This Year in Feedback

Last December, we ended the calendar year with a tribute to you, our readers. We do the same this year – our first full year of blogging – in the same fashion, by reprinting your comments about our blogs throughout the year. Some were thoughtful; others not as much. Some were complimentary; others not so much. Most were posted in this space, but some appeared on a Facebook group page dedicated to the situation at the University of Delaware. We provide a sampling of all types below, with no editing. Happy New Year!

Tee Hill said...

Very good interview and observations. I'm doing a persuasive speech research paper at LASWC. I started to argue the point of pros of the word use. I thought that the word should not be banned not because of the freedom of speech, but because we as black culture should be able to create our own words and meanings to them. But as I continued my research, I found that the word breeds hatred, anger, hostility, and breaths live into negativity. Like every word in the English language, it has an origin. This word comes from hate and now it is America's responsibility to create a better word. Right now, that word is African-American.

2/12/07 10:20 PM

Anonymous said...

"This is what Al Sharpton and others have been trying to get us to understand"

Are you fucking serious?

14/4/07 1:47 PM

Chet said...

It's not at all logically necessary or clear that Gingrich was referring to Spanish specifically, as you assert.

It appears he was referring to the economic costs of any immigrant not learning the local tongues.

Indeed, while "Ghetto's" etymology may be Yiddish, its modern connotation is more African-American than hispanic. Nonetheless, it can imply a racial meaning and can imply a non-racial one (white people live in ghettos too), there is no logical necessity for your assumption, other than you want it to be so so you can bring down Newt.

Speak about contrived. You oppose language immersion - is anyone who supports it necessarily racist?

I've noticed an even more offensive stretch or strawman you've created.

You place this assumption into Gingrich's alleged views:

"...and the public sector (i.e., schools) has no obligation to help them."

I'm certain Gingrich wouldn't subscribe to such ridiculous strawman.

There's a vast difference between the state's "obligation" to help individuals in need, and catering to every conceivable individual desire. There's also a difference of opinion as to whether full-immersion is actually "better" help than fully-bilingual programs.

The state obviously has a moral obligation to help immigrants, or even illegals, equally, if, say, a firefighter shows up at a building that is known to house immigrants (or anyone), or in the enforcement of law. Where immigrants have children with language difficulty, the state obviously has an obligation to provide education (though how it provides it is a question open to empirical research). There may also be a limited obligation of the state to provide some limited physical needs for those in physical need, but I don't see the state as obligated to provide ballots in every conceivable language (or even more than one language). The person's life or liberty does not depend on it (voting is still very possible through an interpreter, etc.). For if you provide it in one, why not all 200 languages? Do we print a second (or 14th) set of traffic signs? The costs to society become ridiculous.

"Obligations to help" exist, but in some situations you give more aid by letting people become independent.

16/4/07 6:39 AM

Anonymous said...

Wow, that was such an interesting take on the [Tavis Smiley All-
American Forum for the Democratic presidential candidates]. Thanks.

30/6/07 11:41 PM

mimi said...

I've been seeing the link for this video for days and just decided to click on it. What's next? Watching people masturbate on youtube to the object of their fantasies? I think this is an invasion of privacy. So she has a crush on Obama! Who doesn't have a crush on some public figure/celebrity? What's with our exhibitionist/voyeur society that we now have to share our inner most thoughts/feelings with the entire Universe? This man is running for President. It's bad enough the dignity of this office has been so comprimised by the idiot now holding the office, now we have groupie fantasy videos taped and posted on youtube. We're headed in the wrong direction people... the wrong direction!!!

16/6/07 11:57 AM

Blogger Jeremiah said...

After looking at the video my first thought was "man this is going to hurt his campaign" then I asked myself why do "black" people always have to be attached to public, sexually explicit, lust-ladened fantasies? I cant answer that question nor do I want to. What I think is important is how the american public respond to this because I think it illustrates what we as a nation are concerned with.

17/6/07 4:04 PM

Bonnie in Albuquerque said...

