Patient. . . and Radical

In sending out a recommendation for our blog last week, one of our Twitter friends, the very thoughtful @readingmachine, described us as "patient," which we took as a high compliment because we try to be measured and thoughtful about our offerings. It led us to consider the degree to which it is difficult to be both radical and patient in this political climate.

It is an appropriate time for us to be a little reflective, as we have just begun our fourth year of us writing this weekly blog. (Interestingly, it was at about this time last year when we felt it necessary to "defin[e] our role.") Of course, much has changed in America since we wrote about the start of the first season of Survivor in 2006, when the "tribes" were divided by race. Much has stayed the same, too. While we were by no means the first online writers to dedicate our space to race and politics, we were among only a small handful of such sites. Now the blogosphere is crowded with smart, thoughtful offerings on the subject. Back then, we had only a handful of readers, most of whom either knew us personally or were former students. We had the odd reader who thought we were full of it, but for the most part, the comments were civil and respectful; folks appreciated what we were doing, even if they disagreed with what we wrote.

But things today are much more heated with respect to our topic. Drew Westen, who is working on the cutting edge of political psychology research, wrote a must-read piece for Huffington Post this week where he explains how race has a way of leading to incivility in the way we communicate with one another. Joe Gerstandt wrote a thoughtful piece about how to find "sweetness," and the White House, which has wisely tried to deescalate the anger all summer by downplaying the role race has played, stayed on message this week, as President Obama suggested that race was not an issue in the opposition to his policies because he "was Black before the election."

To be fair, the overall political climate is probably not, overall, more hostile than it was in the fall of 2006, when progressives were outraged over some of President Bush's policies, but the hostility much more directly centers on race today. So when @readingmachine offered that we were "patient" and @Maevesmom, later in the week, advocated for "relentless etiquette," we were encouraged to reflect on THIS WEEK's events through that lens.

We have taken a bit of heat over the years from folks who are not familiar with (or simply disagree with) the goals and practices of folks who work in higher education. Specifically, we have been accused of being arrogant and elitist because we have consistently argued that it is the responsibility of scholars to be able to see the "big picture." While we cannot dismiss out of hand charges that we are -- individually or as a pair -- arrogant, we would like to offer that most folks in academia (including us) make a fraction of the money that people who went to school half as long make. Perhaps we are sensitive about it, but far from being reflective of self-importance, this fact is either a testament to our dedication to our profession or to our abject stupidity. Our guess is that whichever choice you prefer depends greatly on the degree to which you think we are on the mark with our analysis most weeks.

In any case, we put ourselves out there each week, which makes us a target for criticism, so we understand that withstanding those jabs is part of what we must expect. We explain to our family members who are troubled by such remarks that the attacks are not really personal, but that it is difficult to separate what we are doing from who we are; it is difficult for our critics, and it is difficult for us.

We are expected to be "patient" and to engage in "relentless etiquette"; our critics are not. Those who defend the status quo have always been, by definition, resistant to change. From flat earth defenders to slavery supporters to school integration resisters, there is a perpetual struggle between those pushing for more progress and those who think that we have made enough progress (and that any more would be "reverse discrimination"). But progress is not the same as equality, and while it is uncomfortable for many, those who fight for equality do not and cannot stop at each stage where progress has been made. Intellectual growth, like all growth, requires a tearing down before building back up. In this case, we need to tear down the myths of White supremacy and American meritocracy to expose systemic racism and help folks to understand that the precise use of language related to race is an important factor in determining whether we will continue to move forward or whether we have reached a nadir.

There is a name for such a push: radicalism. Those who seek fundamental changes to the system that created and perpetuates inequality (based on race, sex, etc.) understand that we need radical change. To most Americans, "radical" is synonymous with "extreme," but like "racism" the term has been (perhaps intentionally) diluted by those who wish for it to lose its power. By conflating the term "radical," the etymology of which is "by the root," with "extreme," defenders of the status quo have been able to push advocates for radical social justice to the margins of American political discourse. But if we use a metaphor of weeds, the difference is that we can continue to mow over or "weed whack" those little pesky buggers, or we can get down on our hands and knees, get a little bit dirty, and pull them out by the root so that they never grow back. That's radical, and that's what is needed to bring about social justice. (What that means in policy terms, however, is subject to debate and beyond the scope of this article.)

So is it possible to be patient and radical?

We hope so.

