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.

Hatewatch: Don't Forget the Bigots

For nearly three years, we have put forth weekly analysis of current events that reside at the intersection of race, politics and language. Specifically, we attempt to apply scholarship from the fields of communication, political science, sociology, anthropology, critical studies and psychology to the news so that the work is accessible to folks who do not have advanced training in the social sciences or humanities.

Our work is balanced on two key points: 1) While we have a primary and fundamental commitment to the academic process and seek to contribute to the scholarly literature, we also have a normative interest in reducing racial inequality. We launched the RaceProject.org website in 2003 and the RaceProject.org Facebook group in 2007 in an effort to bring those tasks together. 2) We join with others who differentiate individual-level racism (what we consistently call "bigotry") with systemic-level racism because we believe that understanding that difference is the key to turning folks' attention to working on the latter. As a result, we have offered some 140 entries here, most of which totally ignore individual-level bigotry, in part because we try to de-emphasize the intent of those who reveal racism in their language and expression.

Every once in a while, though, we need to remember that while bigotry may be taking its last breath in America, it certainly is not dead. Further, it is conceivable that bigotry will make a comeback now that the nation's top elected official is a man who identifies as being African American.

The hard working folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center spend a lot of time, money and energy tracking bigotry, particularly as cases move through the legal process. If you are not an email subscriber of their weekly "Hatewatch" newsletter, you might be surprised about the number and intensity of incidents that occur. We reproduce their newsletter here THIS WEEK to remind readers that, while internalized racism is more widespread and is a more significant impediment to social justice, overt bigotry dramatically affects the lives of thousands of Americans each year. We cannot fall asleep on this front.

White Supremacist Threatens To Kill Judge
Pueblo Chieftain
May 17, 2008
Aryan Brotherhood member Jay Gregory threatened at a sentencing hearing to have a federal judge murdered after referencing the 1984 assassination of a Jewish radio show host by the white nationalist group The Order. [more]

Man Arrested For Trying To Sell Cyanide To Aryan Brotherhood
The Oklahoman
May 15, 2008
Texas resident Jeffrey Don Detrixhe was arrested for allegedly agreeing to sell 100 pounds of cyanide for $10,000, a thermal imager and a fully automatic AK-47 to a federal informant that Detrixhe believed was representing the Aryan Brotherhood. [more]

ACLU: York Public Assembly Law Still Unconstitutional
The York Daily Record
May 17, 2008
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, proposed changes to a York, Penn. law governing protest rallies, several provisions of which were struck down in court after a white supremacist group sued the city, are not enough to make it constitutional. [more]

Sacramento Men Arrested For Gay Bashing
Orange County Register
May 16, 2008
Micah Jontomo Tasaki, 21, Gregory Lee Winfield, 20, and Robert Lee Denor, 19, allegedly uttered anti-gay slurs then beat and kicked a gay man just hours after the California Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning a state ban on same-sex marriages. [more]

A Case for Empathy

"Crazy nonsense empathetic! I'll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness!" (GOP chair Michael Steele, May 8, 2009)

Barack Obama took a lot of heat from conservatives and Republicans when he noted that one characteristic for a Supreme Court nominee would be empathy. Here is the full quote:

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

In a matter of minutes, and in the days that have passed since, those who expect to be disappointed by Obama's eventual selection have argued that "empathy" is a code word for "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench." Maybe so.

But before we get to that, we want to pose this question: What's wrong with empathy?

Some might argue that empathy is a fine quality for citizens, but it has no place in interpretation of the law. That seems to us to be a dubious distinction on its face, but nonetheless, it is worthy of being addressed.

Among the alarmists were the folks at Freedom Works, who had this to say: "What Obama is saying here is that the rule of law should be secondary in judicial reasoning to a judge’s own personal feelings. It is nothing short of a recipe for a breakdown of our legal system, and the death of an expectation by participants in court proceedings that they will be treated fairly, particularly if they are not highly sympathetic."

But it is important to examine this claim. There is an important shift in language at work: the blogger at Freedom Works substituted "sympathy" for Obama's word, which was "empathy." Same thing? Not at all.

Sympathy centers on internalizing another's situation, while empathy is concerned with being cognizant of another's situation and meaningfully attentive to it. Sympathy is closer to "pity" than is empathy, which involves being able to put oneself in another's shoes, so to speak. When Bill Clinton said that he felt our pain, he was expressing sympathy. That may or may not be important, but it's not the same as empathy. If he wanted to express empathy, he would have said that he understood our pain.

That sort of rationality in thought is perfectly appropriate in judicial conduct. In fact, we would argue that it is a responsibility, particularly of federal judges, to be empathetic. The Framers set up a system where members of the judicial branch would be isolated from public pressures, in part because they understood, as James Madison articulated in Federalist #10, that democracy is more than honoring the will of the majority; protecting minority rights is also essential.

The executive and judicial branches, with their members selected (directly or indirectly) by the people at regularly scheduled intervals, will ostensibly work for the majority -- at least the majority of their own constituents. It is up to the judicial branch to be empathetic to those with less power. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBT folks and the poor are, currently and historically, groups whose identifiers have less access to power with respect to their flip-sides (men, Whites, etc.). When there has been meaningful change with respect to extending rights to members of disadvantaged groups, it has often been the courts leading the way (think Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas), and that has angered supporters of the status quo.