This is interesting as here in New Mexico there were three students denied access to their graduation ceremony because they were late. The girls were native american and hispanic. The news coverage alluded to the fact that everyone else had gotten there on time and that they knew that if they were late they would not be allowed in. They mentioned that for some people "being on time" is not important and also that people can't take the "living in the land of manana" so seriously. There were several white people though that ran in at the last minute and were accomodated. The way the news and the comments made it sound was that it was assumed that the stereotype of the "lazy mexican" was true and that they needed to be taught how to be on time. The "lazy" stereotype is also very prominent for the native community. During my teaching in the teacher ed program I was often told to teach my student teachers how to handle the "laziness" of some of their students.

I find it very disturbing how people buy into these stereotypes when they just keep perpetuating racism. I am constantly calling people out for buying into these stereotypes, which does not make people too happy, but at least starts the dialogue.

4/6/07 1:44 PM

Anonymous said...

This article is wrong on so many levels. Dog fighting was started by rich white men. It isn't just part of counter-culture and it isn't right no matter where you come from. It is cruel, vicious, and disgusting. It shouldn't be glamorized in the hip-hop community and African-Americans shouldn't associate themselves with it. Vick is a multi-millionare so your remark about trying to get ahead makes no sense in his case. You are making excuses for him doing something no sane person would do.

19/7/07 12:30 PM

Blogger mmoe said...

no, you're wrong [in response to the comment above].
1. Dogfighting traces its history to ancient Roman coliseums. It was part of many cultures through history especially in England up until the 19th century. It became part of the U.S. culture in the early 20th century until the popularity declined in the 1950's to the 1970's. Since it has revitalized in the past few decades it has become completely recultured into what it is today. Yeah, maybe it was started by rich white men--500 years ago. Does it even matter anyway how it started-- the culture is now has established its roots and context.
2. Dogfighting IS cruel, vicious, and disgusting. This isn't promoting dogfighting, and the disgustingness of dogfighting is quite irrelevent. This article is about why dogfighting is so homogenously affiliated with black people.
3. Again, you're right dogfighting shouldn't be glamorized. You're talking about what SHOULD happen. this isn't about what SHOULD happen, it's trying to figure out WHY something IS happening.
4. Did you even read the post?? "Michael VIck is a multi-millionaire so the part about getting ahead makes no sense" They're talking about how excessive display of money by wealthy black people is a display of how they've beat the odds. Dogfighting, in this sense, is comparable to bling. Michael Vick uses dogfighting as a means to show off his wealth and power after growing up with very little of either.
I think this post is very interesting, especially because more recently there have been more investigations, and it has become very much more likely that Michael Vick be banned from the NFL.

30/7/07 1:14 AM

Blogger lindros2 said...

Isn't Gerald Poindexter black? So if you think the "19th century is alive," blame the stupid black attorney for calling one of his own a "boy."

Funny if it was a white person calling Vick a "boy" there would be riots and looting.

25/9/07 12:40 PM

Anonymous said...

Silent Racism refers to the negative stereotypes in people's minds about African Americans or other people of color. Elvis surely had many negative stereotypes about blacks, especially poor ones, and they found their way into his music.

Whether he was a bigot, a racist, or both, Elvis was like all white people, including those who are well-meaning like myself. He learned negative stereotypes from the culture he lived in, and he expressed those stereotypes, probably without even knowing it.

22/10/07 3:07 PM

Anonymous said...

You're just a dumb-ass fan who can't see the excitement of the sport. Trash talking is nothing personal it's only a competition. If you played football then you'll know what I'm talking about

29/11/07 12:25 PM

Blogger Jeremiah said...

Unfortunately black folks don't get the attention they deserve or their needs met......throughout history! Independents in NY are asking for a debate between Hillary and Obama in Harlem. Who decided Hillary is best for black people? Who decided that Independents are best for black people? As much as we want society to be inclusive rather than exclusionary productive rather than destructive at the end of the day it's up to the individual. Its up to the individual to decide whats best for themselves given the options presented. In my experience too many things have similarities while every thing identifies itself as the other or different. I've seen this in political parties, I've been observing this in people (subjectively and objectively) and as I look back it I've always noticed this. There needs to be a paradoxical paradigm shift if change should truly proceed. History hasn't shown that much of change in my experience. Okay, now I can go to school with colored and white children but I can still be called a nigger, by my teacher and class mate. I have access to things institutionally speaking but somehow it's always at arms distance just like wealth and equity no matter how I perform. Maybe GOP candidates can have a debate and have it translated in pig Latin and Ebonics so black folks can watch. Now that's an inclusive tactic.

