Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever…A Change That Never Came

As my first post-doc post, I want to throw my hat into the ring regarding the 60^th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka KS (1954).  "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."  Those words spoken by the newly inaugurated Governor Wallace of Alabama in 1963 could not ring more true today.  However, those who are...articulating a false narrative concerning “resegregation” or lamenting that charters or other school reforms equal the “new segregation” are misrepresenting history.

Let me be as explicit as I have ever been about anything…In regards to local public high schools, School segregation NEVER took place.  Let me say that again, school segregation, as intended by Brown NEVER took place in the United States of America.

What did happen?

In the North, and places where there is more than one local high school, we have seen very few instances of positive examples of integration in America.  What occurred is that in areas where school buildings were integrated, much of the population of White students were placed into honors or advanced placement courses and Black and Brown students were placed in remedial courses and vocational education courses.  From the early 1960s until it became a policy non grata, segregation within the school building was primarily done through tracking and other tactical means of keeping “those students” away from their white counterparts. 

Another example of what happened was that in the wake of Brown, especially in the cities with strong ethnic neighborhoods such as Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia, white flight occurred.  The feeling was, you want to integrate the school, fine, I’m moving to the suburbs. In response, school districts tried to “force” integration by demanding students be bused from one school to another [see Eyes on the Prize volume 2 regarding South Boston v Roxbury, 1974].  This vain attempt to integrate schools beyond neighborhood boundaries was extremely problematic and even dangerous as the first and second wave of integration took place post-Brown. The resentment from this failed attempt could arguably be considered to still be prevalent today.

Why is this historical recollection important?  It is important, no, essential, because without the knowledge of the historical events which occurred in the wake of the historic Brown decision there is a tendency to fall prey to the false narrative that Brown integrated schools and even worse, that racial “progress” that was made in those years, has dissipated and we are now fraught with segregated schools, some worse than before the momentous decision.

I have argued that the Brown decision did more to integrate every other aspect of American life EXCEPT public education for a long time.  That statement is usually met with disdain or contempt.  But let’s look at the realities of our surroundings.  As long as we cannot force people to live in integrated communities, and as long as cities previously mentioned and others, want to insist on the antiquated notion of “local, neighborhood schools” we are going to be fraught with racial (and class) isolationism. 

Hence scholars and pundits who wish to use the term “resegregation” or segregation do so knowing it is a loaded term filled with visions of women and men spitting, hitting and cursing young Black boys and girls on their way to enter the school house gates.  It is a term which denotes racial animus, and legal and moral acceptance of the purposeful separation of the races.  It is a term which hearkens back to a day when people such as Ruby Bridges and others were constantly under death threats because of their social justice actions.  It is a term which has zero place in the discourse surrounding public education today, except in the context of trying to create hyperbole and misrepresent the current educational landscape. It is also grounded in the notion that segregation has been used as a mechanism of inequality, and that integration should not be the goal in and of itself.  Instead, we should aim towards dismantling the systems which have created racial and class-based inequality in too many areas of this country for decades if not centuries. Thus I cannot see how we, knowing the history, can continue to use this term to describe the current state of public education. 

In his work, Freeden Oeur who focuses on single-sex schools, notes that separation does not always equal segregation.  Further, it seems to me as if it those who insist on using the term to articulate today’s public school backdrop are using the term to incite the public into action.  The question is what action, and at what costs?

The way I see it, it is unfortunate that many progressives are coming from a position in which their implicit bias is that if it is Black (or Brown) it is wrong.  Very rarely is this notion is expressed explicitly , but usually this “truth” hides under the veil of progressive educators and scholars articulating a vision of creating a public school system which is equitable and just.  While these altruistic goals are highly desirable, to achieve them, one does not have to believe that simply by integrating public schools will solve all their ills.  While some research does demonstrate positive effects of school integration, and as one who went to a fairly integrated public school in Cambridge in the mid-1970s, I can attest that there is tremendous cultural and social capital gained from being raised in a diverse population.  In contrast, I also strongly believe that an all-Black, all-male, or all-Latino environment can also achieve positive academic gains for their students.  Thus the question remains whether or not we are arguing the need to dismantle the 2^nd wave or segregation based on race or class?

It is duplicitous and disingenuous to lay the “blame” on charter schools or other schools of choice as being “resegregated” when we should not only look at the racial and socio-economic make-up of the neighborhoods in which they reside, but also their academic outcomes.  Are they graduating their students and sending them to college?  Are they providing them with opportunities to engage in extra-curricular and co-curricular activities that allow them to be exposed to things that are not the “normative” behavior in their neighborhoods?  Are these students allowed to travel both around the country and the globe to see how others live?  In short, are they allowed to break out of the dominant paradigm and low expectations placed upon them because of their race, SES, gender or other bias?  We need to shift this discussion from the pervasive negative, deficit lens to one of a more positive lens. 