For the past eight years, we have engaged in social science research to help others (and ourselves) more fully understand the complexities of racism in American politics, particularly the ways that it is reflected in and moved along by language. But we started The Project on Race in Political Communication as a "project" because we always had a vision for our work that transcended the confines of the narrow academic communities within which we work. Part of our mission is to "share [scholarly] information with the mass public in an accessible way," which we do each week in this space.

Beginning this past summer, we also began to provide a place for folks to gather and discuss these issues (on our Facebook page and via our Twitter feed). In all of these endeavors, we have tried to create online space with an academic atmosphere that is a departure from most of the other politically-oriented online environments. To be fair, we have had some problems getting folks to appreciate that one must adjust one's behavior to the context. Just like we would not welcome the sort of screaming matches that characterize cable television news in our classrooms, we expect civil and respectful exchanges of ideas in our online learning communities. The physical space and power differentials that occur naturally in our classrooms make such expectations relatively easy to manage; online, however, it is much more difficult. Just this week, we were forced to issue a call for civility on our Facebook page because we began to notice that the sarcasm and "gotcha" comments that are so prominent in other online settings were starting to seep in. There are nearly 1,000 teacher-learners who look to that page for information and commentary on issues relating to race, politics and language, and we want to be sure to provide a safe environment for the thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas without fear of bullying.

So while we appreciate that passions are running high, it is important to point out that academics do, in fact, have commitments and responsibilities that differ from non-academics, and that among them, being at once patient and radical is important.

Academics must view the world differently than journalists, who in turn must view the world differently from those who have no training in journalism. Just this week, Talking Points Memo writer Glenn Thrush had to apologize for taking a document sent to him by a political operative and including it in one of his columns without carefully checking the content. He appropriately noted that the responsibility did not rest with the party leader who sent him the information; that person's job is to spin, persuade and manipulate. While we can argue that everyone has a responsibility to be "truthful," the art of politics is about constructing reality, so we probably won't get too far with that argument. Journalists, however, have a responsibility of pulling back, checking sources, and striving for objectivity (which should not be confused with neutrality).

Academics have yet a different set of expectations. First, with respect to our research, the (often double-blind) peer review process is the step of the scientific method that is designed to ensure that the rigor that is expected in terms of methodology and theoretical development is reflected in our publications. Not long ago, one of our online critics rhetorically asked of a blog entry, "so this passes for academic rigor?" Certainly not! There is less editorial oversight for blogs than there is for media publications, let along academic publications. The work we do here does not significantly contribute to the professional evaluation of our work or promotion at our respective institutions, and it certainly would not pass for "scholarship" at either North Central College or New York University. What we offer here is an application of social scientific scholarship to current events. The peer review process moves (by design) much more slowly. Part of the challenge of teaching students in the 21st century is helping them to weigh information appropriately. If one of our blogs was listed as a scholarly source on a paper, we would certainly deduct points.

Second, as teachers we have a different set of expectations than those who are not teachers. Mark Edmundson wrote an excellent piece for the New York Times this week wherein he very eloquently explains why teachers must view the world differently from others:

Because really good teaching is about not seeing the world the way that everyone else does. Teaching is about being what people are now prone to call “counterintuitive” but to the teacher means simply being honest. The historian sees the election not through the latest news blast but in the context of presidential politics from George Washington to the present. The biologist sees a natural world that’s not calmly picturesque but a jostling, striving, evolving contest of creatures in quest of reproduction and survival. The literature professor won’t accept the current run of standard clichés but demands bursting metaphors and ironies of an insinuatingly serpentine sort. The philosopher demands an argument as escapeproof as an iron box: what currently passes for logic makes him want to grasp himself by the hair and yank himself out of his seat.

[. . . ]

Good teachers know that now, in what’s called the civilized world, the great enemy of knowledge isn’t ignorance, though ignorance will do in a pinch. The great enemy of knowledge is knowingness. It’s the feeling encouraged by TV and movies and the Internet that you’re on top of things and in charge. You’re hip and always know what’s up. Cool — James Dean-style cool — was once the sign of the rebel. But the tables have turned: conformity and cool have merged. The cool character now is the knowing one; even when he’s unconventional, he’s never surprising — and most of all, he’s never surprised. Good teachers, by contrast, are constantly fighting against knowingness by asking questions, creating difficulties, raising perplexities. And they’re constantly dramatizing their own aversion to knowingness in the way they walk and talk and dress — in their willingness to go the Lester Bangs route.