17/9/07 9:01 PM

Blogger Mozart said...

I feel like it's so easy for a poet/rapper to say black men are crappy "Read a Mothafu-- book", when in actuality this artist is partaking in black defeatism. Which is ragging on black men for something that isn't solely their fault. Take a look at this video by carlos andres gomez which touches on what I'm talking about

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gCQA-6vtS2U

27/11/07 9:06 AM

David Faustino said...

"1) As a group, whites have benefited by the use of the n-word, so we should not be involved in the discussion about whether black folks should use it. Any attempt to do so is intellectual colonialism."

Oh my a paradox! The white debater inadvertently self identifies as an intellectual colonialist by participating in a debate. Thereby disqualifying himself from even participating in the debate.

Stop telling people what to think. It makes you look silly and its very rude!

1/11/07 1:18 PM

Blogger Summer said...

I am absolutely thrilled with this blog entry. Thank you for providing a thoughtful and intelligent analysis of [the University of Delaware] situation.

4/11/07 11:18 PM

Anonymous said...

This is the most clear, informed, sane article that I've had the privileged to read regarding the situation at the University of Delaware.

Thank you for your work and your opinion. Let us hope that this is resolved reasonably.

-Anon

4/11/07 11:27 PM

Anonymous said...

i really must applaud you for writing the first article i've seen that intelligently and fairly paints a picture of what is really at work here. the goals of this program are being distorted so disgustingly by a story hungry media and an exceedingly biased and outrageous organization. its unfortunate that so many people seem very eager to jump on an uninformed bandwagon.

thank you again so much

5/11/07 12:00 AM

Anonymous said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Finally, an intelligent and informed analysis of the situation at hand. Not only are your comments spot on, but your support for our program is refreshing. The issues at UD go much deeper than diversity training in Residence Life. Just take a look at Linda Gottfredson's work - need I say more?

There is not only light at the end of the tunnel, there is a waterfall that will soon put out the FIRE.

5/11/07 12:44 AM

Anonymous said...

Thank you for being honest.
Thank you for being rational.
Thank you for being supportive.

Thank you for hope.

5/11/07 10:13 AM

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with that has been said about the university of delaware on your blog. As a former student I faced these programs and despite what you claim students are required to attend and participate. It is an incredibly peer-pressure filled situation and simply not the way to go about exposing students to diversity. Students on each floor are gathered and specfic questions are asked. For example if you are homophobic please stand up. why should students be subjected to such humiliation its utterly ridiculous and while I believe that a program can be beneficial the current one at UD needs to be seriously reviewed.

6/11/07 1:32 PM

[An attack on Stephen by a student at the University of Delaware on the Facebook group page]:

in additon i am disgusted by your smearing of me as unintlligent, and i dont say this to many i dont know but you are a hateful and dispicable person and it is no suprise u support this program, you have a bone to pick with someone buddy but keep it out of UD.

ill leave this racist hateful man with 2 comments
1. President Bush's cabinet is the most diverse in history
2. "those who cant debate, defame--Kahane"

i have nothing against diversity as a personal initaitive but mandating it publicly is not permissible, and it is an ideology.

and the point is that ive argued you so this isnt "inarguable"

i also have the problem with the program that much of this so called inequality, isonly solvable by economic reform which can be attained by electing the right representatives into office, but you may dissagree

AND THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE THE PROGRAM because people dissagree on these things yet a public program asserts them

but sir you are a dispicable human being who seems like he hates this country, and its really unfortunate that you have devoted your life to such low work.

i hope you learn your goals are unattainable until you look at the big picture

ryan

ps. maybe you would still have reasonable political views if you got out of the ivory tower and had some fiscal responsibility and a taste of real life

[From the same student, in response to our blog on the U of D situation]:

the people who support this program are hateful paranoid and disgusting

i dont understand how you put up with this crap

dont you understand they are flat out calling you racist??????

[He actually called us “douchebags,” but it appears that the insult was deleted by him or by the administrator at some point.]

What We've Learned This Year

We’ll save next week – our last blog of the year – for the much anticipated "reader response" blog. This week, we want to direct our attention to what we have learned with respect to race and political communication this year.

