NCA Preview: New Research Related to Race and Political Communication

THIS WEEK, the National Communication Association will meet in Chicago, Illinois for its annual conference. As we did prior to the American Political Science Association meeting in September, we scoured the program and put together a schedule of the panels that will most likely be of interest to our readers.

If you are attending the meeting, we very much encourage you to search through the online program to see what panels most interest you (we're good, but not perfect!). If you are not planning to attend (or if you are going to "attend" but will spend more time at the South Loop Club than at conference sessions), we hope you will find this list interesting, as it represents some of the most cutting edge research relating to race and political communication.

Thursday November, 12
8:00am to 9:15am
	I Felt This Thrill Running Up My Leg: An Examination of Barack Obama’s Campaign Oratory
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4L While many applaud Obama on his oratory during the campaign, with the campaign over, rhetoric scholars can now reflect, analyze, and examine what made Obama’s oratory so special. This is what this panel attempts to do. How does Obama’s oratory draw from other sources and models? How does Obama articulate stories (anecdotes) throughout the campaign? How does Obama define the “moment” of his campaign as the right time for his presidency? What role did faith play in Obama’s oratory? By drawing upon a diversity of rhetorical approaches, we attempt to answer these and other questions that emerge from our research.
	Post-Racial Rhetoric in Contemporary U.S. Public Culture
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 5 Presenters on this panel worry about the discourses that claim America is post-racial. Hence our discussion interrogates a host of visual and verbal post-racial rhetorics, from the recent Inaugural benediction to a cover of Vogue magazine, from Obama’s Presidential campaign materials to popular blogs. Using critical race theory, Derridean deconstruction, and Lacan psychoanalysis, panelists not only question the legitimacy of claiming “we” are now “beyond race,” they also explore its social, political, and cultural entailments.
9:30am to 10:45am
	Whose News Is It Any Way? Reporting and Race in a Mediated World
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 2 Using varied methodologies, this panel interrogates the ways in which media frame political and social events. Analyses also advance the understanding of how cultural frameworks from diverse theoretical perspectives are integral part of this communicative process.
12:30pm to 1:45pm
	Listening to the Beats that Bind and the Messages that Result in Change: Exploring and Questioning the Beats, Culture, and Politics of Hip Hop
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4D This panel explores and questions the dialogue between hip hop beats, culture and politics as a means to provide a stable site for social critique and expression of our voices. The beat making performance of Wanderlust and paper presentations probe how the issues of creating or performing beats and identities, one’s race and or gender, sociopolitical consciousness, reality and politics intersect, engage and inform one another.
	Pedagogies of Whiteness
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I On the most fundamental level, this paper panel comprises a variety of approaches of how whiteness research has found a home in our university classes. From introductory courses in communication to doctoral seminars, this panel offers reflections and analysis of how whiteness studies has been taught and engaged in communication classes. Participants span the academic ranks from an MA graduate student and teaching assistant to a Full Professor.
2:00pm to 3:15pm
	The More Things Change…: Economic Disparity, Power, and the Changing Electoral Landscape in the African American Community
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 7 This panel will provide a critical, contemporary examination of the interconnections and changing dynamics of power, economic equality, and culture as it relates to African Americans’ identity as citizens of this nation.