To be clear: we do not believe that Rachel Maddow, Glenn Beck, Keith Olberman or Rush Limbaugh have to adhere to any of the standards that we have explained herein. They are not scholars in the formal sense (though they are all quite bright), and they are not even journalists in their current roles. They can choose to be radical, or they can choose not to be. They can choose to be patient, or they can choose not to be. Their decisions on these elements must be driven by their personal preferences and motivations, not by any external standards that should be applied to them. That is not the case with us.

Like anyone who cares, we get angry, too. We just do not feel as if it is appropriate to bring that personal anger into any of the Race Project spaces without filtering it through our training and "the big picture." That is one of the reasons that, despite calls to publish here more frequently, we have resisted. We think that the ability to step back and not write quickly contributes to our ability to be patient. What we personally think -- as citizens -- is important, but it is only equally important to the thoughts of every other American. Our degrees and training and the fact that we have an audience does not translate into advanced moral worth or importance. To be sure, if we thought that way, we would, indeed, be quite arrogant. What we do is not "better" than what Lou Dobbs does; it is, however, different.

Of course, as someone pointed out on Twitter a few weeks ago, only those who have relative privilege have the luxury of "patience"; for many Americans who are on the business end of systemic oppression, real justice has been far too long in coming. Further, those who feel as if the power and relatively privilege that they have always knows is being threatened are also understandably impatient and anxious. In our middle-class positions, we can be patient with those who are not patient with us, even as we are impatient with how slowly progress is being made. It is a luxury we do not take for granted.

At the end of the day, folks who like the heat of battle and engaging in arguments rather than productive discourse can find literally thousands of such places online and, most recently, at town hall meetings. We hope, however, that folks who are looking for radical ideas that are presented with patience, will find a comfortable and supportive environment with us in the spaces we provide.

(Another) Busy Week in Race

It seems as if we have been saying this a lot lately, but it really was a very busy WEEK IN RACE. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court gave us an opportunity to examine some of our most pressing national issues related to race and equality, including affirmative action. Combined with the 100th anniversary of the NAACP, the Young Republicans' national convention, and the appointment of an African American woman, Dr. Regina Benjamin, as U.S. Surgeon General, as well as some other issues scattered throughout the week, there is an awful lot to analyze.

Still, we always seek to provide thorough but relatively brief analysis of the week's events, so we will not take too much of your time. If you would like to have more timely updates of events and analysis, we encourage you to become a fan of the all-new RaceProject Facebook Page. Doing so will allow you to have the most recent news and commentary appear on your Facebook News Feed. If you'd rather not have that much contact from us, simply bookmark the page and visit when you have a chance.

THIS WEEK, Charlton penned an op-ed for Newsday in which he briefly traces the history of racism and explains the ways that it applies in the contemporary context. Specifically, he noted that term has come to embody vastly different connotations as folks strive to use it against anyone who disagrees with them in a way that is racially relevant.

Take the Sotomayor hearings as an example.

As students of racial communication, we focused on the degree to which stereotypes of Latinas surfaced. And did they ever! As expected (and as predicted by conservatives' and Obama opponents' response to Sotomayor in the weeks since the nomination), there was a lot of attention given to the judge's speeches over the past couple of decades, as well as her rulings. Her now-famous "wise Latina" comment was mentioned by most Republican Senators on the Committee, including ranking member Jeff Sessions (over and over and over again) and minority whip Jon Kyle. Senator Lindsey Graham asked Sotomayor if she had a temperament problem (the fiery Latina stereotype and the angry minority stereotype), and Tom Coburn joked with Sotomayor that she'd "have a whole lot of 'splainin' to do," reminding us of that omnipresent one-dimensional caricature of Hispanics, Ricky Ricardo, from the 1050s classic television series I Love Lucy.

Believe it or not, the racial rhetoric actually got worse THIS WEEK. During a House debate on health care reform, Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tiahrt suggested that having cost-free access to abortions could provide incentive for women to terminate pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to full term. He wondered aloud about the great leaders whose mothers might have aborted them. The only two examples he gave: African Americans Barack Obama and Clarence Thomas.

As the great comedy writer Dave Barry says, we could not make this up.

