August 13, 2008
Obama Presents Dilemma for Scholars of Race
The Obama candidacy presents a dilemma for scholars of race, writes Jonathan Tilove in an article for Newhouse News Service. While his election would be a “breathtaking symbol of racial progress,” it could also mask lingering racism, and “cripple” efforts to call attention to it.
“It’s an odd paradox that this will shrink even further any kind of public space to talk about race,” says Angela Dillard, a professor of Afro-American and African studies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor in the article. “That shouldn’t be possible, but it is.”
Glenn Loury, a Brown University economist, says that an Obama victory would weaken arguments for affirmative action. Black voters, he said, “are voting for the end of affirmative action and they don’t even know it.
“They’re voting for the end of race and they don’t even know it,” said Mr. Loury, who is black.
At the same time, an Obama election wouldn’t necessarily spell an improvement in the condition of black Americans, says Roland Anglin, executive director of the Center for Race and Ethnicity at Rutgers University. For change to happen, he says, black voters will have to keep up the pressure on Obama to address the crisis of black males, the education gap and the prison gap.
Still, some conservative scholars see in Mr. Obama’s candidacy proof that racism is not endemic to the United States.
“I think it really is going to change the way responsible people talk about racism,” said John McWhorter, a black linguist affiliated with the Manhattan Institute, in New York. “Their basic idea, that racism is at the heart of how Americans feel, simply has been shown not to be true in the way they said it.”
Kelly Field | Posted on Wednesday August 13, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Democrats' Unofficial Platform Promises More Aid for Education
Next: Obama and McCain: As Much Alike as Different?
We can only hope.
— jon Aug 13, 12:17 PM #
[Quote] “They’re voting for the end of race and they don’t even know it,” said Mr. Loury, who is black.
———
Isn’t that what Dr. King would want? So should we vote for McCain so that we can keep affirmative action? I’m confused. Just tell me what to do.
— xol Aug 13, 01:19 PM #
This is the only good reason I can think of for voting for Obama. His election would change views on race in ways that racists of ALL colors won’t like. But I suspect that we would all feel the pain, one or another, from an Obama presidency. Perhaps that’s really his plan for unifying Americans; to give us all a common enemy: himself.
— Tracy G. Aug 13, 01:53 PM #
That should be, “we would all feel the pain, one way or another, from an Obama presidency.”
— Tracy G. Aug 13, 02:21 PM #
Both Obama and his wife were direct beneficiaries of affirmative action. How ironic, then, that if Obama were elected it could spell the end of affirmative action. One small victory for the Republicans!
— Mary Aug 13, 03:14 PM #
How, precisely, do you know that the Obamas were both beneficiaries of affirmative action? Because no African American could get into the schools they did without it? Because no black or brown person can succeed without a special boost reserved only for them?
Please elucidate.
— angela Aug 13, 03:20 PM #
This race for the White House has other serious consequences. For example, many who would have been for Hillary felt threatened by the Obama campaign. To be against Obama was to be a racist.
Similar approaches are already coming into play for the general election. Any critique of Obama may and probably will be cast in racial overtones muting serious discussions of the real issues. Here we have an inexperienced rock star type running for president but his ideas, what he says or his experience cannot be critiqued because it might look like one is a racist.
And if he is not elected we are told that we may see an explosion of anger across the country…that is what some people are saying in advocating his candicacy.
— Fred D. Aug 13, 03:22 PM #
Why is ‘the end of race’ a bad thing? Only for the race industry – the rest of America is well past this.
The delightfully ironic thing about all of this is that Obama himself is a racist, and his candidacy has survived this only because he is perceived as black.
The best way Americans can demonstrate that they are beyond race is to refuse to vote for Obama simply because he is black, while refusing to vote against him because he is black. Americans should vote against Obama because he is a deplorable bigot. Judge him by the content of his character, y’know?
— Take Back the U! Aug 13, 03:29 PM #
Re: Angela’s comment to Mary – I agree, how presumptive. But as a black woman with an Ivy-League education (who is not a Democrat and would never vote for Obama), I would point to Mary’s attitude as one of the several reasons affirmative action must go. Minorities will never be taken seriously until it’s clear as day they “did it on their own merit without special treatment” – otherwise assumptions and attitudes like Mary’s will ALWAYS be there.
— karen Aug 13, 03:31 PM #
I agree that Obama has a race dilemma, but it is not for the reasons cited in this Article.
I would suggest that the article’s title would have hit closer to the mark if Loury’s analysis focused on Obama’s close affiliations with so many racists such as Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan, not to mention his affiliations with known terrorists such as William Ayers. In this context, it is no wonder that Obama has been endorsed by Hammas and other terrorist groups.
