(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.

Republicans Battle Over and About Sonia Sotomayor's "Racism"

It's been one of those weeks.

First of all, there are a number of important issues that deserve our attention. The only African American U.S. Senator, Roland Burris, finds himself in trouble. (BTW: We believe he should step aside; we called for him not to be seated in the first place amidst dubious charges of racism in the face of which Senate Democratic leaders caved). A White woman in Pennsylvania took off with her kids and used the familiar claim, "a Black guy abducted us." And Ursula Burns (left) became the first ever Black woman to head up a Fortune 500 company (Xerox).

But, of course, the story that captured most of our attention this week was the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.


As has been widely reported, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic American to sit on the high court, and she has not been particularly skillful in hiding the fact that 1) she is, in fact, Latina, 2) is aware of her own gender and ethnicity, and 3) has a sophisticated understanding of the way group identity matters in the lives of Americans. Unfortunately, some on the right either sincerely believe that people can be neutral (as opposed to objective) or are acting as if they believe it to try to convince less thoughtful folks that this is an accurate depiction of the human psyche.

The immediate controversy stems from a lecture Sotomayor gave in California in 2001, where she was talking about how her "story" affected her worldview. In the context of this, she said:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

It is this last sentence (hereafter "the sentence") that has attracted the ire of the usual cast of angry Whites (mostly male + Ann Coulter) who populate the airwaves of overtly conservative media outlets. The refrain is similar and predictable: minorities are stealing their America from them, and someone needs to stand up and say something about it. (For his part, President Obama has unfortunately claimed that "the sentence" constitutes a poor choice of words. Whatever.)

So here is just a partial list of what we saw unfold over the course of the week (for a more comprehensive look, see here and/or see the video that follows):

• Tucker Carlson and Ann Coulter called "the sentence" "a racist statement." Carlson added that it was racist "by any calculation." (Hmm. Not by ours.)
  
• Glenn Beck called "the sentence" "one of the most outrageous racist remarks he has heard." (Really? One of the most outrageous he has heard? Maybe he should take a look at some of these reactions to a Drudge Report posting about Sotomayor.)
  
• Pat Buchanan called her "an affirmative action pick" and said that it "appears" that she "believes in reverse discrimination against White males."
• Rush Limbaugh called her, at various points during his five broadcasts this week, "a racist," a "bigot," and a "reverse racist."

Limbaugh, ever the thoughtful contributor to meaningful dialogue about the hegemonic order, was more accurate in his reflection of what is bubbling under the surface. At its root, this is not about Sonia Sotomayor. Some on the left are very concerned with her record on issues like abortion, so it's not like she is an ideological extremist (a leftist Robert Bork, for instance), and it's not like she's not going to be confirmed. It seems clear that more than 60 senators will be willing to vote for cloture if a filibuster is attempted, and clear-headed Republicans understand that not only is opposing the first Hispanic Supreme Court appointment political suicide, but it will not result in Obama naming someone more to their liking anyway (see Senator Mel Martinez's carefully worded press release on the nomination). There is a strong undercurrent of White resentment and the ongoing fear that Obama is out to oppress White people.

Think we're exaggerating? Limbaugh said THIS WEEK that Obama "is the greatest living example of a reverse racist," and Lou Dobbs said that the appointment was "pandering to the Hispanics."

Former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (never afraid to criticize racial minorities) told Ed Schultz that Sotomayor "appears to be a racist," and, when asked if he subscribed to Limbaugh's assertion that the way to "get appointed to the Obama Administration" is by "hatin' White people," Tancredo told David Shuster "I don't know. . . I have no idea if they hate White people or not."

See the exchange here. Limbaugh's rant (which is shown in the video) is so ridiculous that it almost doesn't deserve our attention. He claims that Obama wants to make Whites "the new oppressed minority" and that Republicans are going along with it by "moving to the back of the bus" and obliging by drinking only out of designated water fountains. The metaphor is silly and offensive, and making such a parallel reveals his utter lack of understanding of the suffering of generations of people of color. Tancredo goes on to express his frustration of "the suggestion" that because he is White, he cannot comment on the situation. (Recall the similar outrage by Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson that we blogged about last year.)

So here is where we are. The truth is that very little of this matters right now because such discourse is firmly on the margins of mainstream political thought, even though the voices espousing the claims are loud and popular in the narrow universe they serve. We still have members of the Ku Klux Klan and there are still neo-Nazi skinheads. Those are the most hateful, bigoted members of our society. There are bigoted people of color who are hateful and resentful of Whites in a way that is similar to the White supremacists in some ways. Just to this side of empathy from these folks are the so-called "wing nuts," who either legitimately do not understand the way power works because they are too blinded by their own racism to wrestle with the difficult questions, or are being intentionally dishonest to stir resentment among Whites in an attempt to gain political advantage. This is most often manifested in the "if the shoe were on the other foot" comparisons that fall apart in the face of historical context.