It’s been a busy one to be certain. We’ve offered you some 50 blogs since 2007 rolled in, each of them focusing on current issues involving the way language and power have intersected with race to shape the way we think about racial difference in America. We’re sometimes asked if it is difficult to come up with new topics each week. A glance through the high-salience topics we’ve tackled reveals the answer: we definitely do not have to dig deep in any given week to find issues worthy of our attention.

[Rather than hyperlink each blog, which would make the text difficult to read, we refer interested readers to the archive links to the right for access to individual blog entries.]

We started the year by reviewing the satirical website "Black People Love Us," noting that the use of racial topics in satire always runs the risk of misunderstanding when the joke isn’t realized and the text is read literally. Later in January, a Fox affiliate mistakenly used pictures of Barack Obama when reporting on a story about a sex offender. The month ended with two black coaches in the Super Bowl (which Tony Dungy and his Indianapolis Colts won).

February brought Joe Biden’s comments about Obama being clean and articulate, as well as 17-year-old Kiri Davis’s film replicating Kenneth Clark’s experiment from sixty years ago, both of which found that little black girls preferred playing with white dolls rather than dolls that looked like them. The month also brought forth what would be a recurring theme in the Democratic presidential nominations – is Barack Obama too black or not black enough? Finally, we commented on an event by College Republicans at New York University where the white students played border patrol agents to bring awareness to the issue of illegal immigration.

March came in like a lion and out like a lamb. We unveiled our differences about who should be able to use the n-word in a blog about New York City’s symbolic banning of the word. Little did we know that we’d be asked to develop those arguments more fully and present them before hundreds gathered at college events by the end of the year. Stephen waxed psychoanalytic about criticism of Obama’s financial dealings, and then we discussed Bill Richardson’s role as the first Hispanic presidential candidate in the running for a major party nomination. We tackled a complex web of "otherness" with respect to reports about polygamy, but finished the month giving President Bush some modest praise about his honoring of the Tuskegee Airmen from WWII.

In April, we wrote about racist comments by Newt Gingrich, Don Imus, Tommy Thompson and the Indiana Secretary of State. That month also brought us a public debate among the Democratic presidential candidates that featured a good deal of explicit and implicit racial language.

May started off with more racist comments, this time by Fox News commentator John Gibson. We discussed a report that found racial bias in National Basketball Association refereeing and a serious interview with Barack Obama that centered largely on race. We finished the month commenting on a Rolling Stone magazine feature about a gay white comic who takes the stage as a black woman named Shirley Q. Liquor.

And then came the summer. Oh, the summer! Topics ranged from five black high school students being denied diplomas because of rowdy behavior by their friends and family in the audience, Obama noting a "quiet riot" in African American culture, Obama Girl’s crush (which is getting a lot of milage in the year-end wrap-ups, by the way), the Obama campaign’s racist comments about Hillary Clinton’s ties to the Indian-American community, and Tavis Smiley’s All-American forum for the Democratic candidates. We dealt with the breaking story about Michael Vick’s ties to the dog fighting ring (for which he has recently been sentenced to nearly two years in prison), more banning of the n-word, and the "on the down low" phenomenon among black males who engage in homosexual sex acts in secret. To that end, we explored the complexities at the intersection of sexuality and race in 21st Century America. Football great Michael Irvin was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and Stephen wrestled with his own racism as he unpacked his distaste for the former Dallas Cowboy wide receiver. We stayed with popular culture by examining the demonizing of Barry Bonds and Elvis Presley’s racial legacy after the release of Lisa Marie Presley’s remake of "In the Ghetto," which features a duet with her father. Very few candidates showed up at a debate organized by American Indians, and we commented on the lack of attention paid (by us, as well as the candidates) to this racial minority group.

The weather started to cool by September, but the racial discourse did not. Black men were encouraged to "read a book," and leading Republican presidential candidates decided to skip Tavis Smiley’s All American forum for their Party’s hopefuls. In Chicago, there were suggestions of racism with respect to objections to the Children’s Museum moving to Grant Park, and Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly had dinner at a soul food restaurant in Harlem where the other patrons were very well behaved.