In short, the discourse should not focus exclusively on a schools racial disposition (although I do understand that "urban" equals less than in terms of funding), but rather how can we make ALL schools, regardless of their structures economically viable, safe, trustworthy, highly engaging, high expectations based and outcome centers of positive academic and social learning?  

Nino Brown

New Jack City, Warner Bros. 1991

In 1991 the urban classic film New Jack City, Nino Brown (played perfectly by Wesley Snipes), and his right hand man, G-Money, throughout the film repeat the phrase “am I my brother’s keeper.  Yes I am.”  In fact, those are the last words uttered between the two before Nino kills G. 

Fast forward to 2014, the President of the United States is Black and he has revived the phrase “My Brother’s Keeper.”  This time, the aim is not to keeping his “boys” from the neighborhood in line, but rather it is an initiative designed to keep all boys of color in line by being more responsible and compassionate towards one another and for us, as a society, to value boys of color in more positive ways rather than strictly as drug dealers, corner boys, high school dropouts, unemployed, or deadbeat fathers.

whitehouse.gov

While one would think that the premise advanced by the President and his Administration would be seen as beneficial both for the community and from the community, there are those who have been vocally critical, or at the very least, skeptical of the merits of this initiative. 

Last month when the initiative was rolled out, in addition to Magic Johnson, Colin Powell and others Black leaders being in attendance at the White House, the President had a cadre of young black boys from a predominantly all-black high school on the south side of Chicago behind him as he gave his speech.  The optics were one of positivity.  Seeing black boys out of the “context” of expectations, meaning suited up, clean cut standing tall and proud behind the first Black President, was an important visual.  However, where I am conflicted is whether or not we should EXPCECT Black boys and boys of color to “perform race” in multiple ways such as this example, or should the narrative exclusively be relegated to their supposed stereotypical “authentic” urban, hip-hop selves?  In my own experience, it was irrelevant whether or not I was wearing a suit or a sweatshirt, too many cabs from Washington DC to Chicago have passed me by.  Why does this happen?  If adults with a little bit of status (as exemplified by wearing a suit) are seen as “problematic” or “threatening” (let me add not just by white cab drivers, but by a large number of Black immigrant cab drivers too), then how should we as a society view even younger Black male bodies?

Historically we know that Black and Brown bodies have been problematic to the dominant group, and seen systemically and structurally as “inferior.”  Does one initiative by the first Black President change those systems and structures overnight?  Of course not.  Anyone who bought into the false premise of living in a “post-racial” society simply because of the election of Obama is living in a Willy Wonkaish dream world.  

However, as I have repeatedly articulated, how do we flip the script and create a counter-narrative that both honors the historical background, but is not stuck there?

I will not repeat the statistics concerning boys of color the President cited. In citing the statistics in this context, in my opinion, he was not framing the discourse from a deficit perspective. Rather he was framing it from a structural and historical one.  I think this aspect went unnoticed by many of the critics who claim that this initiative is nothing more than talk.  It is not as if a President, of any race by the way, could explicitly come out and say that we are starting this initiative because the United States was founded on and has historically demonstrated institutional, and structural oppression, violent hatred and racial animus.  As a politician, even one with no campaign on the horizon, any President would be cautious about exactly how “honest” he can be.  By stating the obvious narrative of his own history of growing up without a father and citing this issue as one of “national importance,” he is saying implicitly what all the prognosticators, academics and critics would like to see him make explicit.  

Dr. Lewis-McCoy in a piece in Ebony is quoted as saying “creating change is not simply about behavior but also about changing the pervasive unequal systems that ensnare young men of color.”  No doubt Dr. Lewis-McCoy is 100% correct, but is it not possible to change systems and structures AND hearts and minds of the boys of color at the same time?  Is it not possible to both encourage boys of color to be resilient and demonstrate persistence AND teach them about the world as it is – perhaps by articulating examples of our own experiences of navigating through the world as positive black males through highlighting difficulties in being unable to get a loan, being denied housing, tenure or a job simply because we are “too aggressive,” or any number of negative experiences even “successful” black males endure?

Mychal Denzel Smith both in the Nation and on the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC explicitly called the initiative “flawed” and “counterproductive.”  His premise is similar to Dr. Lewis-McCoy’s in that he claims the initiative does not address structural problems, specifically the two examples of stop-and-frisk and mass incarceration.  I believe that any initiative when first launched cannot and should not be so etched in stone that it cannot adapt to legitimate criticisms such as articulated by these two commentators and scholars.  However, I am realistic, or perhaps optimistic enough to know that just like it is difficult to lose weight gained over years of neglect, so too is it difficult to change structures and institutions overnight.

