I will expound on further in another forum, but let’s say it has to do with a society wherein if Americans really like an African-American, they like them more than anyone else — Oprah, Tiger, Colin Powell, Michael Jordan. If they really don’t like an African-American, they don’t like them more intensely than anyone else. Right now, more and more Americans are liking Barack Obama less and less (thanks also to some prodding from talk show hosts and agenda driven commentators). Those who like Obama less are now more easily incited to transfer that dislike into racially motivated comments and smears. That’s not everyone — but it never is everyone.
But the Professor Gates incident is different because it has aspects to it that we have seen consistently for 100 years that have nothing to do with having a black President, as well as aspects that are unique to this particular case (internationally renowned scholar and intellectual from Harvard), and the incident has aspects to it that are specifically related to having a black President. You can’t find too many other incidents like that, and I didn’t have to spend much time searching, either.
Earlier, I said that the fact that this topic is now national news is really a good thing. Let me expand on that a bit further. At one point in a TV interview, CNN commentator Candy Crowley said that “the president has given this story more legs.”
And she was right — and I am glad he did. It doesn’t matter to me what side you’re on (there shouldn’t be sides) and it doesn’t matter how you feel — not to me anyway. What matters to me is that you’re talking about it — that’s what conversation is. The story needs not just legs, but arms, hands, and a talking head on it — and that turned out to be the president himself. And that is good. I have been saying for the longest time that our country elected a black President before it had the conversation on race that we really needed, and because of that, there could be a real price to pay unless the president used a substantial portion of his term in office to address issues of race in a way that used his office to further the conversation and further the understanding we need.
You folks can argue about who was right and who was wrong — not my issue. I just want you talking about it. Because you can’t really talk about it in any extended conversation without at some point addressing perceptions, built up frustrations, attitudes among an entire community as well as a subset within that community (African-American males) about their relationship with law enforcement, and pre-conceived notions about crime and people’s intentions. If we are talking about that, all over the country, whites and blacks — then that’s good for America. Enough of all of the criticism that the president should have stayed out of this or he went too far. The fact is, the only reason we are now having this discussion nationwide is precisely because the president jumped into it — and I applaud him for doing so.
Now as to the incident itself, there is still information to be obtained and deciphered, and I hope that all those weighing in now with judgments about the behavior of the parties will reserve final judgment until all the facts are in. But there are a couple of issues that I have a problem with, and I will share those with you again for measured and calm reflection on your part.
1.I am concerned about the neighbor who originally called in the report to the police department. Since it is a neighbor, they should absolutely have regularly seen Professor Gates coming and going from the house and, particularly with the popularity and stature of this professor, they would have seen many African-American males coming and going from the house from time to time as well as whites and a multitude of visitors to that home. Furthermore, the neighbor might still be guilty of a “rush to judgment” even if it was any African-American male going to that home to call in to the Police department before being just a bit more certain. But in this case, we weren’t dealing with some other African-American male — it was Professor Gates himself. A neighbor who could see this man that close to see what he was doing should also have seen him enough times in the past to recognize that it was in fact Professor Gates himself. That’s a problem I have which is separate from the facts of the confrontation and arrest itself.
2. Whatever comes out as to the facts of the case, it is my current impression that Professor Gates was totally not justified in referring to Officer Crowley as a “rogue cop.” Rogue cops plant evidence in people’s bathrooms and then arrest them for drug use. Rogue cops take bribes and deliberately set out to go after targeted troublemakers and abuse their rights. Rogue cops manufacture evidence. Officer Crowley’s credentials and record on paper are impeccable, and I gladly note his work in helping to train other officers on how to deal with racial profiling. So let the record for my part stipulate that.
