Voting While Black

There are several books which are currently on the market which speak to “post-blackness” or articulate a redefinition of “blackness” in this confusing era (see http://tinyurl.com/bvfgkoy).  In my humble opinion, and that of noted Professor and scholar Henry Louis Gates and others, there is no one definition of blackness, nor should there be.  However, the arguments’ surrounding what is and is not blackness and how it relates to the overall political discourse in this country is something that has been troubling me.

The latest example comes from North Carolina.  Amendment One – the measure which sought to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman was approved by the residents of North Carolina overwhelmingly.   What is problematic is not that a state with such historical ties to oppressing human/civil rights is up to their old tricks, but rather what is surprising is who, in part, the culprits are contributing to the denial of rights to a group of American citizens. 

Much in the same manner as in 2008 with California Ballot initiative Proposition 8 – which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, this ballot measure in North Carolina is nothing but solidifying hatred and discrimination into codified law.  That black folk, supposedly religious black folk, supported both of these ballot measures in great numbers is something that I cannot fathom.

Just to give you the numbers, in the same election in which over 90% of the black population voted for Barack Obama for President, 7 in 10 blacks voted yes in favor of Proposition 8 in California.  In Los Angeles County alone, if that number had been reversed, the measure most likely would not have passed.  As it stood, the measure passed 52-47%.  Most recently in North Carolina, Amendment 1 passed with a 2-1 margin of the black vote and an overall percentage of 61-38%.  While the majority of blacks may not have carried Amendment 1 to defeat, they certainly added to its victory.

During the fight for equality in the 1960s there were a host of allies who sought to help the Civil Rights Movement achieve their goals.  Most notably both Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin were two openly gay black men who fought on the front lines of the Civil Rights Movement.  Further, as one recent article noted, everyone who has ever sung in a black church choir knows someone who is gay – either openly or suspected.  What is the most disappointing thing about my own people’s abandonment of civil rights in the name of “religion” or worse, in trying to define “Civil Rights” as only those rights negotiated and fought by and for blacks, is the hypocrisy.  Not only were there black gay leaders, there were whites, women, and other minorities all fighting in the struggle. In the early 20^th century, it was the prevailing wisdom of whites to use a biological determination concerning the need for the separation of races before it was found to be illogical, ill-conceived and downright wrong.  

Another critique of miscegenation was that it was an “abomination” of God that the two races (they never include other groups besides “black” and “white”) shouldn’t mingle, much less procreate or marry.  That some blacks are using the same arguments to deny rights to LGBT couple who want to marry (especially in certain states where the STRAIGHT divorce rate is above 50% but that’s for another day), is completely 180 degrees from everything that the “Movement” stood for.

Let me be clear, certain black folk both in and out of the public arena have continually been outspoken in favor of LGBT rights before Obama’s announcement, including, ironically the Rev. Al Sharpton and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson.   However, there are too few foot soldiers who do not challenge the negative, ignorant assumptions made in barbershops, locker rooms and elsewhere about LGBT folk.  Too few of us who stand for human rights mean it in regards to everyone.  

On a personal note, in much the same way as President Obama, I too came to the epiphany of being open to not just marriage equity – which is somewhat new on the policy/political agenda, but LGBT issues in general.  I was never “against” gays, I just didn’t know anyone nor was I openly exposed to the culture.  Attending a liberal arts college in Los Angeles will change that lack of exposure real quick.  I was confronted with people who I respected, admired and yes even had crushes on who were lesbian or bi.  I was forced to reconcile my dream at the time of being a “Civil Rights” lawyer with my own hypocrisy of not including all rights under that banner.  While I would consider my mother and the rest of my family religious, I would also consider them to be extremely progressive.  Sometimes those two can reconcile themselves, and other times they cannot.  The one thing I can say is that I strongly believe that education and exposure are key.

So how do we educate black folk to both “love the sinner while hating the sin” and keeping their religious convictions (which no one is trying to deny) out of the polling booth?  My initial response is education - education not only in the home, but in the pulpits – which, when it really comes down to it, shouldn’t be in the business of telling us who or what to vote for anyway.   Finally, we need to publicly expand what blackness means.  It does not have to include oppressing other groups in the name of hyper masculinity, religious beliefs or other reasons.  It can include being more understanding that while our struggles for justice and rights are far from over, we will never completely overcome as long as Black folk continue to be the oppressors of other people, many of whom look like them. In order to truly make this a more perfect Union, we need to join with other groups still in their middle stages of their fight for equality.  Together, with as many allies as possible (and we now have a tremendous ally in the White House) we will one day be able to achieve equality.

We'll treat you like a King...

 In the wake of the "uprising" which occurred in Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King verdict in 1992, I was a 22 year old college senior one semester away from graduating.  It was April/May 1992 and most of my friends whom I started college with were finishing up their final semester.  At this time, my college was on the trimester system meaning we did not finish until the beginning of June, as opposed to some other schools who were finished in early May. Consequentially, we were in the midst of classes, partying and once the verdict and ensuing violence began, panic.