Friday November, 13
8:00am to 9:15am
	The Content and Effect of Television News
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: International Ballroom South [No abstract available]
	What is this 'post' in post-racial/feminist/…(fill in the blank)?
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 3 The events of the 2008 election continue to spark prognostications that we live in a post-racial/feminist, etc. world. How should communication scholars respond? Scholars from a wide range of NCA's divisions will discuss how to approach questions of identity and communication over the next five years. Participants will suggest ways to be critical of assertions of "post-" and elaborate ways to encounter new dimensions of identification in an era of immense socio-political challenges.
9:30am to 10:45am
	Complex Rights: Latinas/os, Citizenship, and Law
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4L [No abstract available]
12:30pm to 1:45pm
	Whiteness beyond Classroom Walls
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: International Ballroom South A growing area of research within intercultural communication centers around both stable and changing discourses of power in relation to race and Whiteness. Much of this research has critiqued classroom discourses. In this round-table discussion, panelists will engage in dialogue about the possibilities for research using innovative methods, in unusual settings, and/or involving atypical participants. The hope is that cultivating research and theories in non-academic spaces will extend and amplify the value of Whiteness studies.
	Race, Whiteness and Culture
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 5G [No abstract available]
3:30pm to 4:45pm
	Performing Race in a 'Post Racial World': Discourses of Stability and Change
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4J This panel explores diverse critical perspectives concerning performances of race in what some term a ‘post racial’ America. The scholarship featured on this panel explores various critical treatments of the question of 'post-racialism' and/or race neutrality in ways that interrogate, explore, and/or problematize discourses of stability vs. change in relation to race in America. The contexts and various intersections that produce particular kinds of performances of race will also be explored.
5:00pm to 6:15pm
	'A Change Is Gonna Come': Reflecting on the Voices and Strategies of Change Agents from the Civil Rights Movement
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4F The presenters on this competitive paper panel will provide a contemporary examination of the rhetorical choices utilized by a few of the well-known voices of the Civil Rights Movement. Presenters will analyze the effectiveness, commonality, and differences of the communication messages that helped to shape various aspects and ideologies associated with the Civil Rights Movement.

Saturday November, 14
12:30pm to 1:45pm
	How Sound Bites BITE! A Critical Analysis of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Political Hegemony in the Mass Media
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Grand Ballroom The use of sound bites in television media and the Internet gained unprecedented attention during the 2008 Presidential election. With the use of new media in the 21st century, individuals around the world were able to upload sound bites which impacted philosophical, political and cultural views. The panel will focus on public interest groups and their use of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversial sound bites as a strategy to maintain political hegemony.
	Regarding Health, Representation, and Discourse in Asian/Pacific American Communication Studies
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4A [No abstract available]

Sunday November, 15
8:00am to 9:15am
	In Defense and in Remembrance: Asian Americans Reframe their Collective Identity
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Boulevard Room B Historically in the United States, Asian Americans have had little control of their collective identity beyond their own geographical and cultural communities. This panel explores situations in which Asian Americans -- with others who identify with them, such as spouses of other ethnicities -- have reframed their collective identity through public mediums ranging from World War II internment memorials in community spaces to an English-language newspaper for a readership beyond Japantown.
	Political Advertising: Content and Effects
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4B [No abstract available]
	Meet the Authors: Race and News (A Critical Perspective)
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I This panel explores the core dimensions of how issues related to race and racism are represented in contemporary news coverage in the United States. Reflecting on a variety of research approaches that will be used to qualify the discussion in the forthcoming book Race and News, the panel will address the coverage of specific contemporary news topics and examine how that coverage either directly or indirectly addresses race and cultural diversity in this country.
9:30am to 10:45am
	Change is Gonna Come/Change is Here: Scholarly Perspectives and Everyday Politics in the Communication of Black Masculinity
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I A change is gonna come. Sam Cooke's (1964) timeless anthem continues to exemplify internal and external transformation for people of the African Diaspora, and Black men in particular. Presumably, the inauguration of President Barack Obama suggests that change is already here. Indeed, a new day demands a new exploration of the ways Black men live, think, and perform race and gender in the 21st century. This panel works to engage the social, cultural and political landscape of black masculinity in the Obama era. Our objective is met primarily through three theoretical approaches. First, we foreground changing interpretations of black manhood, black love and black family. Second, we emphasize ways in which Black men's voices constitute change within Black communities and U.S. society. Third, we illustrate change in the body politics of Black manhood. Concurrently, the panel presents original arguments concerning why, when, where and how the communication of Black masculinity remains relevant, within our discipline and beyond.
	Unchartered Waters: Discourses of Stability and Change in the Rhetoric of Michelle Obama
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: PDR 6 This panel will analyze the rhetoric of Michelle Obama, and discuss the identity of African women of the Diaspora in U S public life. Panelists seek to expose a counter narrative to dominant notions of otherizing and marginalization projected onto African American women. Whether perceived as mammies, mistresses, tragic mulattoes, whores, tokens, elitists or phenomenal role models, African American female narratives challenge the intersectionality of race, gender, sexuality, and class.
	Attitudes, Attitude Change, and Resistance to Attitude Change
		Building: Palmer House Hilton, Room: Salon 4 [No abstract available]
11:00am to 12:15pm
	Chameleons Are at a Premium: Examining the Sociopolitical Implications of Racial Transcendence
		Building: Hilton Chicago, Room: Meeting Room 4I The papers on this competitive paper panel contribute to our scholarly understanding of President Barack Obama’s presence and his skillful oratory. In addition, this panel highlights the constant challenges of and realities associated with the negotiation of our tedious and racially-charged terrain.