However, it is entirely possible that Officer Crowley reached a point where his adrenalin surge took over and he reacted in a way to what he judged to be provocation on the part of Professor Gates in a manner that maybe he would have been better served to “let go.” He had established that there was no crime, that Professor Gates was in his own home, that he was in fact Professor Gates (and don’t tell me that doesn’t matter — this is America — of course it matters — and people are right — if it was Henry Kissinger there would have been no arrest. And finally, the fact that at some point the officer had established that Prof. Gates himself was not armed and was not a threat to cause harm to anyone in the area. So maybe when the officer was leaving the home to conclude the incident he should have continued on his way. That is an option that would have been far more likely if Professor Gates was a white professor with his stature and credentials and the officer at some point became aware of that.
3. I am concerned that white America understand that there is a real problem here that is steeped in racial profiling and stereotyping that has in fact victimized African-Americans (and Hispanics, as well) for far too long. Many African-Americans look at this situation and not only understand the reaction of Professor Gates, but they also are frustrated because they know that when this type of incident takes place all over the country, usually the African-American male involved is not a world renowned professor, is not universally acknowledged as an intellectual and scholar, and cannot count on public expressions of support from the governor of the state and the president of the United States in a national press conference. As a result, in those cases, the person has to fend for himself, and it becomes just the word of this black man against the integrity and consistency of the version of the story as presented by the police department. And in reality, even if the facts of the Gates case do not warrant a charge of racial profiling by Officer Crowley, the circumstances remind too many African-Americans all too painfully of how close this is to what happens to so many of them when there is racial profiling and there are no resources or circumstances like those surrounding Professor Gates to help them deal with the aftermath.
4. The fact is, at this point I am inclined to believe that Officer Crowley had good intentions but may have made a mistake in judgment in how he handled the situation. I can live with that because we are all as human beings subject to that, and it is also my impression that Professor Gates contributed to the officer’s reaction by his own conduct. I’ll let them and all of the commentators deal with that. If I can be satisfied that Crowley was not pre-disposed to racially profile Gates or allowed his own biases to affect how he dealt with the situation, then I can move on because I can separate this case from true racial profiling cases but still use the case as a launching pad for the conversation we need on these kinds of subjects. Fine. But I am not interested in hearing any more commentators point out that there was an African-American police officer on the scene as if that would automatically rule out profiling or somehow provide an automatic pass or validation for Officer Crowley. Oh, no. What most African-Americans know clearly is that having an African -American police officer on the scene means absolutely nothing and may sometimes even empower the white officers in charge into thinking they have a license to get away with more. I just wanted to state on the record at least one challenge to that argument that I have been hearing frequently in the discussion of the Gates case.
5. I also heard Professor Gates remark that “this incident has made me realize how vulnerable all black men are” in situations like this. I want to go on record as expressing my shock that a man of his intelligence, with such scholarly accomplishment, such worldly views with such a well traveled background and an eloquent ability to articulate the black experience, could be so naive as to reach his late 50′s or early 60′s and need to experience a personal incident like this to realize how vulnerable the status is of black men in America. He should think about that statement and ponder just how ridiculous the implication of that admission is for those hearing it coming from him.
In a Huffington Post editorial I wrote paying a final tribute to Michael Jackson, I said that President Obama needed to address the race issue while he still has such high personal approval ratings with so much political capital in the bank. With the slower than expected economic recovery for the working and middle classes in America while Wall Street is almost fully recovered and fully re-cashed chipping away at his approval ratings, and with health care chopping away at his political capital bank account, the president needs to step up the pace a bit if he is going to be effective in using his unique term in office to further the understanding of “race” in America and enable all of us to make progress as a country in this regard.
The comments he made at his press conference, while coming under so much criticism from so many, actually were a good start as the effect has been exactly what I have been calling for — focusing on the conversation we need to be having. That’s a win. But I also felt it was an opportunity missed when the day after the president’s press conference, he went to a Town Hall meeting in Ohio facing a perfect forum to move the discussion further, and the president said nothing about the larger race issue: not the specifics of the Gates incident, but using that incident to launch the conversation we need. That’s a loss.