Changing the narrative from a negative to a positive one is never easy.  Oftentimes people see highlighting what is good as disrespecting the history or reality of the negative.  That does not have to be the case.  We can, as Smith says “turn every black and brown boy into a ‘respectable’ citizen” AND advance society by eliminating the historical inequities inflicted upon them.  We, as communities of color cannot succeed alone in changing the narrative.  It will take allies from every walk of life to make change happen.  I believe that the President’s initiative is a step in the right direction. Not the entire marathon, but a much needed, and long delayed step towards positive social change. 

Black ain't Nothin' But a Color

Note: I have been trying for weeks to figure out a way to write this idea down in a way that won’t offend too many folks.  Of course I am going to offend some, that’s the nature of raising some of the issues raised on this blog.  However, I seriously want to parse this issue carefully, not to save face or maintain allies in certain places, but rather because I want to treat the issue with the temerity and seriousness it deserves, while also being honest.

With that said…

It has come to my attention that many people (more than I ever knew) are mired in the race based philosophies of an earlier era.  It is not just those in the streets (see Occupy and radicals), but it has unfortunately shown its ugly head in the ivory towers of academic institutions, as well as the public sphere of intellectual conversation/discourse.  What I explicitly mean is too many folk rest on the notion that since the history of America, as this camp so eloquently articulates, was built on the backs of Black and Brown folk that we – those of us who are Black and Brown, must somehow hold this country forever responsible for whatever societal ills which happen to us.  In short, structural, institutional and societal racism has and will always hold us back from achieving the “American dream.” 

            What many who adhere to this belief insist upon is that simple isolated advancements/achievements, from being able to sit/eat/shop/walk anywhere in this country without being legally harassed, not to mention the current (and future) occupant in the White House, do nothing to change the singular insistence that “things have not gotten better, nor will they ever.” 

            I’m sorry, but as I sit here, in Los Angeles, a true melting pot or stew (which, of course has its boiling points and warts) I look out on the block and see a sea of humanity, or as Prince, expanding upon Jesse Jackson, put it, a sea of “rainbow children.”  I know there are undercurrents of anger, resentment and yes racism, but walk into the shops along this block, or enter the place where I just got my hair cut.  See who owns these shops, not just who patronizes them.  If you don’t think change (financial, social and otherwise) has come to many of these entrepreneurs, you are doing a disservice to their hard work, perseverance and dedication.

            As I think about my experiences in my current residence on the other side of the country, I can only think of a few instances and individuals which truly represent the “rainbow children” mentality.  And let me be clear, I am not so much speaking so much to those who have traditionally been in power or were the perpetrators of racism in this country (i.e. white folk), I’m talking to you, my brothas and sistas.

            Since when did it become socially and culturally acceptable in too many places to see race through a singular lens?  If I’m not mistaken, the history teacher in me can examine as far back as DuBois and Washington, or Malcolm and Martin the dichotomy which has existed in the our community.  In short, there are too many examples of what it means to live, act, socialize and thrive as a Black/Brown person to conclude that only one way should be socially acceptable.  What is hurtful for those of us without a home (not fully embraced in either the dominant society or their “home” culture) is that as we advance the ladder – whether it be in business, academia or simply by living in a mixed community, we are further and further excommunicated by our own.          

If those of us who try to present a third way to Black/Brown folk, or actually see the dream King envisioned becoming a reality (albeit not as fast as it should, but no one is drinking out of a segregated water fountain) ever challenge the “norm,” we become pariahs, traitors or liars.  Yet in the dominant world, we are seen as “angry” “dangerous” and “threatening” if we challenge not how far we’ve come, but how much further we still need to go.  In some circles, we are increasingly held to a different standard even if we have the same credentials, same education, live in the same neighborhoods and frequent/enjoy the same cultural artifacts.

            So what is a 21^st century brotha/sista to do?  While I personally am not afraid to challenge anyone or, in the same vein, learn and grow from others, I see fear emanating from both sides.  Fear of change.  Fear of the unknown.  Fear of failure.  If we, as Black/Brown folk acknowledge, yes, things have changed since the 1960s, or even the 1980s, we run the risk being dismissed and reduced to an inaccurate conclusion that change has produced a “post racial world.”  If we challenge white folk in the same manner and approach their peers/colleagues do, on an intellectually level playing field, we run the risk of being dismissed as “dangerous” or “threatening.”

            In short, in this day and age, the younger generation doesn’t see race as we once did (or some still do).  What that means is that for them it is OK to like both Drake and Taylor Swift, to eat sushi, tacos and grits all in the same week, or participate in any other culturally hybrid phenomena which exist today.  Maybe we can learn from their hybridity, and maybe they can learn the historical constructs of the past from us.  We have the puzzle pieces in place, now the difficult part of putting them together must take place.  It starts with what the late Rodney King said so famously 20 years ago during civil unrest in LA “Can’t we all just get along?”  Getting along doesn’t mean forgetting the past, it means understanding, acknowledging and as Mandela and the Apartheid Movement has taught us, Ubuntu – “I am what I am because of who we all are.” 