Note: You can follow NCA on Twitter (@NatComm)

Obama Needs to Watch His "Self": Reflections of Class in the President's Language

Two years ago, Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, stirred up controversy when he referred to Barack Obama as "articulate," among other ostensibly complimentary comments like "clean." As we argued at the time, the comment was reflective of racist beliefs because

[b]lack dialect is considered to be non-standard English – not merely “different” such as a Boston accent or a Minnesota accent, but normatively less desirable.

Even though compared to his immediate predecessor Obama's rhetoric features stellar grammar and mechanics, like most of us, he does not speak perfect English. His errors are reflective of the social class of his upbringing, if not his race.

The non-standard grammar that stands out most prominently is his improper use of pronouns in certain situations. Specifically, he is prone to using "I" when he ought to use "me," as well as placing the reflexive pronoun "myself" in places in a sentence where it is not warranted. These mistakes tend to surface during his extemporaneous remarks rather than in scripted addresses.

Here is an example where he actually makes both mistakes in the span of a few seconds:

Well, President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I to -- to meet with him and First Lady Laura Bush. We are gratified by the invitation. I'm sure that, in addition to taking a tour of the White House, there's going to be a substantive conversation between myself and the president.(Press conference, November 7, 2008, Chicago)

These are very common errors amongst American English speakers, particularly working class Americans. Using "I" in place of "me" is likely a result of the widespread backlash against using "me" in the subject of a sentence (e.g., "Me and my brother are going to the game" or "My brother and me are going to the game."). If one does not understand why it is improper to use "me" in that situation, however, the word "me" in and of itself might be seen as a problem word (alongside "ain't," for instance). But when used in the predicate, the correct first person singular pronoun is, of course, "me."

Similarly, the use of the reflexive first person pronoun "myself" is likely a remnant of the same heuristic; if "me" is bad, it's bad, so it should be avoided. Accordingly, rather than saying "She gave advice to Sally and me," a substitute occurs that, in theory, makes the speaker sound as if he or she is more intelligent: "She gave advice to Sally and myself." But reflexive pronouns are only appropriate when the subject and the object are the same person: "I gave a present to myself"; "They had to second guess themselves."

This does not necessarily fit with characteristics of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), sometimes called "Ebonics," though the close interrelationship between race and class in America is important to keep in mind as we analyze this issue. Working class parents often try to instill in their children characteristics (such as grammatical speech) that will make advancement and acceptance into the middle class more likely. As children, we develop our speech patterns in accordance with our environment, in addition to the formal instruction we get in school. When we carry errors into adulthood, it is the result of not learning to correct the mistakes we are socialized into from childhood.

A common characteristic of folks who have moved up to a higher social class is the fear (conscious or otherwise) of being "found out," of not really belonging. Obama's mistakes are likely remnant subconscious efforts from childhood to sound more intelligent. For folks who aspire to a higher social status (or wish to "pass" as being middle class), the language patterns often take the shape of longer-than-necessary sentences and inappropriately complex verb tenses.

For example, a click through daytime television programs that feature (exploit) the troubles and conflicts of working class Americans will quickly reveal evidence to support this claim. A common error, for instance, is the inappropriate use of the pluperfect tense. In response to a question about why he was carrying on an affair, a guy on the hot seat on one of these programs might start by explaining, "What had happened was, I met her at work. . ." when the simpler "I met her at work" would suffice. "I went to the store" becomes "I had gone to the store." Because we equate short sentences with younger, less proficient speakers, it is sometimes assumed that longer, more complex sentences are signifiers of intelligence.