The issue of race will never be a win-win. Very often it may be a win-loss. But what we cannot have is an approach where we skip from racial incident to racial incident, ramp up the conversation at each incident, and then a day later forget about it and forget about having the conversation. That’s a loss-loss for all of us, and we can and must do better.
In his first comments on the incident, Professor Gates was quoted as saying his crime was “housing while black.” That reminded me of Franklin Ajaye, one of the best and sharpest black comedians of the 70′s who was perfect in the movie Car Wash. Ajaye was one of the most successful black comics ever in focusing specifically on using humor to expose the harm of racial profiling. From Ajaye, we got “driving while black”, and “housing while black,” and any other derivative formulations thereof — maybe “writing while black.”
For as Ajaye used to joke, things were so bad that he and a buddy were driving along the boulevard with the top down in a convertible, and they were stopped and arrested for being “black on a sunny day.” Like Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor and Dick Gregory and George Carlin before and after him, Ajaye and the others demonstrated that humor and comedy are sometimes the only forum where we as Americans have even been willing to listen to a conversation about the pain and hurt of racism and prejudice and try to learn from it and become better for having the discussion.
But it’s no laughing matter. And with a president in the White House who has a keener sense of the ravages of prejudice and hate and misconceptions than perhaps any president we have ever had, we must not only take this opportunity, but also insist that he and we take this opportunity to initiate the conversation, and keep it going so that as each new incident comes up, we are already set up to deal with it rather than having to ramp up to devote every waking moment to that incident only to return to normal after the 24 hour news cycle. Let’s try to do that — even if it’s just you and I.
Carl Jeffers is a Los Angeles-and Seattle based columnist, TV political analyst, radio talk show host and commentator, and a national lecturer. E-mail: cjintel@juno.com
Michael Eric Dyson says the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. shows that the U.S. is not “a post-racial paradise.”
(CNN) — Last Thursday, President Obama, in his fiery speech before the NAACP Convention, admitted that “an African-American child is roughly five times as likely as a white child to see the inside of a prison.”
But he surely couldn’t have imagined that only a couple of hours before his oration, one of America’s most prominent scholars — and a distinguished professor at Obama’s alma mater, Harvard University — would breathe cruel and ironic life into that sad statistic.
Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. is simply the most powerful and influential black scholar in our nation’s history.
He received a doctorate at Cambridge University long before the culture wars became au courant; he was among the first group of figures to receive a MacArthur “Genius Award” Fellowship; he wrote the finest work of literary criticism in a generation with “Signifying Monkey”; he was named by Time magazine as one of the “25 Most Influential Americans”; he has a boatload of honorary degrees; and he has been a ubiquitous media presence and thoughtful interpreter of race and culture for a quarter-century.
But none of that made a bit of difference when Gates returned from a research trip to China to find the front door to his Harvard-owned house jammed and enlisted the assistance of his driver to muscle the door loose. By the time Gates was on the phone with his leasing company, a white policeman had arrived, summoned by a neighbor who spotted two black men looking as if they were unlawfully breaking into the house.
Their stories diverge from here; the policeman says he asked Gates to step outside, Gates refused, the officer entered the home and requested Gates’ ID, which he didn’t initially produce, and finally had Gates arrested when he followed the officer outside, as Gates was “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior.”
Gates allegedly shouted, “Is this how you treat a black man in America?” and “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” Gates says he showed the officer his ID, demanded that the officer identify himself, which he didn’t, and then the professor followed the officer outside to get the policeman’s name and badge number when he was arrested by the gaggle of police who had gathered.
Several features of the story scream the presence of lingering bias and racism. A black man in a tony neighborhood simply seems out of place, even to his neighbors.
Had Gates been a white professor trying to get inside his home, and called on his driver to help him jar his door open, he probably wouldn’t have as readily aroused the suspicion of neighbors. And when police arrived to check out the premises, they probably wouldn’t have been nearly as ready to believe the worst about the occupant of a home who clearly wasn’t engaged in a criminal act.