But that's precisely what is supposed to happen. If the status quo always held, there would never be progress, and only half of Madison's conceptualization of democracy would ever be fulfilled. The majority would always win, and minority rights could easily be ignored. Only an independent judiciary or a tremendously brave (stupid?) group of lawmakers would push against public opinion to stand up for the rights of minorities. When they have done so, they have often had judicial cover. Conservatives hated the Brown decision (though few of them are brave enough to say so now), and they hated the Lawrence decision (and most are very happy to tell you so). But Congress passed civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s, and state legislatures are now legalizing gay marriage.

Of Obama's statement, Sean Hannity said that Democrats “want the courts to take over and engage in social engineering," and Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter told CNN's Howard Kurtz that "[e]mpathy [is] an emotive term [and that] Barack Obama is calling for a judge who will take their [sic] emotions into account when making a judicial decision."

The notion that judges do not or should not take emotion or their own political preferences into account when making decisions is not credible. All humans have bias, and while we can strive for objectivity, that requires a recognition and conscious determination to be attentive to our biases in order to be sure that they are not the driving force in our behavior.

Maybe "empathy" is a code word. So what? Obama is progressive, and he is going to pick a progressive jurist. Of course conservatives won't like it -- they won't like it any more than progressives liked it when President Bush selected judges who would work to reinforce the status quo. That's the way it works. That's politics. And there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around as Republicans gear up to obstruct the nomination in the same way that they complained Democrats did during Bush's presidency, while Democrats are crying about the obstruction even though they used the same tactics for the past eight years.

But while the partisan hacks are staking out their territory on both sides, intellectuals are measuring and considering the President's words more carefully and thoughtfully -- and not just progressives. In the Catholic weekly publication America this morning, Douglas Kmiec writes the following: "No one should win or lose in Court because they are rich or poor or black or white. Yet to be evenhanded is not the same as being uncaringly formalistic or concerned only with systematic consequences. Real litigants stand before the Court. . . . Empathy has a wider, more open-minded nature, asking how law interrelates with the larger culture."

We may fantasize about how law is neutral, but of course it is not. It was created by humans (with biases) in the context of a system that was set up by humans (with biases), and it is interpreted by judges who are humans (with biases). Those biases should be acknowledged by jurists, critics, and citizens alike, but to argue that "judicial restraint" is value neutral while "judicial activism" is value laden is akin to arguing that standing by watching a child get hit by a moving car when one could have easily pulled him or her out of the way is a neutral act.

Because our judiciary is designed to protect minority interests, it requires members who possess empathy, which should not be confused with sympathy. Conflation of these concepts is either intellectually deficient or a blatant attempt to confuse the public as to the proper role of the judiciary in a democracy.

To be clear: the "proper role," as we see it, is not to frustrate popular will at every turn. Madison warned against such "minority factions" being tyrannical, as well. But one cannot be stationary on a moving train. Empathy is a powerful concept, and one that most organize religions preach, at least in theory. Jesus was certainly empathetic and asked his followers to be. In fact, some would argue that the very idea of God sending a son in human form was so that he could experience and teach empathy.

Whether one is a believer or not, it's not a bad model.

Update (5/12/09): Robert Burton, a former neurologist, has a wonderful piece about the scientific aspects of empathy (and the scientific-understood inability to remove personal feelings from judgment) at Salon.com.

Jack Kemp: A Conservative Voice for Racial Justice

It's easy to speak well of someone after he or she has passed. All of the anger and frustration from personal or political opponents seems to wane in the hours after a death; it's as if we finally realize what we ought to all along: we are all in this together.

But it's unnecessary for us to retire frustrations with respect to Jack Kemp, the longtime Republican who kept minority interests at the center of his agenda throughout his political career. When we commented on the death of Jesse Helms last summer, we asked our colleagues and friends who work for social justice to try to move on:

It has been said that the most important way to give is to forgive, and we urge our contemporaries who are similarly committed to social justice to do just that. We sincerely hope that Senator Jesse Helms find the peace that he worked so hard to deny to so many others during his professional career.

In this case, no such call is necessary. Progressives may not agree with Kemp's supply-side tax strategies, but rather than simply cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and waiting for it to "trickle down," Kemp advocated tax breaks for middle-class folks, too, so that spending power remained in their hands.

More important, though, was his advocacy of "enterprise zones" in urban areas. In essence, these are areas of economic blight that are targeted for tax cuts for businesses who are willing to locate and operate there. It's a typical conservative strategy in the sense that it is based on tax cuts, but it was forward-thinking with respect to being attentive to the unique needs of inner-city neighborhoods and the people who live there.

When we had our exchange with Professor Voegeli last fall, we expressed concern that conservatives not only differ with progressives in terms of how to rectify racial injustice, but they tended to ignore (or give short shrift to) racial injustice altogether. This cannot be said of Jack Kemp. When it came to issues that disproportionately affect racial minorities, he may have disagreed with his progressive contemporaries, but they could never say what Kanye West said about George W. Bush.

Jack Kemp "cared." No doubt about it.