The RaceDoctor Speaks!

By refusing an invitation to a debate that has been on the calendar for several months, republican candidates send several clear messages to the black community.  The strongest message is that “your votes don’t matter.” Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich should be applauded for publicly speaking out in challenging the candidates’ decisions to shun debates for black as well as Latino audiences. It is noteworthy that President Bush said that the eventual nominee should reach out to the African-American community, but he chose to not comment on the candidates’ decision, even though he did comment on the current primary race in other ways.

In addition to being insulting, the candidates’ apparent refusal to debate in specifically communities of color is will have additional ramifications. If the eventual nominee takes the President’s advice and reaches out to communities of color later, many people will remember the current insult.

The fundamental problem is that Republican public officials almost never demonstrate even a basic intellectual and emotional understanding of the way that current and historical racism affects people and society. If they displayed any even partially empathic understanding of the point of view of many black people, many black people would be receptive to their policy positions.

The refusal of the candidates to debate in front of black audiences is ironic, since there are many traditionally conservative positions that have some resonance with black audiences. For instance, compared to whites, blacks are:

• More conservative on abortion
• More likely to think that homosexuality should be discouraged
• More likely to believe that the government should do more to protect morality
• More likely to think it necessary to believe in God to be moral

The media played a negative role in the original trial by framing the issue as though you had to believe that Simpson was innocent and was framed, or that he was guilty and the police did nothing wrong. My personal opinion is that Mr. Simpson did in fact commit the murders, AND that the police committed underhanded tactics in order to ensure a conviction. Given knowledge in the black community that police misconduct is much more common than is often discussed, the media’s framing of the issue tended to enhance racial differences in perceptions. 

As Mr. Simpson has emerged in the news again, some news organizations are publicizing findings that indicate that as many the number of people who think he is guilty has grown from 68% in 1995 to 80% now. Given the well-known racial differences in perceptions around this case, it is disappointing that media outlets seem unwilling to explore what is known about whether the previous racial differences in perceptions may or may not have changed.

My expectation is that people of all types are similarly fatigued by Mr. Simpson and his brushes with the law. It would not be surprising however if racial differences remain about his current troubles. Mr. Simpson has claimed that he constructed his own “sting operation” because the police are unrerponsive to him. Since skepticism about police behavior was one of the strong factors that influenced the racial differences in perception in the original murder case, it is probable that people of color might be understanding of Simpson’s claim of police under-responsiveness.

Although I am a black person who thinks that Mr. Simpson committed the murders, I cannot help but notice what appears to be an excessive amount of anger by white commentators and the white public at Mr. Simpson. If you compare the public opinion about Simpson to other famous celebrity alledged murderers (e.g. Robert Blake, Klaus Van Bulow), there is much less antipathy among white pundits and the general public.

There is a great deal of credit to be shared for this tremendous effort at galvanizing public attention on a very apparent injustice. Internet organizers, nationally syndicated radio hosts, and national civil rights leaders and celebrities should all be very proud of what took place on Thursday.

As these folks and all involve celebrate this success on behalf of the Jena 6, it is important to talk about the most important lessons in this for adapting civil rights era tactics for a 21st century movement towards racial justice and reconciliation. Some lessons important lessons can be learned about how to update these protests.

Proper Linkage to the Underlying Case of Injustice
It was smart of organizers to continue with the rally even after the conviction was overturned. Yet, the day after the rally, a court proceeding about Mr. Bell took place, he was denied bail, and early media reports suggest that no response to this was anticipated by the rally organizers. A prayer vigil with Mr. Bell’s family might have garnered further public attention to this unjust development.

Creativity of Message
A few creative actions by the marchers could have had the effect of communicating important messages to both the town of Jena and the national media. Some potential examples of actions that would might update the message communicated by the rally:

• Putting ribbons representing interracial cooperation at strategic places in Jena
• Sweeping the courthouse steps or the entire downtown to represent getting rid of racism and as a act of service
• Planting a tree of reconciliation to replace the tree that was the original precipitating incident

Improving Media Discourse about Race
Repeatedly, media covering the Jena 6 rally ask town residents and marchers unproductive yes/no questions like: “Is this town racist?” Or “Is the prosecutor racist?” Rally spokespeople and participants need to be trained to leverage this public moment to educate the media about how to deal better with racial issues. Specifically, media asking such questions should be told that this “Racism: Yes or NO?”  question is counterproductive, and spokespeople should teach media to instead ask: How do racial tensions affect this situation?