Whatever one believes about what happened, Gates clearly wasn’t the beneficiary of the benefit of the doubt, a reasonable expectation since he posed no visible threat.
It is also striking that Gates seems to be the victim of a police mentality that chafes at a challenge of its implicit authority. While that may be true for folk of all races, it seems especially galling to cops to be questioned by a person of color.
How dare black folk believe that, regardless of their station or privilege, they have permission to speak back — or speak black — to state-enforced authority, one that, not a decade ago, routinely ravaged black communities in blatant displays of wanton aggression.
It is for good reason that police brutality is a constant concern for black folk; the stakes are often high and harmful. The link between black vulnerability and racial profiling — of setting in one’s collective imagination an image of black men as bad people who are liable to commit mayhem at any moment, and who must therefore always be suspected of wrong and subject to arbitrary forms of control and surveillance — is evident in the pileup of black bodies, from Amadou Diallo to Sean Bell, that testify to the force of police to impose lethal limits on black survival. Gates rubbed up against the unspoken code that enforces black silence and often violently compels black compliance.
In the end, Gates’ unjust treatment speaks volumes about the cynical assertion that we now live in a post-racial paradise.
Gates’ crime appears to be a new one in the litany of crimes that black folk commit by virtue of their very existence — in this case, HWB, or housing while black. If a famous and affluent black man in his own home can be accosted, arrested and humiliated, then all black folk can reasonably expect the same treatment.
To Gates’ credit, he realizes that racial profiling happens regularly to poor black folk, and he has pledged to do something about it. But another famous black figure associated with Harvard must renew his pledge to get rid of racial profiling and spare the nation the illusion that his success represents a post-racial America. While it’s not likely he’ll be unjustly arrested in his House, he’s got to make sure that the same privilege extends to millions of other black folk who don’t live on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Pat Buchanan, a conservative pundit who worked for Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and who has also run for president three times including winning the New Hampshire primary for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, wrote an article telling the Republicans to use Sonia Sotomayor as a way to stoke white resentment to grow the party.
After watching the Republican senators grill Sonia Sotomayor about issues of race in a patronizing, condescending and patronizing way, it is pretty obvious that the Republican party is trying to tap into the angry white vote. They are definitely using the Pat Buchanan playbook.
Here is a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show in which Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan battle it out. Buchanan says some extremely racially incendiary comments
Many Americans like Judge Sonia Sotomayor because she represents the quintessential American success story.
By dint of hard work, determination and sacrifice, she overcame poverty and personal tragedy to rise to the top of the legal profession.
If she is confirmed, as seems likely, she would become the first Latino and the first woman of color to serve on that storied bench. And, for many of us, her ancestry makes her rise all the more appealing.
Her parents left Puerto Rico during World War II; her mother, then Celina Baez, enlisted at 17 in the Women’s Army Corps. She raised her children alone after her husband died of heart ailments at the age of 42.
Her daughter’s accomplishments — as well as those of her son, Juan, a physician — reinforce our favorite national myth: in this country, anyone can succeed.
But that poignant tale hasn’t won over everyone. Though Sotomayor will likely win some Republican votes, there remain many conservatives who believe she represents the activist-judge/liberal-elite who are pushing the country in the wrong direction.
They would oppose any judge nominated by a Democratic president who favors reproductive rights and supports civil unions for gay couples.
However, there is also a less articulated but equally intense reaction to Sotomayor on the right that has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with ethnicity.
There are still some conservatives who deeply resent the social and demographic changes that have swept the country during the past four decades, leading to the election of the nation’s first black president.
That faction sees the rise of a “wise Latina” as one more indication that the country no longer belongs solely to them.
Consider the analysis of Pat Buchanan, GOP presidential candidate turned political pundit, who has labeled Sotomayor “Miss Affirmative Action.”