Since "myself" is both longer than "me" and, well, not "me," it is often used as a substitute anytime "me" would otherwise be used. On the other hand, like most speakers who make this mistake, Obama does not always uses these pronouns incorrectly. Here is an example of his appropriate use of the reflexive:

Right now I want to say hello and introduce myself. (Visit with White House press corps, January 22, 2009, Washington, DC)

That is, the words "me" and "myself" are not interchangeable for speakers who use them improperly; "myself" is substituted for "me," but not the other way around. Further, it is likely that Obama knows when it is appropriate to use which pronoun. In times when he does not have a lot of time to think about his phrasing, though, he is more likely to make the mistake. Similar to the way we can learn about ourselves in those times when we do not have a chance to let our conscious catch up to our subconscious (see the Implicit Associations work for ways in which this is manifested in stereotypes), these slips allow us to have a glimpse into the authentic Obama -- not who he necessarily wants to project to us, but who he really is.

How, though, can we explain away Obama's errors as merely endearing reflections of his connection to the working class when we refuse to do so for his predecessor? Isn't this simply a case of "Black privilege" or "Bush bashing" by liberals?

Regular TWIR readers understand that blanket claims of reciprocity are fallacies in logic. Context matters. It is acceptable, for instance, for African Americans to use the n-word even though Whites cannot because African Americans do not have a history of using it to oppress, and Whites do. Gay men can refer to each other with a derogatory word, but straight men should not call each other such a name (as an insult) or refer to gay men that way because of the heterosexist power dynamic that is inherent in our culture. On and on. It is not hypocritical to criticize one group for doing something while allowing another to do it if context is taken into consideration. Fairness (justice) is not predicated on equality when there is not equality of power (or opportunity) at work.

President Bush's speaking mistakes are not a reflection of his environment during socialization. He grew up with tremendous privilege in an environment of wealth. There is no question that some of his language choices are a function of the Southern influence (which is unfairly evaluated as unintelligent), but his mispronunciations and confused syntax are not characteristics of the language of his youth. Further, President Bush exhibited no other characteristics that would alert us that he was a working class guy at heart. His public policies and behavior aided the wealthiest Americans (tax cuts) and ignored the suffering of the most vulnerable (Katrina). In short, the only characteristic he exhibits of a working class person is fractured speech.

Obama, on the other hand, is the inverse of Bush: he is working class at his core, but has had to learn to assimilate into the upper class. Ivy League education certainly helps, but old habits are hard to break, particularly at times when there is no opportunity to think through the rules.

As far as we are aware, there is no widespread criticism of Obama on these characteristics -- no attempts to make the errors about his race. Obama's few critics in the first week are more focused on their concern that his policies will be successful and the status quo will be unsettled (which is precisely what Obama has promised). For instance, Rush Limbaugh made news THIS WEEK when he openly wished for Obama to "fail." Lost in some of that discussion with Sean Hannity is a continuation of the "racism is a myth" language from the campaign.

I'll tell you, you know, a lot of people right now just — they're absorbed in the historical nature of this, first black president and so forth. Well, that is wonderful. That's great. But I got over that months ago after he won the election.

I mean, Sean, he is our president now. And he's not black, he's not from Mars, he's not — he's our president, he's a human being. We're a country comprised of human beings that the Democrat Party and the left have attempted to arrange into groups of victims, and that's who he appeals to, and the victims are the people waiting around for some grievance to be resolved.

They're waiting around for something to happen for them, and he is parlaying that. I think the fact that he's African-American, his father was black, to me it's irrelevant. This is the greatest country on earth. We want to keep it that way. It is that way for specific reasons.

We want to make three quick points about this before we wrap up.

1. How did Limbaugh "get over" the fact that Obama is the first Black president? That suggests that he was happy about it for some period of time. It is certainly the case that many Republicans and McCain supporters were happy that the color line of the White House was broken, but those folks are all sophisticated enough to understand that it was a significant accomplishment. For Limbaugh and Hannity (who have not displayed such sophistication), race never matters at all. Racism is a myth, slavery ended generations ago, and everyone has an equal chance at success in America. If Limbaugh spent any time at all appreciating the achievement, it would indicate that he recognizes that race is still a barrier to success in America.