Fear of a Black Planet

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin murder, the reelection campaign of President Obama and the general state of racial affairs in this country, many people have been repeating the phrase “we do not live in a post-racial society.”  They’ve said it in print, on the air, in the blogosphere, and in countless discussions on social media.  The one question I’ve been thinking is – who “invented” the term post-racial in the first place?

Well of course in this day and age, I took to Google to do a perfunctory search of the term.  I came across several interesting links.  The first one was a definition from the Urban Dictionary which read:

“A term used to describe a society or time period in which discussions around race and racism have been deemed no longer relevant to current social dynamics.  Popularized after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America in 2009.” (www.urbandictonary.com)

Of course there are many books on the subject of race in general and the concept of post-racial, including Racism without Racists by Edward Bonilla-Silva.  In the book’s latest edition, Bonilla-Silva devotes the entire last chapter to the election of President Obama and what it means for race relations in this country. 

Another example is a book entitled The Myth of Post-Racial America: Searching for Equality in the Age of Materialism by Roy Kaplan.  What is problematic from the title of this book is that there is a presupposition that the discussion about post-racial America has already taken place, and we all agree that it is a myth that we do indeed live in a post-racial world.  I  have never seen this discussion take place on the nightly cable talking head shows, or the Sunday morning shows.  When did we actually have this discussion and reach the conclusion that it is unanimously preposterous to think that we live in a post-racial world?

Presently, the reelection campaign of Barack Obama has given us an opportunity to reflect on the past three and a half years and examine whether or not we live in a world which, as Ronald Reagan when running for the Presidency said, is “better off” that it was four years ago.  In terms of race, of course that is a complicated question.   

For those who naively thought that the election of President Obama would all of a sudden make a black and white world Technicolor (as in the Wizard of Oz, or the park scene in She's Gotta Have It) maybe their glasses were rose colored from the beginning.  For most of us, the reality of the complexities of race has always been a shade of grey.  In a recent article in the Washington Post (http://tinyurl.com/7psmtxr) Reniqua Allen articulates the current difficulties in bringing up race in a mixed setting.  She brilliantly highlights the same sentiments I feel, that after the latest tragedy (fill in the blank... Trayvon, Oscar, Sean, Troy Davis, Rodney King, etc…) “we have big debates over racial prejudice and disparities in this country, and then nothing happens.”   Her premise is that due to Obama’s election, it has made it hard to talk openly about race; I contend that we never had these conversations in the public square in mixed company in the first place.  Normally these conversations, if they take place at all, take place exclusively in single race, or occasionally singularly oppressed group (i.e. Blacks and Latinos) company.

In perhaps the most interesting and honest discussion available about the idea of a post-racial America,  NPR held a discussion nearly one year after the election of President Obama entitled “The Post-Racial Conversation, One Year In.”  In this discussion, two scholars discussed race and the term post-racial.  The first, Ralph Eubanks (author of House at the End of the Road) defined post-racial in two ways; first – race is no longer an issue or an impediment in American society and two – a colorblind society where race is not an issue, we’re all Americans (http://tinyurl.com/yamtnfa).  The other participant in the discussion Mark Anthony Neil (http://newblackman.blogspot.com/) articulated an interesting premise.  He contends that there is a difference between post-racial and post-racists in which the latter is perhaps a time in the future where slights no longer exist.  He also contends that many want to jump into a post-racial society not because the discussions on race have already taken place, but so that those conversations disappear, in other words conversation fatigue. 

Both authors highlight two critical points which are profoundly meaningful to my work; one, that hip-hop has served as an influential conduit or bridge in helping to advance even the possibility of a post-racial society upon at least one if not two generations of young people and two, that those same young folk have what I call historical amnesia.

Perhaps...ok we do not currently live in a post-racial world.  But that day is coming – how long, not long…What is problematic to achieving this lofty ideal is that those of us with direct links to the 60s era Civil Rights Movement (either as the daughters/sons of those who lived through that era, or lived through that era ourselves) want to impose our racial standards and constructs on what we deem, “naïve” children or young adults.  Perhaps the current transformational shift through which the younger generations view race in this country is another example (like the aforementioned Civil Rights Movement itself) of older folks sitting back and allowing younger folk to lead us into a better society.  Not through the absence of a deep and profound historical understanding of what has transpired throughout the tumultuous history of America, but because of that understanding. 

Coming to terms with our own racial history and the painful, oftentimes deadly history of race in this country does not mean we have to keep reliving that pain.