In a recent column, Buchanan railed that “pundits here get hoots of appreciation for doing to a white Christian woman what would constitute a hate crime if done to a ‘wise Latina woman.’” (Note the designation of Sarah Palin as “Christian” as if Sotomayor, who grew up Catholic, is pagan.) Buchanan advised his fellow Republicans to “expose Sotomayor … as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males.”
Never mind that Sotomayor’s record shows no such thing. An analysis of her record has shown that she has ruled against claims of discrimination far more often than she has ruled for them.
Still, among some on the right, Buchanan’s views represent the gospel truth. They explain a world in which white men no longer control all the levers of power — in which an “uppity” black man could become president and a woman with a strange-sounding name could end up on the Supreme Court.
It’s no accident that Buchanan dragged Palin into the debate. Resentment of high-achievers like Barack Obama and Sotomayor runs deepest among Palinites, who see in John McCain’s running mate a perfect spokeswoman for their long list of grievances.
For them, Palin represents “authentic” America.
There’s just one problem: That vision of America — a country run by and for God-fearing white people of small-town heritage — is losing its appeal in a country that grows more diverse and more urban every day.
As long as the Republican Party is held hostage by a group of voters who refuse to let go of that image of America, it cannot hope to be a national party. Sonia Sotomayor represents the future, not Sarah Palin.
Is this a great country, or what? Even though Alabama’s Jeff Sessions was blocked from a federal judgeship because of kooky statements about the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan, he could still go on to become a U.S. senator, and lead a racially tinged charge against the first Latina Supreme Court nominee. Equal opportunity, indeed!
I thought that Sessions’ bullying and blundering in the first two days of the Sonia Sotomayor hearings might get the GOP to ask him to hide his light under a bushel for a bit, but there he was on Wednesday, holding a quick press conference in the hearing break to announce he continues to be “troubled” by Sotomayor’s views on race, as if there was any doubt about that.
Not to be outdone by Sessions, though, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn shamed himself with an unbelievable reference to Desi Arnaz’s ancient Cuban stereotype, Ricky Ricardo, husband of Lucille Ball on “I Love Lucy.” During a surreal exchange on gun rights, in which the theoretical example was what might happen to Sotomayor if she (wrongly, illegally, but maybe understandably) got a gun and shot Coburn, the right-wing senator told her, “You’d have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do,” referring to Arnaz’s refrain when Lucy got in trouble with one of her crazy schemes.
It should be shocking that in 2009, a U.S. senator would be inspired to relate to an eminent jurist who happens to be Puerto Rican with half-century-old Latino stereotypes (as well as a sort of sexist comparison to wacky Lucy) but after these last few days, it isn’t shocking. The way Republicans have shellacked Sotomayor over her “wise Latina” remarks shows they really, really want to be the party of aggrieved white men. No others need apply.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who ought to know better, hectored Sotomayor on the issue (after she’d already said her choice of words was “bad,” and had already committed herself umpteen times to judicial objectivity). In what seemed to be a poorly veiled reference to Sessions, whose bid for a judgeship was derailed by the controversy over his NAACP and KKK remarks, he pompously and condescendingly asked Sotomayor whether if she got a do-over on a poorly chosen statement on race, white guys should too?
GRAHAM: If Lindsey Graham said that I will make a better senator than X, because of my experience as a Caucasian male makes me better able to represent the people of South Carolina, and my opponent was a minority, it would make national news, and it should.
….Others could not remotely come close to that statement and survive. Whether that’s right or wrong, I think that’s a fact. Does that make sense to you?
SOTOMAYOR: It does. And I would hope that we’ve come in America to the place where we can look at a statement that could be misunderstood, and consider it in the context of the person’s life.