2. The equation of being Black with being from Mars typically undervalues the importance of racial barriers to equal participation in American politics. It is a version of "I don't care if they are black, purple or green, I don't see color." There are not purple or green people, and to make such a statement reflects a fundamental insensitivity to the struggle of people of color.

3. Limbaugh blames progressives for attempting to categorize people. Slaveholders characterized people. Segregationists characterized people. As a result, we now all characterize people. If we ignore those characterizations, we cannot do the work that is necessary to reverse the legacy of those powerful Whites who created systems that continue to oppress. Progressives do not make victims (though they may contribute to a mentality of victimization if the focus is on individuals rather than systems); they work to unmake victims.
   

This sort of Orwellian double speak is what Americans rejected as they propelled the plain spoken yet eloquent Obama into the White House. Conservatives like John McCain and Lindsey Graham recognize this and have acted accordingly over the past five days. John McCain chastised his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate for holding up the confirmation of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State saying, "I remind all my colleagues: We had an election. I think the message the American people are sending us now is they want us to work together, and get to work.

To which Rush Limbaugh replied, "Well, what had happened was . . ."

Mountains and Molehills

A particularly bright and insightful person asked us this week if we found the criticism over Hillary Clinton’s latest racist slip to undermine the Obama campaign’s stated intention to be a different kind of campaign – that is, one that does not seek to magnify every slip by an opposing candidate. It’s a point worthy of consideration.

First, as our friend recognizes, spending time analyzing Clinton’s comments in this space is not the same as the Obama campaign making political hay out of it. Our job, as we see it, is to provide some perspective that our readers may not have gleaned from the mainstream media or from their own analysis. In fact, most of the criticism of Clinton’s comments about “hard working Americans, white Americans” from this past week came from media pundits and bloggers rather from the Obama campaign itself.

Second, it is one thing to capitalize on an isolated “slip” and quite another to point out a communicative act that is indicative of a trend in one’s campaign. Clinton’s remarks clearly fall into the latter category. In the context of “fairy tales,” MLK needing a white politician to accomplish something, Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina, praise for black men who know their proper place, and Geraldine Ferraro’s suggestion of affirmative action in the presidential race, the latest comment carries more substantive weight than what Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe offered on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

First, let’s take a look at McAuliffe’s explanation of Clinton’s comments. We will then go back to the original statement to see if we can accept it as valid.

When Russert played the audio clip of Clinton’s remarks and asked about it, here was McAuliffe’s initial response:

First of all, Tim, as you know, she was quoting an AP story. In fairness, she was quoting what had been written in the AP. Both candidates have put together terrific coalitions. What Hillary was talking about is the coalitions that she has been able to put together that has allowed her to win Texas and Ohio, a lot of working-class folks have come out. I'm not saying that Senator Obama can't win that at the end of the day. But, you know, we have been both proud of what we have brought to this table. . .

At this point, McAuliffe continued his rationalization for Clinton staying in the race, deflecting the substance of the question. One might notice, however, that besides falsely putting the words in the metaphorical mouth of the Associated Press, McAuliff did not at all address the questions about racism implicit in the answer. Russert pressed:

But when she uses a phrase, “hardworking Americans, white Americans,” Mayor Willie Brown, San Francisco…she's saying that white Americans are hardworking Americans. A lot of African-Americans took great offense at that.

To which McAuliffe responded:

Yeah. Well, and that's not what she meant. And she was quoting the AP story and could--literally, nobody has worked harder, as you know, than President Clinton... Tim, listen, both Clintons have worked their whole life on civil rights issues; Hillary, her entire life, has been working on issues, on education, on health care. They both have been out there fighting hard. This is the end of a long campaign.

And back to rationalizing her continued presence in the campaign. McAuliffe fails to offer exactly what she did mean. She was NOT quoting the AP story, and the old “I have supported equal rights for black folks all my life” argument has nothing to do with the fact that she clearly implicitly associates “hard-working” with whites. This is consistent with a study conducted in 1990 by Linda Williams, where she found that whites in her study tended to attribute positive characteristics such as “intelligent,” “strong leader,” “knowledgeable,” “hard-working,” “gets things done,” “experienced,” and “trustworthy” more often to white candidates than to black candidates. Further, it is consistent with all of the work that has come from the Implicit Associations research at Harvard (go here to take the Implicit Associations Test yourself to see your level of subconscious bias).