Progressives weighed in throughout the hearings, attempting to point out where racialized language was being used. We were reminded more than once about the ways that opposition to civil rights has characterized much of Senator Sessions' career. Indeed, Sessions was arguably the most notable Senator to use race in his questioning of Sotomayor. At one point, he suggested that she could have voted differently on a case by noting that another judge of Puerto Rican descent voted with the other side.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pointed out the racism during a CNN interview with Senator Sessions in attendance. The exchange is worth watching.

To put things into context, Melissa Harris-Lacewell put forth a thoughtful reflection of what was really happening at the Sotomayor hearings. She argues that since the Republicans do not have the votes to stop the nomination, it was all about public humiliation for Sotomayor, which has been a consistent aspect of American racism.

The comics had a field day over the course of the week, too, by exposing implicit racism. See Jon Stewart's brilliant "White Men Can't Judge" piece below or here, for instance.

On a slightly different note, Elon James White really has blossomed as a politically astute comic over the past two weeks through his This Week in Blackness multimedia website and his tweets @elonjames. His piece ("Why You So Black?") that was reprinted at Huffington Post explores how he came to do racial humor, even though he did not wish to do so.

We definitely understand where he is coming from. While we study race with less reluctance, it has certainly been overwhelming for us to try to distill so much racial communication each week. Take a look at what we have to work with. In addition to all the happenings in the official corridors of power THIS WEEK, Pat Buchanan continued his efforts to defend the rights of the oppressed White man. First, he offered a strategy for the GOP that actually included accelerating the racial attacks on Judge Sotomayor, and then he unleashed a rant on The Rachel Maddow show that would have been almost unbelievable if it had come from anyone other than Buchanan (or perhaps Tucker Carlson). Watch below or here. (Maddow had promised via Twitter to refute the points one-by-one on Friday, but the unfortunate passing of Walter Cronkite understandably altered those plans. Tune in tonight at 9pm EDT to MSNBC to see if she gets to it.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

We focus so much attention in this space on implicit racism because we feel it is important to point out where and when it surfaces to show that none of us is immune to such latent resentments that have been programmed into our subconscious throughout our socialization. But incidents of overt bigotry such as this should not go unnoticed. LIFE magazine released a small but chilling set of pictures THIS WEEK taken at modern gatherings of the Ku Klux Klan that we strongly recommend.

Of course, one does not have to be as crass as Buchanan or as sickening as a KKK member to embrace racial resentments or to allow such resentments to continue to affect our public policy. President Obama's speech to the NAACP on the occasion of the organization's 100th anniversary contained a great deal of thoughtful rhetoric about how systemic racism continues to operate. We had to shake our heads when, seconds after the speech ended, CNN's Lou Dobbs complained that the speech "could have been given 4o years ago." A more sophisticated view of the speech reveals that Obama spent a great deal of time talking about the progress that has been made and (to some criticism) about how personal responsibility has to be part of the equation (Jesse Jackson was not heard anywhere threatening to castrate the president this time, however). But he was very clear (in the speech and with the Black press beforehand) about how much work is left to be done -- apparently this is work with which Dobbs is no more willing than Pat Buchanan to help.

Finally, we want to update our discussion of the controversy in the election for president of the national Young Republicans. Audra Shay, who was accused of bigotry (and who some conservatives and many progressives urged should be defeated), won the election. At the convention, Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele was asked about how he was going to increase diversity in the party. Steele's answer got a lot of attention, and we wanted to take just a moment to provide our analysis.

Steele started to answer the question by saying that everyone is invited into the Party: "My plan is to say 'Ya'll come.'" That got some laughs (presumably because of the direct nature of the answer), and Steele continued "cuz a lot of you are already here." At that point, someone is heard to say "I'll bring the collard greens." It's impossible to tell for sure if it is the person who asked the question (who appeared to be African American) or someone else, but Steele responds lightheartedly (and laughing) by saying, "There you go. I got the fried chicken and potato salad."



There are a number of ways to read this. First, if Steele was not Black, we would predictably be all over the comment as an improper play on a stereotype of African American culture. But he is, which means that he has license to invoke such messages for effect because he cannot personally benefit from the resentment among Whites that such stereotypes activate (though his Party might benefit by perceptions of Steele being self-loathing or not "really Black."). It's possible that Steele was making fun of the question, suggesting that because he is Black he is presumed to spend all his time figuring out ways to get "people like him" into the Party. More likely, though, he was at once dismissing the comment as presumptuous but also playing along to be polite and affable. This is particularly likely if, in fact, the person who made the comment was African American. In that case, Steele is making an attempt at demonstrating solidarity with the presumably like minded conservative with whom he shares an ethnic heritage.