I said soon after President Obama nominated Sotomayor that she would almost certainly have to walk back her “wise Latina” comment, and that she probably should. I think that we need new ways to talk about race, given that what used to be self-evident observations about minority oppression can sound tin-eared and maybe even threatening to some white people in the era of the first black president and the most diverse Cabinet ever.
Still, my Caucasian certainty about our new era of race relations, as whites become a minority group, has been shaken watching the way Republicans have treated Sotomayor in these three days — as an exotic, hot-tempered curiosity who isn’t quite like the rest of us, and whose 17 years of legal rulings matter far less than the words she uses to encourage minority law students. These three days show we haven’t come that far at all.
I can’t say it any better than Mike Madden, who’s live-blogging the Sotomayor hearings today: “So far, it’s been remarkable to watch the GOP bash Sotomayor for saying she’d have empathy with some people because of her background and life experience, and also bash her for not having empathy with the firefighters in the Ricci case.”
I’m confident Sotomayor will survive her grilling, but seriously, with leadership like this, the GOP might not survive as a national party.
Last updated on Tuesday, Jul. 14, 2009 03:54PM EDT
The Democrats have Sonia Sotomayor. The Republicans have Sarah Palin. That’s all you really need to know. Between them, these two women explain why the Republicans are doomed.
Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina who grew up in a Bronx housing project, is a shoo-in for the Supreme Court. Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he picked her. She is a symbol of Hispanic aspirations in a country where Hispanics are an increasingly powerful political force. She’s known for her ferocious drive and work ethic and, despite what you may hear, she appears to be a moderate. She represents the American dream in action. The Republicans hate her.
Sarah Palin was the most scarily incompetent vice-presidential nominee in the history of the United States. She graduated from the University of Idaho, where she majored in communications (still not her strong suit). She represents the Peter Principle in action. The Republicans love her.
Guess which one has been attacked by Karl Rove for not having the intellect for the job? That’s right. Sonia Sotomayor.
According to leading Republican pundits, Judge Sotomayor is a hot-tempered, dim-witted bigot whose judicial activism (read nutty identity politics) could play havoc with the Constitution. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, even called her a “Latina racist.” Amazingly, these are the same people who continue to insist that Sarah Palin is qualified to run for president of the United States. They insist she is the victim of a vicious smear job by the eastern media elites.
Some Republicans admit that, if they’d bothered to give the pin-up girl from Alaska 1 per cent of the grilling that Judge Sotomayor is going to get, they’d be a lot better off today. But Alaska was so very far away. And Sarah was so fetching in her running shorts. They did less vetting than you’d do to choose the family dog. And then, when she peed all over the carpet, they forgave her. After she bizarrely quit her job as governor of Alaska, two-thirds of registered Republicans said they’d still vote for her for president.
In her fishing overalls and boots, Ms. Palin styles herself as a working-class hero. In fact, her father was a teacher, and her background is utterly middle class. Judge Sotomayor’s father died when she was 9. He was a Puerto Rican factory worker with a third-grade education.
Ms. Palin despises people who were educated in elite Ivy League universities. Judge Sotomayor, on the other hand, was smart enough to get into them. She put herself through school on scholarships, and graduated from Princeton with top honours. Ms. Palin, who finds homework disagreeable, has never doubted her own abilities for a minute. But Judge Sotomayor worries constantly that she’s not good enough. “I am always looking over my shoulder, wondering if I measure up,” she has said.
Ms. Palin plays identity politics to the hilt. But Republicans charge that Judge Sotomayor’s identity will dangerously skew her judgments. They can’t seem to grasp that everyone’s perspective (even theirs) is to some extent informed by their background and life experience. No one should be shocked that a minority woman from the South Bronx might have a different lens on life than, say, Karl Rove. Sonia Sotomayor put it nicely when she said, “I simply do not know what the difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”
I used to think that, after the debacle of the Bush years, the train wreck of Sarah Palin and the Obama rout, the Republican Party would recover its sanity and regroup. Clearly, I was wrong. People who argue that Sarah Palin is good for America while Sonia Sotomayor is a threat are obviously out of their minds. They are determined to drive their own party off a cliff into oblivion. And they’re succeeding nicely.