And hold on a sec: "literally, nobody has worked harder than President Clinton. . .on civil rights issues." Is he serious? LITERALLY. So Bill Clinton has worked harder on civil rights than Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Angela Davis, Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisolm, Al Sharpton -- Barack Obama, even! We have one of two possibilities here: 1) McAuliff really thinks that Bill Clinton has "literally" worked harder for civil rights than each of these people, or 2) McAuliff meant that he worked harder than any other white person, which, besides being highly arguable, is further indicative of the notion that his reference point is whites and whites only (he'll let us know if he's including people of color when he speaks of "anyone").

In any case, Tim Russert stayed on point:

Here's a report from the New York Post: "Hillary Rodham Clinton played the race card as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who can't win support from `white Americans.' ... The `white Americans' remark drew a swift rebuke from some superdelegates, and private dismay from several Democratic" party "officials who said they're concerned about reuniting the factionalized party. Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said: `That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, that's not what the Democratic Party's about.' ... Massachusetts [undeclared] superdelegate Debra Kozikowski said: `That's distressing. ... I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I'd like to think that it was not intended to be what it sounds" "but... it" "sounds like trying to split the country down the middle.'" Those are undeclared superdelegates responding to Hillary comments about race.

Uh oh. How is McAuliffe going to respond to all of THAT? How ‘bout with:

And you know what? I can put up 30, 40 more superdelegates who will say, you know, talk about what the Clintons have done on the race issue. First of all, I hate that even race is even in the--we should not have it. We shouldn't have race, we shouldn't have gender. We ought to talk about who can do the best job uniting this country, moving us forward, dealing with health care, getting our troops out of Iraq fast and safe, creating jobs, dealing with the mortgage crisis. That's what this campaign has been about, in fairness. We had 23 total debates through the process, a lot of issues being discussed and let's make sure we stay back focused on the issues.

Ok, so let’s make sure we’re clear here. If you know people who think what she said is racist, but I know people who think it’s not, it’s a wash and therefore not racist. Got it.

Most important, though, the white guy wishes race wasn’t an issue. How nice. How novel! “We shouldn’t have it,” he says. “Can’t we just forget about this whole messy race stuff – it makes me so uncomfortable to have to deal with the realities of racial inequality and the fact that my candidate is garnering support by tapping into existing racial animosity (the type “antipathy” for folks unlike themselves that Obama was so criticized for noting last month in San Francisco).”

Finally, McAuliffe argues at the end of this statement that we should be sure to “stay back focused on the issues.” By this, we presume, he means issues such as those he just mentioned above. But he didn’t just say THOSE issues, he called those issues, THE issues, which means that he does not think race IS an issue – not only that it he wishes that it weren’t. In other words, “people” are trying to make this an issue when it is not. And who are those “people?” Not the hard working white Americans, of course – they, like the rest of us, are ostensibly past race and view everyone equally.

McAuliff’s argument is deflective and insulting to anyone who cares about racial injustice as a real and important issue facing America. But more than that, he is off mark from what Clinton actually said. Let’s take it apart. Here is the quote:

There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working--hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. ... I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.

It is very important for us to listen to her comments, not just read them. (Again, you can do that here). Listen for when Clinton 1) interrupts herself (to make a correction) and 2) uses a vocalized pause to buy some time to think.

1) She interrupts herself after “working” to change it to “hard working.” Why the importance of the modifier? The suggestion is that she’s not being supported by all Americans who have jobs (who “work”) but by those who work “hard,” which implies jobs that require physical labor or repetition and do not pay particularly well. These jobs are most often held by Americans without college degrees. She is absolutely correct that she has been doing well in part of this demographic – whites who meet these qualifications. But there is a disproportionate amount African Americans who are without college degrees and are therefore “hard working” and she has not gotten their support (though she has done well with Latinos of all economic groups). So the interruption and clarification helps to narrow down the base of her support, distancing her from the so-called “intellectual elites” that make up a portion of Obama’s base.