If everyone started out equally, then it would always be inappropriate to take race, gender, class or sexual orientation into account. Those pining for the "objective," non-activist jurist who "does not see" categories of humanity either honestly believe that all Americans start life equally and are subsequently judged by the content of their character rather than social groupings or understand that making such claims will contribute to the ongoing oppression of minorities. Newt Gingrich invoked the reciprocity fallacy when he stated (immediately after the nomination was made), "Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘[M]y experience as a white man makes me better than a [L]atina woman.’ [N]ew racism is no better than old racism.”

Of course, there is no such thing as "new racism." Such a phrase suggests that racism is an historical artifact -- something that ended with the Civil War or perhaps the dismantling of Jim Crow.

Perhaps Gingrich is referring to prejudice, bigotry, or maybe, as Limbaugh put it, "reverse racism." On those grounds, we agree: it is improper for people to be judged on such characteristics. However, pretending that we are not judged by our race, gender and sexual orientation is foolish at best and malicious at worst. We may strive for such a day, but it is not upon us (sorry, electing a Black president did not end racism either), and arguing that those who are attentive to the way difference matters in America are somehow getting the upper hand in our society is reflective of either intellectual dishonesty or flat out ignorance.

Mainstream Republicans worked to distance themselves from these sorts of statements THIS WEEK, though few that we have heard directly criticized Limbaugh or the other de facto leaders of the conservative movement (if not the Party itself). Consider, for example, Jon Kyle's language from CBS's Face the Nation.

Senator John Cornyn came the closest to a full-on rebuke on ABC's This Week, but fed host George Stephanopoulos the "justice is blind" line, as well:

Well, of course, George, the concern is that above the Supreme Court it says "Equal justice under law." And it's doesn't -- shouldn't make any difference what your ethnicity is, what your sex is, or the like.

We would also hope that judges would be, you know, umpires, impartial umpires. And, you know, the focus shouldn't be on the umpire and what their sex or gender is, or their ethnicity.

Maybe it shouldn't, Senator Cornyn, but it does. It matters a lot. It is wonderful for the good senator to wish that it did not (that means he is not a bigot). Martin Luther King wished that (dreamed that), as well.

But wishing something doesn't magically make it come true. This is particularly hard for Whites (and more so for White males) to understand because they have been socialized to believe that the American values of fairness, justice and equality are rooted in empirical reality -- after all, Whites have been successful in every element of society, a fact that is readily apparent to even the most casual observer. If the disproportionate levels of success in the White community are not rooted in hard work and merit, then what could possibly account for the discrepancy? The answer, of course, is systemic imbalance and a fundamental lack of justice, which, naturally, is difficult for Whites to embrace, since it calls into question their privilege.

So calling attention to difference is uncomfortable for anyone who is not attentive to the way power structures a society. In that same broadcast of This Week, George Will noted that Sotomayor:

. . . seems to have affirmed what's called identity politics, which is a main proposition and a subproposition. The main proposition is, that an American is or should be thought of as his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, that that should define their political identity. And the subproposition is, called categorical representation. You can only be represented by someone of the same sexual, ethnic, racial group as you are, because only they can understand or empathize with you. That is of no relevance whatever to the court, however, because it's not a representative institution.

Will's use of "should" here, is instructive. He uses it to mean that, in the abstract, those of us who subscribe to identity politics believe it to be preferable. That is simply incorrect. It is necessary in this context to take such characteristics into account because they are were consciously taken into account by those who built the system and are subconsciously taken into account by all who are socialized within it.

The subproposition argument is interesting, as well, but Will fails to factor in a fundamental principle of American democracy, articulated most clearly by James Madison in Federalist #10: Democracy is about respecting minority will while also protecting minority rights. The Framers understood that the branches closest to the people will be more likely to support the majority (since they rely on their support for election) and constructed a judiciary that was insulated from direct public pressure so that it could be attentive to minority rights without being punished for it. In fact, that is precisely what has happened. The courts have often been out in front of public opinion and electd officials (ending segregation, gay marriage) in advocating for the rights of those who are in the numerical and power minority.

So while Will is correct that the notion of identity representation is most applicable in the so-called "political" branches, he is mistaken that there is no place for such representation in the judiciary. Further, his suggestion that categorical representation is improper rests on the premise that those who do not possess certain categories can be representative of those who do. We agree with that, but guess what? To do so requires something that conservatives have argued is improper in this very situation: empathy.