October brought more attention to the symbolic acts of bigotry around the country, as nooses and other items designed to intimidate African Americans were found in places from Jena, Louisiana to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Hempstead, New York. The Cherokee nation revoked citizenship of its African American members, and Louisiana elected its first non-white governor (Republican Bobby Jindal) since Reconstruction. We got involved in the racist bullying of a not-for-profit group aiming to shut down a diversity education program at the University of Delaware (we were subsequently called "douchebags" – more on that next week), and Dog the Bounty Hunter was caught on tape in a bigoted rant about his son’s black girlfriend. We closed November by reporting on a bill before Congress that would use language as a surrogate for national origin with respect to dictating which cases the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can pursue.

Finally, we discussed Republican scraps over immigration, Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement and subsequent campaigning for Barack Obama, hate crimes at Northern Illinois University, police brutality in Chicago, the housing crash, and, just last week, Cynthia McKinney’s decision to run for president in 2008 as a Green Party candidate.

In addition to scholarly meetings we attended on our own, we attended a number of important conferences together (and with RaceProject research assistants) this past year: National Communication Association in November, International Communication Association in May, Midwest Political Science Association in April, and the American Political Science Association over Labor Day weekend. On occasion in this space, we tried to offer a glimpse into the most cutting edge social science research on race and political communication when we found exciting work being done.

As we gear up for the presidential elections in 2008, we will continue to tirelessly work to bring you accessible commentary on issues of race, politics and language, informed by scholarly theory and empirical research. We wish to thank our loyal readers, our RSS feed and email subscribers, and those of you who took the time to comment on our various posts. As promised, we will reprise last year’s popular end-of-year blog featuring those responses.

Happy Holidays!

Keeping It Real: McKinney Goes Green, Sharpton Goes Red and Oprah Goes Black(er)

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has agreed to be the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2008. Claiming that the Democratic Party (her former party) has "left so many of its base supporters behind," McKinney said that she accepted the Party's invitation this year after being wooed by them in both 2000 and 2004. Her announcement was greeted with very little fanfare from the national press, and leading Democratic presidential candidates did not even blink. Her candidacy has the potential, of course, of drawing votes away from the Democratic nominee in key states -- something that Green Party presidential candidate (2000) and independent presidential candidate (2004) was accused of doing. It is widely believed that both of Nader's candidacies helped George W. Bush win the Electoral College vote by siphoning off would-be Democratic votes in key states. So why is McKinney's candidacy not a source of concern?

Frankly, she is not being taken seriously. McKinney is a straight-talking progressive with a controversial record. She was able to win in Georgia's 4th (previously 11th) Congressional district (which was once majority-minority and always majority-Democratic), but she faced a surprising and rare defeat in her own party's primary in 2002 and again in 2006 after she won the seat back in 2004. Unlike Ralph Nader, who had widespread appeal (including many whites, who make up the majority of the electorate), McKinney will have a difficult time carving off much of the Democratic vote, irrespective of which candidate secures the nomination. Particuarly in a post-Nader world, progressives who vote in 2008 will stay loyal to the Democratic candidate. Any votes McKinney gets will likley be voters who would not have voted otherwise. Thus, there is little danger of her "spoiling" the election for the Democrats. (They'll have to goof it up all by themselves this time.)

Also in the news this week was the Rev. Al Sharpton, who ran for president (but as a Democrat) in 2004. We find the current controversy to be an outrage. While Shapton is certaily a controversial figure and has made mistakes in the past (see his involvement in the Tawana Brawley fiasco), this latest allegation is ridiculous. Sharpton is caught on an FBI hidden camera agreeing to help a potential fundraiser win a business contract if the businessman agrees to raise money for Sharpton's presidential campaign. Far from being a bribe (Shapton is not as was not an elected official), the deal was a typical political exchange. There was no blackmail, no threats, and no deception. The fact that Sharpton is black makes the narrative of corruption easier to believe given American predispositions to equate African Americans with lack of honesty, shady dealings, and inability to play by the rules. (We are reminded of a ten-second campaign commercial against Harvey Gantt, an African American former mayor of Charltotte, North Carolina who challenged incumbent Senator Jesse Helms in 1990 and 1996. In this spot, Gantt is shown in slow motion exchanging an envelope with Jesse Jackson. It very well may have been a birthday card, but the visual of two black men exchanging an envelope in slow motion conveyed a powerful racist message that bolstered Helms's contention that Gantt was not fit for office.) It's not the first time Sharpton has been accused of making shady deals. As he began to embark on his presidential run in 2002, HBO aired a program about corruption in boxing where Sharpton is caught on tape discussing a boxing promotion deal with an undercover FBI agent who changed the conversation to a cocaine deal midway through. Sharpton claimed that he did not know the man and was scared, so he did not immediately refuse to participate in the deal. Just how much race is a part of these stories cannot be known. To what extent was the FBI targeting boxing as a sport and promoter Don King because of his race? To what extent was HBO willing to include the tape of Sharpton because of his race? To what extent are we all (white and black) more likely to believe the story because Sharpton is black?