2) But the second clarification comes as she wrestles – as so many of us do (Ever notice how when white folks talk about “blacks” or “African Americans” they often say those words quieter than the rest of the sentence?) – with how to insert race into the conversation. One can hear her hesitation as she flips through her mental Rolodex to see if there is another word or phrase to convey the same message: “. . .and how the, you know, whites. . .” The “you know” here is not a question, but a vocalized pause that at once affords her an opportunity to search for a substitute and brings the listener into her thought process by using second person “you.” By stating that we “know,” she implies that it is factual. “Everyone knows they’re white, so I’m not a bad person for bringing it up.”

So while it is true that harping on a small “slip” is the sort of politics-as-usual that the Obama campaign has emphasized (and that millions have embraced), this incident does not fall into that category. She has talked about this particular racial dimension of the contest since the Texas and Ohio primaries. Her surrogates have used it a number of times since her support among African Americans slipped (the Iowa caucuses). There is a clear pattern that demonstrates that no matter how much Clinton and her husband, the former president, may have “worked” for issues of concern to African Americans, she is not somehow above racism anymore than the rest of us. What we hoped would have been different, however, is that she recognized that and worked hard to avoid using it to her political advantage.

Three research assistants from The Project on Race in Political Communication presented original social science research at North Central College’s annual Rall Symposium for Undergraduate Research this week. We present their paper titles and abstracts below.

The RaceProject welcomes undergraduate and graduate students who wish to get hands-on research experience working on issues of race, politics and language. Interested students should contact either of us by visiting the RaceProject main page.

The Digital “Hood”: Effects of Racial Priming on Online Argumentation

Mark Jenkins

Recent research on online argumentation primarily centers on the outcomes produced by the discussion. There has been a push to explore the potential effect on an individual’s civic participation as a result of having access to new media sources. Democracy is believed to be weakened by the threat of selective exposure and the lack of concrete identity in the online world. However, there have been few studies that have looked at this issue through a racial lens. By using Daniel Canary’s Manual for Coding Conversational Argument (1989) and viewing racial and political content on the new media source YouTube, I examine basic and often unfiltered arguments between individuals to gauge the level of racial discourse in an online forum of a user-submitted video featuring 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

“George Bush Doesn’t Care about Black People”: An Analysis of the Presidents Who Did “Care” about Black Americans

Ann Fisher

Of the forty-two presidents whom Americans have elected into office, only seven have made executive orders or proclamations with the attempt of advancing African Americans in American society (Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, L. Johnson, and Nixon).I do not examine what these presidents did to enhance the lives of African Americans, rather what they could have done to have an even greater effect on racial equality. Using scholarly literature from race theory, psychology of leadership, racial communication and public opinion, I examine environmental constraints, options available to presidents, and ultimately, action. The result will be a greater understanding of the reasons for the statistical inequality within the United States and the role American presidents have played.

Ethical Ideology Influences Judgment of Employees Returning from FMLA Leave

Elizabeth Konrad

The current research examines how employees who take FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) are perceived by their manager upon return from leave. The FMLA was enacted to allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave after the birth of a child or to care for a sick child or parent. In this study, we look at how the ethical position of the manager, as measured by Forsyth’s (1980) EPQ, impacts how the employee is perceived. Participants in this study were asked to imagine that they were responsible for a firm during a critical time. They were told they had an employee who needed leave and were asked to evaluate that employee upon return from leave. The results indicate that individuals with low relativism and high idealism scores were the most negative in their evaluations, particularly when organizational problems occurred in their absence.

Additionally, Gwen Bowman, another RaceProject research assistant, participated in the Rall recitals of student scholarship.

Ballade by Albert Perilhou

Albert Perilhou was born in 1846 and died in 1936. He was a French composer and one of his most famous pieces is “Ballade,” composed in 1903. Ballade is French for ballad. A musical ballad is a piece with one movement which includes dramatic and lyrical narrative qualities. In fact, medieval ballads generally featured an upper voice and two lower voices. This theme is reflected during the Allegro sections the very expressive runs spanning the range of the flute. The beginning of the piece starts out in a slow Lento section. The introduction is very dramatic, further echoing the qualities of a ballad. The transition into the Allegro section is very abrupt. The Lento sections are song-like, with a distinctive melody. This melody from the beginning Lento section can be heard throughout each phrase, and the melody returns at the end.