Educating and Empowering Participants
While the Jena 6 case is particularly egregious, there are sentencing disparities all over this nation. If the march will have maximum impact, the rally should help people become more vibrant members of a network of people and institutions concerned about this issue. So we must ask:  Did the participants leave the march more informed about most compelling facts about disparities, or more capable of raising these issues back home? Are participants more connected to a national communications network of people who can expose other examples of inappropriate police and prosecutorial behavior?

When I read that the NAACP conducted a “funeral” for the N-word at its annual convention in my hometown of Detroit, I went through successive waves of emotions.

I was amused, saddened and finally, agitated.

First, I was amused because this was another unpredictable manifestation of black folks’ irrepressible creativity. My amusement ended when I remembered that some time ago, the civil rights organization had to “temporarily” close offices around the country, which saddened me that a historically vital organization had been reduced to meaningless symbolism. And dare I say it – this “burial” of the NAACP is unlikely to change anyone’s behavior.

With that said, I became agitated at the act of the burial, that if effective, is actually counter-productive to the goal -- which is, namely to help white, black, and other folks talk about and address the myriad racial problems that persist in this country.

As a dialogue expert with a specialty in race relations, I am always on the lookout for hot topics that facilitate the hard conversations that need to happen. Getting rid of -- or should I say, “burying” the N-word -- would eliminate a useful entryway into some important conversations that we as Americans still desperately need to have.

In many different ways, the N-word serves as an important reminder of the remaining work we must do to create a racially-just and reconciled society. Used sparingly, the persistence of the N-word in our collective culture can help us stay mindful of some of the important issues we need to remember if we ever are to create a fully inclusive society.

Thanks to the civil rights movement and the general decrease in overt racial bigotry among white folks, non-blacks rarely throw that word around at black folks like they did 50 years ago. Everyone knows that if someone else -- other than a black person -- uses the term, especially to the face of an African-American, then the N-word is considered “fighting words.”

But interestingly, the word still can emerge from a self-professed, non-prejudiced white person’s mouth when they are upset, disappointed about losing “his or her” opportunity to a black person, or in stressful circumstances. We all remember the flap from last fall regarding the use of the N- word by Seinfield’s Michael Richards.

As a person who facilitates dialogue about race relations, I have heard countless white people discuss their struggle about what to do when others use the term “nigger.” (By the way, who and when was it decided that it should be referred to as “the N-word?”) From a racial reconciliation standpoint, this struggle among white folks about what to do when this word “slips out” is very useful!

In a world where people – especially white folks - are in massive collective denial about the fact that racism and unconscious prejudice still exist among otherwise well-intentioned people, having this word around as a “taboo-release valve” is a reminder of the work that white folks still need to do on themselves.

And among black folks, the N-word can remind us of work we need to do on each other, but in a very different way.

Remember Chris Rock’s famous routine a few years ago with the refrain: “I love black people, but I hate niggers.” This is the way my southern relatives often used this word – as a shorthand to represent a variety of behaviors that black folks do that are self-sabotaging and socially destructive.

Black folks need to talk about anti-intellectualism, irresponsibility, excessive violence, and lack of personal initiative among our brothers and sisters, and simultaneously hold society’s feet to the fire for the widespread institutional racism, community disinvestment, chronic deprivation, and so on.

For my late grandmother, Chris Rock, and tens of millions of other black folks, “nigger” – phonetically “nigga” – can efficiently bring up behaviors of ours that we desperately need to talk about.

Now, for those of you how are wondering: “How can we be angry at white folks for using a word if we use it?” To me, this is as simple-minded as a recent Supreme Court decision, which says using racial categories to promote integration and equality is the moral equivalent of using racial categories to promote segregation and racial disparities. Yes, the history creates an unfair double standard. And talking about that double standard is the perfect time to talk about racialized-double standards, generally.

Sadly, given the scientifically-validated, pervasive level of discrimination or disparity faced by blacks in the domains of housing, employment, the judicial system, health care, income, and family wealth; simply put, racial double standards are pervasive and a fact of life.

If we are paying attention, this “unfair” double standard in language can be a useful for other conversations we need to have about other inequities. And interestingly enough, we might decide that these others issues matter just a little bit more.

I certainly agree with the NAACP that some folks use the N-word far too freely, and we need to educate people about the word, and the history of humiliation and violence that has been associated with it

Like fire, sharp knives, or other tools, the N-word is to be used sparingly and responsibly, as my grandma did. To “bury” a word seems silly and a bit old school in this Internet age. However, if this silly symbolic act can be turned into an authentic dialogue about race-related issues within and between communities, then this “funeral” can turn into something more useful.