— Todd Aug 13, 03:39 PM #
Mary,
Barack Obama did not list his race (an optional question in the application) on his application to Harvard. He was specifically NOT a direct beneficiary of affirmative action in being admitted to Harvard. Was yours a Republican victory for preconceived notions about how African Americans get admitted to university? Not all questions can be helpfully discussed through the prism of party politics. Facts and principles matter.
— Leo Aug 13, 03:42 PM #
It seems that the author seems to believe “race” is somewhat of a cottage industry. Would Senator Obama’s election doom the economic support enjoyed by the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharpton’s, and the the Jeremiah Wright’s of the country—-much like the PC doomed the typewriter significance?
— seth Aug 13, 03:44 PM #
I am a person who would not vote for Obama because of his Socialist mentality/approach to America’s porblems. I am not the slightest bit interested in his race or color or anyone’s for that matter. Here in Kentucky, the word is that he is just a flawed Democrat candidate – if he turned 100% black or white tomorrow, it wouldn’t change anything. He’s too full of himself. And his wife is too Hillary-ish.
— Muap Conners Aug 13, 04:10 PM #
If there is a problem with affirmative action, it is the artificial placement of people in positions for which they are unprepared and not competent—thus confirming stereotypes of inferiority. But people have always been hired or promoted or accepted into positions for which they were not prepared and were not competent—they were just hired for other reasons, like the family they were from, where they lived, what school they went to (rather than how well they did there), etc. Affirmative action is intended to keep people from being excluded from positions for which they are qualified and capable. Mary somehow assumes, wrongly, that the Obama’s were given opportunities to do things for which they were NOT qualified. They are both shining examples of people who certainly should not have been excluded, who are highly qualified— even brilliant. They are examples of people who did not need affirmative action to excel. What I hear Obama saying is that people who need special consideration should have it, but that it should not be based mainly on race, even though race may sometimes be a factor. Am I wrong about this?
— Joe Erwin Aug 13, 04:16 PM #
Joe Erwin, you say: “Affirmative action is intended to keep people from being excluded from positions for which they are qualified and capable.” That is actually NOT the point of Affirmative Action. The point is to ensure that less-qualified people be given opportunities because they’re disadvantaged and because they might have the potential to become qualified after (prematurely) receiving the opportunity or position.
— ML Aug 13, 04:25 PM #
Obama’s nomination is evidence that sexism in this country is also a problem that exists along side of racism.
As far as the 2008 election, the American people are tired of being robbed by an administration that cheated and stole the white house. At this point a victory by Obama over McCain is not a good indicator that racism is gone and affirmative action should be eliminated. Yet, a revelation that people are willing to seek out changes if those changes will improve their economic conditions.
If people feel a McCain victory will not improve the problems they are plagued with today they will choose differently.
If your options were to choose between continued economic turmoil, unemployment, housing problems, financial problems, healthcare, problems, educational problems, and the list goes on. OR to put some of your personal feelings aside for a change that could be better. Despite your ethnicity or cultural background, you might put more thought into this decision than if all those above mentioned problems didn’t exist.— The Professa Aug 13, 04:32 PM #
What I see from these comments is that racism (even if totally unintentional) is alive and well. I have heard many people say, “we don’t need affirmative action — Obama is the democratic nominee for crying out loud!” But using a single datum for this sort of analysis makes no sense. Take the first few years that colleges were integrated or the first few years they accepted women. In order to be accepted to an elite school as a woman or a minority you’d have to be the best of the best — 99th percentile grades and scores. In order to be accepted (back in the day) as a white man you could be pretty average and wealthy because of discrimination against women/minorities. So saying that ONE woman or minority is present in the whole school does not mean that it is an equal playing field for all. The presidency works the same way. You still have major advantages for election if you are white, male, rich, Christian, attractive/tall, and middle-aged. Some of those factors matter more than others. But regardless, we can’t use the faulty logic of “affirmative action no longer applies” just because there is one data point of someone who made it through in spite of his identity. Surely Barack didn’t experience as many barriers as his wife’s ancestors (his ancestors were not from this country), but it still might be the case that Barack has experienced more barriers than other presidential candidates, and possibly because of his race.
— Katherine Aug 13, 04:34 PM #
ML, I think you should review your researched notes on Affirmative Action. You have decided to take the uninformed distorted popular view of Affirmative Action that is not based on the original intent of the law. For the others who are concerned with what America will look like in terms of “race” relations, and I use that term cautiously. The educated people on this site must know that there is only one race, but I digress. Let’s not forget our brothers and sisters of South Africa with a similar marred past as our own and their lives before, during, and after the presidency of Mandela. Let that be your guide when you contemplate what America would look like if Obama was to earn the American Presidency. For the educated fools on this site, please move away from your feelings, and read a few books that may inform you of some true realities beyond what you fear to accept as reality.