But Steele's remarks (and the response to it) cannot be examined in isolation. In the greater context of all that has happened in the past two weeks with respect to explicit racism (i.e., the suburban Philadelphia pool situation has continued to remain in the news) and implicit racism, Steele certainly understands that Republicans are not on track to be picking up support from racial minorities. The degree of insensitivity that was on display during the Sotomayor hearings and the flat-out resentment that was visible in conservative commentators' critiques of Sotomayor specifically and affirmative action generally only makes that part of Steele's job more difficult.

If, in fact, Steele was chosen at least in part as a symbolic gesture that the GOP does not embrace bigotry, he is going to need a little help from his friends -- no matter what sort of picnic food he decides to serve.

Thanks to Our Vets and Current Military Service Members

Memorial Day is, of course, the unofficial start of summer, a day off work for many (but certainly not all), and a chance to bust out that grill, and it is an opportunity to reflect on the women and men who have served in the American military. At a time when Americans are in harm's way in a number of places, we may not need a holiday as much as we do during peaceful times, but it gives us an excuse to discuss the contributions of persons of color -- persons who have a unique perspective on what it means to be American.

In 2007, there were 2.4 million single-race Black military service members in the United States. That year, the Boston Globe reported that while the number of Black enlistees had dropped some 58% since 2000, "the percentage of blacks in the military still slightly exceeds that of the general population: 14.5 percent in the military, as of 2005, versus 12.8 percent in the U.S. population." Hispanics are underrepresented in the military, but their participation is increasing; they comprised 13.5 percent of the military in 2007 (as compared to 15% in the U.S. population). There were more than a quarter of a million Asian Americans serving in 2005, and there are approximately 185,000 Native American veterans in the U.S. (For a detailed analysis of race/ethnicity and military service, download this 2004 [.pdf] document from the Population Reference Bureau.) There are organizations dedicated to African American Veterans, Hispanic Veterans, Asian American Veterans and Native American veterans.

It has been said that in military service, there is no Black, White or Brown -- there is only Red, White and Blue. We agree with that sentiment, but, as always, it is a bit more complicated than that.

First, it is no secret that our voluntary military disproportionately attracts young men and women with few other options (though see this report from the Heritage Foundation, which argues against a draft to rectify this imbalance). In 2005, UPI reported that "[n]early two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. . . . According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits [in 2004] had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average." Young high school graduates who are not qualified to attend college or cannot afford to do so find few jobs available that provide opportunities for sustenance. Black and Latino families face rates of poverty in America that are disproportionate to those of Whites.

Second, while service to country is admirable under any circumstances and putting oneself in harm's way for a cause beyond one's own self interest is laudable irrespective of race or ethnicity, it is particularly admirable for persons to voluntarily serve a country that has been historically hostile at worst and indifferent at best to groups with which they identify (LGBT Americans are similarly situated in this regard).

I got a letter from the government
The other day
I opened and read it
It said they were suckers
They wanted me for their army or whatever
Picture me given a damn - I said "never"
Here is a land that never gave a damn
About a brother like me and myself
Because they never did
I wasn't with it, but just that very minute
It occurred to me
The suckers had authority
[...]
They could not understand that I'm a black man
And I could never be a veteran
-- Public Enemy, "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos" (1988)

So while you are firing up that grill, taking that first swim in the public pool, or otherwise participating in Memorial Day festivities, we join those who urge us to remember why we are asked to pause and reflect. It is not about some blind obedience to a flag (or even what it represents) or the unwavering support for our elected leaders (even when they are making bad choices); it is about the individual and collective lives of those who choose to serve. The most conservative among us understands that if the government has any role at all, it is in national defense. The most progressive among us understands that the military is an indispensable element of a modern democratic society that is often instrumental in helping people around the globe. The men and women who put on (and have put on) a U.S. military uniform each day, many of whom sacrifice their lives on a regular basis, come from all ethnic and racial backgrounds, but share a fundamental commitment to the only identification that should come before country: humanity.

See this page for an archive of African American military service since the Revolutionary War and this page for historical information compiled by the U.S. Army. The Army has also developed this page for information about the history of Hispanic service, this page for information about Asian Americans' service, and this page for information about Native Americans' service.