It is impossible to say for certain, but with these current and former African American presidential hopefuls in the news this week, it is significant to consider that Barack Obama is polling strong in many of the polls in some of the early decision states (such as Iowa and New Hampshire). The lighter-skinned (half-white) candidate who, in the words of Joe Biden, is clean and articulate, is holding his own. Biden's remarks were made as a compliment about Obama back in February of this year, but received scrutiny because of the suggestion that those characteristics separated him from other African Americans, or at least other African American presidential candidates (such as Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson). In last week's NPR Democratic presidential candidate debate, Biden was asked about his comments about Obama, as well as those caught on tape a couple of years back where he noted that (Asian) Indians in Deleware tended to own Dunkin' Donuts and 7-11 franchises. Biden responded that he had a solid record on racial issues and that he largely got into politics as a result of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Obama chimed in with his support for Biden's work with respect to racial equality. Alas, we watched yet another opportunity to discuss race in a more sophisticated manner slip away, as the moderator, Biden and Obama all left the discussion at the individual level and failed to mention anything about systemic racism. We can see a pattern: people who do address racial issues in a more complete way (i.e., differentiating between individual-level bigotry and systemic racism) are shunned at best and pathologized at worst by the mainstream (white) media, while those who feed into overly simplistic ideas about "knowing people's hearts" are embraced.

At the end of Sharpton's radio broadcast each day, he implores his listeners to tell somebody that Rev. Al told them personally to "keep it real; keep it real; keep it real." Whether Obama is being "real" or not has been the topic of much discussion in both white and black communities for years. It spun to a different level after Oprah Winfrey's endorsement this week, as the media mogul was criticized by Air America leftist host Randi Rhodes for "acting black" during her speech. Winfrey's cadence in that speech certainly departed from her speech pattern on her television program, though the context was completely different. At the rally, Winfrey was intending to fire up an audience of mostly Democratic Obama supporters for seventeen minutes to energize their devotion to a presidential candidate in whom she believes strongly. On her program, she is attempting to engage for an hour with guests about a substantive (or not-so-substantive) issue of importance or concern to her vast and diverse audience. So it is possible to perceive the shift as pandering; it is also possible to perceive it as a skillful orator adjusting to her audience and context. Is the white media's tendency to jump to the former a result of anti-black bias? As we note above, it is difficult to know for sure, but it is something that we need to consider. What is most disturbing is this "progressive" host's lack of understanding of systemic racism. She referred to "reverse racism," saying, "there's some black racism too, against white people." While we understand that most folks do not differentiate between bigotry (what Rhodes is referring to here) and racism (which can only privilege whites because it refers to a system of white supremacy), we should be able to expect more from someone with a progressive radio program.

In actuality, Rhodes's ignorance is an illustration that achieving racial equality in this country is not about changing the hearts and minds of those who hate because of the color of someone's skin; it is about educating all Americans to understand how racism works in subtle and powerful ways, even through those who firmly and genuinely believe themselves to not be racist.

Oprah, Obama, Racial Threats, Olympics, Police, Foreclosures, and the Latino Vote: A(nother) Busy Week in Race

This week, Oprah Winfrey hit the campaign trail for Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, Northern Illinois University shut down and reschedule final exams because of a racially-tinged threat, Jesse Jackson plans to march on Wall Street, Rev. Al Sharpton threatens to lobby the International Olympic Committee against Chicago’s bid to host, and Univision hosted a debate for the Republican presidential candidates. There is no direct connection between these events, of course, but there is a common theme of tacit electoral implications between Oprah’s endorsement and the racial concerns at NIU, on Wall Street, in Chicago, and in the Univision debate.