Gwen Ifill responded to Will's assertion:

I guess I see it differently. I mean, I've spent the past year talking to a lot of people, who got elected, elected -- black elected officials for a book, and all of them talked about identity politics and defined it differently. They defined it as being -- that being part of what you are, but not all of what you are. And I think that's what the defenders of Sonia Sotomayor are trying to say, which is that her point was, yes, what she is and what we all are shapes us, but it's not all that shapes you.

I always take arguments like this and try to turn them on their heads. And I never hear people say that for a white male, that it's identity politics if he is shaped by his white maleness and by the things that affected his life, and whether privilege affected his life. That's never considered to be a negative. It's only considered to be a negative when ethnicity is involved or race is involved or gender is involved.

This is an interesting idea, and one readers might suspect we oppose given our refusal to allow Whites to use the reciprocity fallacy. But this is a very different proposition because of the unidirectional nature of power (pro-White, pro-male, pro-heterosexual) in our culture. In other words, while it is inappropriate to criticize taking minority interest into account on the grounds that it wouldn't be tolerated the other way around, it is essential to do what Ifill suggests because it is revealing of the belief that Whites often have that they are "without race" or "racially objective." Her assertion is illustrated by Senator Inhoffe's comments THIS WEEK that there needs to be evidence that Sotomayor can "rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences." Since we do not recall similar calls made about previous justices, the implication is that there needs not be a similar test for White males in this regard -- it's understood that they would act "properly." As the folks at Media Matters and Huffington Post point out, there has been hypocrisy on this point, as no one questioned Justice Alito on his similar statements.

Finally, Ed Gillespie followed Ifill by noting that:

We are all shaped by who we are. We all bring that to the table. I do think, though, the -- you know, the conscious injection that you see, in a lot of her comments, of gender and race is what is causing for concern. And not only -- a little different with politicians, I think, our identity, than with a judge, and with a Supreme Court justice for a lifetime appointment.

Conscious injection? Is that the problem? So long as we inject our biases without knowing that we're doing that, it's fine? Consciousness is what is objectionable? Again, it reminds us of the inability of folks to distinguish racism (which resides largely in the subconscious) and bigotry (which is, by definition, conscious). And that, dear friends, is the crux of the problem.

We fear that we have missed yet another opportunity to talk meaningfully about the role of race (and, in this case, gender) in America. As is typical, we have allowed the debate to be reduced to individuals, personalities, and political posturing, when there was an opportunity for real work to be done.

For now, we can simply sit by and watch while some conservatives play on racial resentments as others try to get them to stop without offending these leaders of "the base" (i.e., Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Gingrich). When presented with an opportunity to distance himself clearly from Limbaugh's statements on Meet the Press, Senator Jeff Sessions was very careful:

SESSIONS: I don't think I'm going to use any such words as that. I read her speech. I'm troubled by her speech. I think she has an opportunity to explain that. And I don't think we--that I'm going to use such loaded words. People on the outside can say what they choose to say.

MR. [David] GREGORY: But wait, but do you make a judgment about that? Do you think they're appropriate?

SEN. SESSIONS: I don't think those are words...

MR. GREGORY: You think that's fair?

SEN. SESSIONS: ...that I would use. And I don't think--I don't--they would not be words that I would use.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

SEN. SESSIONS: But we need to focus on what...

MR. GREGORY: Do you think she's a racist?

SEN. SESSIONS: ...she would say.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think she's a racist?

SEN. SESSIONS: I think that she is a person who believes that her background can influence her decision. That's what troubles me.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Right.

SEN. SESSIONS: I would not use those words.

MR. GREGORY: You would not use those words because you don't believe them?

SEN. SESSIONS: I don't think that's an appropriate description of her.

MR. GREGORY: Right. Do you think that conservatives should stop using those words to describe her?

SEN. SESSIONS: I would prefer that they not, but people have a free right to speak and say what they want and make the analogies that they want. This is an important thing. We should not demagogue race. It's an important issue in our culture and our country. We need to handle it with respect that it deserves and the care that it deserves.

Wow. That's some nifty tightrope walking. He acknowledges that "we" need to handle race carefully in our culture, but is anxious that Sotomayor will do so on the bench. Why? Why is it possible (advisable) for "us" to be thoughtful about race but a Latina woman cannot? The implicit fairness of Whites makes the point (for anyone attentive enough to notice): There are (often unstated) assumptions about race in America that serve to advantage Whites. If we are uncomfortable with that, we need to fix it -- not by pretending that it is not happening, but by addressing it head on, honestly, with energy, empathy and thoughtfulness.

Unfortunately, we may be missing yet another opportunity to do so. Here's hoping that the confirmation hearings spark a more honest discussion about race in America than what we witnessed this week.