— Alvin Aug 13, 05:20 PM #
Professa, You state “As far as the 2008 election, the American people are tired of being robbed by an administration that cheated and stole the white house.”
If you are referring to the Florida voting issues, I think you will find that the ballots were recounted by a number of news organizations (most of them favoring the Democrats), and they all found that Bush won that election. The election was not stolen.
Sam
— Sam Aug 13, 05:31 PM #
20 bucks to anyone who can decipher Alvin’s jabber
— jon Aug 13, 05:55 PM #
Sam,
Maybe the Professa was referring to the election of 1992.
— Contrarian Aug 13, 06:31 PM #
If I would vote for Teddy Kennedy over Barack Obama, but Hillary over Teddy; and if I would vote for Colin Powell or Condi Rice over the previous “candidates”; further if I would vote for Alan Keyes or Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or Michael Steele over them all, does that make me a male-sexist, white-racist, black racist, a Conservative, or what? I am still trying to figure out what I am since I don’t want either Obama or McCain (but I guess I will have to choose between the two evils)?
— Hyper-Contrarian Aug 13, 06:45 PM #
The article noted Roland Anglin’s comment that “black voters will have to keep up the pressure on Obama to address the crisis of black males, the education gap …” Yet in this same afternoon edition of the Chronicle Update, there is an article that highlights how colleges are not graduating enough students and that the federal government needs to develop policies to help cure the problem. The so-called “gap” today is not really very significant since it is not caused by race at all but rather excessive exposure to the “tube,” IM, rap music, lack of application, and other factors at home (especially the broken black-family homes and the many dysfunctional white-family homes as well). Add to that the poor performance by the union-controlled K-12 indoctrination system which fails to educate, and the excessive intervention by the federal government which elevated the role of education to Cabinet-level (along with the concomitant decline of education over these last 50 years). So, the outlines of some of the problems and their causes start to surface. Maybe some of the best solutions might have something to do with returning control of K-12 education to the proper state and local level, rebuilding solid families in both the white and minority communities, and breaking control of the unions in our schools.
(I might add that I taught once in the K-12 system, I was in the NEA, and my father and brother were both union – I know that which I criticize).
— Ole Perfesser Aug 13, 07:13 PM #
Jon, I’d be glad to claim the $20. Alvin sensibly disagreed with ML, and made other cogent points. If you don’t understand what he was saying about Mandela and RSA, there are ways you can learn more about that.
— Joe Erwin Aug 13, 08:22 PM #
Obama raises the specter of racism all over again. It doesn’t necessarily rise to a higher level, just more of the basics that most civilized people got over several decades past.
We will not get a clean start nor a more intellectual approach with his personna. In short, his candidacy and political style will set us all back in the frail movement to move forward. This would never have happened with Colin Powell or other more moderate, reasoned people with broader experience.
— Tresk O. Aug 13, 09:11 PM #
While I expected to see some of the typical retorts from anti-affirmative action crowd, I didn’t expect to see it in such living color. Over and over. Many of the posts above simply prove that racism is alive and well. While it may be shrouded in ignorance, or simplistic notions of a color-blind society, it’s there. With all the appropriate code words. An Obama presidency might make life a little more complicated for scholars of race, but the scholarship will continue. All you have to do is look at Obama’s performance in Appalachia. Clinton won that geographic area not because they like Clinton, but because they’ll never vote for a Black man. If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is.
But I think what’s really curious (telling?) to me is the number of posters above who basically ignore the topic that the article attempts to address, and use this platform to communicate their tired platitudes and broadcast their sheer ignorance of the issue. The presence of these posts merely proves the point that these scholars of race will have their hands full in the coming years.
— Marktropolis Aug 14, 07:51 AM #
Why does Obama call himself “black” when his white mother and grandparents were the people who reared him and sacrificed for him? If Obama is “black” only because of looks, why do blacks and liberals condemn the late Anatole Broyard as “black” when the man looked white and lived as white? Your fellow Americans are not fools. They are starting to ask questions.
— A.D. Powell Aug 14, 09:32 AM #
Racism is alive and well – in the ‘black community’. The 90%+ of the black vote Obama is receiving is proof of this – but I guess this is OK with the Left.
Leo – with a name like Barack Hussein Obama, there was no need to list his race. I assume as well giving his birthplace was part of the application?
— TRB Aug 14, 12:14 PM #
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for re-writing America’s history. He has the stuff and I’m set to vote him. I’m sure of his victory…
— peter, abraham Aug 21, 05:05 PM #