Winfrey did not focus on race in her 17-minute speech in Iowa on Saturday. Her endorsement, which did refer broadly to racial and religious diversity, is much less about substance than it is about symbolism. No one can question Winfrey’s intelligence or heart, but Obama is not having her stump for him because of her perceived political expertise. In fact, the reason that this endorsement is getting so much attention is because she has famously stayed out of electoral politics throughout her career. As she moved to South Carolina and New Hampshire on Sunday, Winfrey brings to Obama’s campaign two related and crucial elements: news coverage and the attention of otherwise-uninterested voters. Her talk show audience is every bit as white as it is black, but it disproportionately female, which may help to mitigate some of Obama’s chief rival, Hillary Clinton’s, edge with female voters. Clinton firmed up support from a large number of prominent black leaders very early on in the race, ostensibly because her husband, Bill Clinton, was seen as an advocate for the black community. This past week, civil rights icon Andrew Young quipped that he thought Obama was too young to be president now, but that he does want him to be president some day. Winfrey’s presence at Obama events in the final month of campaigning before Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire may serve to position him well heading into Super Tuesday on February 5.

While Obama can enjoy this coveted endorsement, he cannot control other events that may affect his candidacy. Events with racial content have been aplenty this past year, as important stories from this past week demonstrate.

Early this morning, as students were studying for finals, Northern Illinois University issued a campus alert rescheduling this week’s exams. Cited in the memo were the icy conditions, as well as a campus threat noted in two alerts issued Saturday. From the first of the three alerts:

Written in black ink on a restroom wall in the Grant Towers D [residential] complex were two separate entries claiming that “things will change most hastily” in the final days of the current semester.

“Tell those n---ers to go home,” the first entry reads. “ME / OUT … Die Sem Burr 10th … Hmz Sdn Cr.” Officials believe the text message-style shorthand refers to “December 10” and “Holmes Student Center.” Underlined letters within the first entry spell out the word “WATCH.”

Following the initial entry is a second set of comments reading “What time? The VA tech shooters messed up w/ having only one shooter …”

As this was occurring, Rev Jesse Jackson was firming up plans to march on Wall Street today to argue for a “Marshall Plan,” for victims of predatory home loans, starting with a moratorium on foreclosures. Rev. Al Sharpton threatened city officials that he would work to derail the city’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics if Mayor Richard M. Daley didn’t start to take more seriously the allegations of abuse and brutality by the Chicago Police Department. This comes on the heels of a report from the University of Chicago researchers this past week entitled “The Chicago Police Department’s Broken System,” which noted, in part, that allegations of abuse by CPD officers were punished only one per cent of the time (compared to the national average of eight per cent).

It is unclear precisely what this climate means for the presidential elections. There are a number of possibilities. For Obama to be successful, he must secure more white votes than any other candidate of color has ever earned. He needs to collect delegates for the nomination and, if nominated, win a plurality of voters – most of whom are white – in enough states to garner 270 electoral votes. If white progressives are concerned about the seeming increase in racial issues, they may turn to someone who has first hand experience with those issues (Obama). On the other hand, if white voters see the influx of racial news coverage as mere self-victimization by blacks, they may allow that resentment to factor into their decision to vote for or against a black candidate for president.

In either case, Obama’s support in communities of color is not to be taken for granted. As noted above, many African Americans are supporting Hillary Clinton, while Latino voters are weighing the positions of candidates from both parties. The Spanish language television station Univision hosted a Republican presidential debate this past weekend, where six of the candidates appeared, including all of the frontrunners. So while much is uncertain as to how race might affect the presidential elections, what we do know is that race will most certainly be an issue. How that issue is framed and addressed will determine the effect that it will have.

Young Voters and Funny Accents: Romney and Giuliani Scrap Over Immigration

Before, during and after the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate last week, conservative commentators bemoaned the “gimmick” of the forum as a trap for liberals to embarrass GOP hopefuls. Crusty commentators complained that “liberal” CNN and YouTube were conspiring to present questions designed to put Republican candidates in awkward positions. (We wonder what sort of question would be too awkward for any presidential candidate to handle? And what could be more awkward than asking if the candidates have talked to their children about sex, as the Democratic candidates were asked?) Perhaps Mike Huckabee’s refusal to answer a question about whether Jesus would support the death penalty is an example. But an espoused Christian and espoused supporter of the death penalty should either be able to public articulate why this is not a contradiction, or explain why it doesn’t matter that it is. The reality is that old-media journalists are concerned that young people (who have eschewed conventional media) will get involved in politics, which, they assume, means trouble for the Republicans. Conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt mocked the age (30) of Steve Grove, YouTube’s director of political content, declaring “I don’t trust you.”