Editor’s note: Laura Gómez is professor of law and American studies at the University of New Mexico. Gómez, who has a Ph.D. in sociology and a law degree from Stanford University, is the author of “Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race.”
(CNN) — It is likely that Judge Sotomayor will face some questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week about her 2001 “wise Latina” remark.
In a speech at a Berkeley conference on Hispanic judges, Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Her comment has been lampooned on the cover of the National Review, where cartoonists apparently could not quite fathom a wise Latina judge, choosing to portray Sotomayor as a Buddha with Asian features. It has caused Rush Limbaugh and others to label her a “racist,” and it has caused even liberals to bristle.
I was a speaker at the conference Sotomayor’s speech kicked off, and I would like to put her comment in context.
Entitled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation,” the conference brought together — for the first time, to my knowledge — judges, lawyers, scholars and law students to consider the state of Latinos in the judiciary.
By 2050, Hispanics will be 30 percent of the U.S. population, and yet the number of Latino judges remains tiny. The number of female Hispanic judges is even smaller; Sotomayor is one of two Hispanic women among federal appellate judges, and there are not much more than that among the hundreds of federal district judges.
Part of the impetus for the conference was to signal the potential crisis for our courts in the 21st century if we do not get more Latino lawyers interested in becoming judges and more appointed to the bench.
In this context, I did not find Sotomayor’s comment controversial. As I look at the speech eight years later, I’m struck by how measured and careful she was in making the claim.
First, the sentence I have quoted here followed Sotomayor’s acknowledgement that there is no universal definition of “wise.”
Second, she presented the statement as aspirational by using the phrase “I would hope”; she was talking as much about the ideal of diversity as its reality.
Third, she specified that she was talking not about all Latinas and all white men but about ideal types; she invoked a “wise” Hispanic woman who has had a particular set of life experiences and white male judges who have not “lived that life” (suggesting that some white males could, in fact, bring a similar empathy and/or life experience to the bench).
Fourth, she went out of her way to say that she thought this would be the case “more often than not,” rather than all the time.
Finally, in the next sentence of her speech, Sotomayor went on to specify that she was addressing the dynamics of an appellate court with multiple judges (such as the three-judge and en banc panels on which she sits as an appeals court judge and the Supreme Court), rather than talking about a trial court context in which a single judge presides.
She was referencing the group dynamics on a U.S. Supreme Court of nine justices who converse publicly during oral arguments and privately during conferences over cases. In these settings, who a judge is, in all the ways that matter, undoubtedly affects his or her own thinking about cases as well as that of the other justices.
Does anyone that doubt that Justice Thurgood Marshall’s identity as an African-American male or his experience as a civil rights lawyer shaped his judicial philosophy and influence his fellow justices some of the time? Most watchers of the Supreme Court have similarly concluded that Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have had a great impact on their colleagues in cases of particular interest to women, such as abortion and sex discrimination.
Ultimately, whether, holding other things constant, women of color make “better” judges than white men is an empirical question that we are unable to answer definitively any time soon, given the small numbers of minority judges.
That inquiry itself begs the question of quality explicit in Judge Sotomayor’s comment: What makes one judge better than another? Better for whom? Some political scientists have argued that the appropriate measure is essentially political: Is the judge better for those who elected the president who nominated the Supreme Court justice?
At the end of the day, a judge’s race and gender may have less impact on how she decides a particular case than how the larger public perceives the court on which she sits. In a society in which African-Americans and Hispanics, in particular, report high rates of dissatisfaction and lack of faith in the courts and other criminal justice institutions, the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary has greater relevance.
Of 111 Supreme Court justices, all but four have been white men. It’s past time the nation’s highest court looked more like the nation.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Laura Gómez.