As it turns out, there were a lot of anti-Republican questions submitted, but CNN weeded most of them out, leaving a host of creatively delivered and substantively relevant questions for the candidates to consider. In fact, they ignored a question from Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, but aired one by K Street Project founder and conservative activist Grover Norquist.

The first question of the night generated the most heat, as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney exchanged barbs about their ability to speak authoritatively on the issue of illegal immigration. The exchange was loaded with racial imagery and assumptions.

YouTuber Ernie Nardie from Brooklyn remarked that under Giuliani’s leadership, New York City operated as a “sanctuary city.” He asked the former mayor, “[I]f you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?” Giuliani answered by saying that New York was not a sanctuary city, and Romney countered that it was. Giuliani then made reference to a fairly old claim, but one that was probably new to most viewers: Romney had illegal immigrants working at the governor’s mansion when he was running Massachusetts. A landscaping agency contracted to work at the mansion did hire illegal immigrants, so the claim is factually accurate, but a stretch if it is intended to suggest some inconsistency or hypocrisy on Romney’s part.

As we noted this past summer (as well as last week), it is impossible to disentangle race from the current discourse about immigration; implicit in all discussion is that the “aliens” are from Mexico (read: are a drain on public financing, refuse to speak English, are taking jobs from hard working Americans, etc.).

During the scrap that ensued, a frustrated Romney tried to force Giuliani to take a controversial position:

Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has. If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers." Is that what you're suggesting?

Giuliani’s response was that Romney had to explain the situation if he was going to take a “holier than thou” attitude about immigration. Moments later, Romney again tried to get Giuliani to take the “offensive” position, but this time changed his characteristic of an Hispanic accent from “funny” to not “like yours”:

I ask the mayor again. Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired who provide a service, that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that might look different or don't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers -- I don't think that's American, number one.

He didn’t get a chance to list his number two, but it is important to note three elements of this exchange (at least).

First, Giuliani invoked religion in a subtle way by suggesting that Romney was acting “holier than thou.” Romney has been pretty successful in avoiding religious discourse (see this breaking story) that may serve to remind fundamentalist Christians about his Mormonism.

Second, Romney invoked a common conservative refrain of judging who is or is not “American.” (Commentator Sean Hannity’s signature expression is to refer to someone as a “good American,” for instance.) Immigration, of course, is inherently related to national identity and citizenship; it is essentially an argument over who is a “real” American. By suggesting that Giuliani is putting forth an un-American position, Romney seeks to deflect a charge of his alleged weakness on judging who is really American.

Finally, Romney’s apparently inadvertent characterization of the Hispanic accent as “funny” provides insight into his beliefs about Latino Americans in general. Many American citizens from Latino descent (as well as naturalized citizens and offspring of immigrants from other nations) speak with accents that reflect their first language. Characterizing such an accent as “funny” (like Joe Pesci’s character in Goodfellas, we must ask: “Funny how?”), Romney reveals his bias against persons who learned English as a second language, irrespective of their citizenship status.

Under stress, our inhibitions are lessened, revealing what we would rather hide when we’re fully conscious (see Paul Haggis’s excellent film Crash for dramatized examples of this phenomenon). The fact that Romney corrected himself the second time around illustrates the inadvertent nature of the initial language choice.

Conservative commentators were worried about CNN and YouTube ambushing the Republicans, but the real embarrassment came from the candidates’ own words and responses to one another, not liberal questions from young voters or snowpersons. Older voters tend to perceive the YouTube debates as unnecessary at best and as undermining the electoral process at worst. From our position, to the extant that these debates attract a wider (and younger) audience than the traditional debates (which greatly outnumber the YouTube debates, of course) and continue to include relevant questions that allow the candidates to reveal their positions (intended or otherwise), there is no reason to fear them. We should, however, fear the tendency of candidates (of both parties) to mask their own xenophobia, especially while accusing others.