I vividly remember my roommate at the time, a white brother from near Chicago, who immediately went down to the reconciliation meetings which took place at a South Central Church. His roommate was a bit apprehensive.  Being a Black man in his early 20s, regardless of my impending college degree, I was afraid of getting caught up in the mix. I believed that although there were well intentioned Black folk doing good work down there, I didn't think that the combination of my...being an outsider and being Black was a good mix.  I struggled with this decision to stay "safe" on campus while my college community was quick to respond.

Another friend of mine, one who was associated with a religious organization on campus which was always performing service, was also quick to respond with a broom, garbage bags and the like to help in the clean-up efforts. She loaded up her car with as many friends as she could and proceeded down into the fray, unafraid and in my opinion heroic.  Unfortunately her family did not see it the same way and she was "requested" to return her car to her mother because her mother did not want her daughter in harms way.  As a new dad I can understand her mother's anguish, but would not have responded in the same manner.  Her daugher was doing what she was taught, not just at our liberal arts college, but through her faith.  She was performing God's work.

As I reflect on the 20 years since the King verdict, I am trying to look critically at where we've come - how far we have come.  Obviously race relations have changed, but to what degree?  Not only has America grown over the past 20 years - see OJ trial in the same city a few years later, the increase in the number of Black politicians and police chiefs (obviously Barack Obama being at the head of that lists), and the number of Blacks who have graduated college and matriculated into the middle class. All of these are signs that things have changed in this country tremendously. However, as the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

For a certain portion of the Black population, things have become increasingly worse.  Unemployment and underemployment, persistently violent neighborhoods and schools, hopelessness, anger and yes fear.  While many in the middle class of Black folk have been - in the words of the Jefferson's theme, moving on up, but at the same time, we are leaving millions behind.  As we increase our educational outcomes, one of the first things we (I'm including myself in this equation on purpose) do is to leave the neighborhood.  This leaves the neighborhood left with those who struggle to make ends meet, who do not have the same social and cultural capital and of course the economic and intellectual capital to make a transition. 

 

What is increasingly problematic is the type of persistent deficit thinking that has permeated too many black folk both in the neighborhood AND in colleges and universities. 

It is my hope that as we reflect on 20 years after Rodney King and his infamous words “why can’t we all get along?” that we take the time to truly begin to get along.  Not just with those who sit on the opposite aisle on the political spectrum, or who are of a different race/ethnicity, gender or otherwise - but most importantly from within.  

Why do I need I.D. to get I.D.?

Since the 2008 historic election of Barack Obama to the Presidency, there have been an increasing number of states which have begun to implement new voter ID laws – laws requiring people to present photo identification when voting in an election.  This seems to be a no brainer to some, and a controversial, voter suppression, reversion back to Jim Crow laws to others.

Here in Pennsylvania the campaign season arrives tomorrow (http://tinyurl.com/d2tzhya).  On television and in print media, there has hardly been any coverage of this election cycle.  If there has been any coverage about the upcoming election, it has focused on the new voter ID law passed by Governor Corbett just six weeks ago which requires voters in the state to present identification when casting a ballot.  Overall there are approximately 34 states which have begun to push these measures through their respective state legislatures.  My biggest question, concern is not whether or not this potential law is a new form of voter suppression, but rather a more philosophical question; why in the 21st Century are there people in this country who do not have identification in the first place?

I am keenly aware of the historical significance of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which eliminated such punitive and racists measures like poll taxes and other means which denied citizens  - namely Black Americans, their right to vote.  I am also quite aware of the history of one of the groups promoting voter ID laws throughout the states, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and their intention to gain Republican votes simply through the elimination of Democratic ones.  They believe; “Our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”  I am also aware of the legitimate arguments made by progressives and Democrats who argue that there is an unintended cost to voting, that by having to purchase an identification card (or update an old card) one can conclude that if one has to pay for identification, they are basically paying to vote.

My problem with my fellow progressives and Democrats is this; why wouldn’t we want the most fool proof way of having our votes count?  Through presenting legitimate identification (which can range from state issued IDs to other types of photo identification), there can no longer be the “excuse” that a person’s absentee ballot should not count, that our names do not match (because of misspelling or other “mistakes”) and thus we need a provisional ballot, or any other structural limitations to our being able to express our freedom to vote.

What is also problematic is the lengthy list of places often frequented where one does need identification; to cash a check (either at a bank or a check cashing store, to open a utility account (electric, gas, cell phone…), to travel (not just through the air, but also via train or bus), to enter 21 and over establishments, to receive discounts based on age (whether student rates or senior citizens fares), to rent an apartment or other housing, and finally to receive a voter ID card itself.  These are just but a few examples where people need to present identification. 

I understand my position goes against what many in the progressive community believe.  I respectfully disagree.  While there have been very few, if any, examples of voter fraud based on identification in the past few years, as we hope to grow voting to include perhaps online voting, same day registration and the like, it seems to me that the easier it is to identify who is casting a ballot, the easier it will be to make sure that that vote counts.

Finally, with such laws already on the books such as the “Motor Voter Bill” and in some states, same day registration, we should be in the business of making it easier to increase the voter rolls rather than reduce that number.  As it stands, outside of the historic 2008 election, voting in the 2010 Congressional races, 2011 municipal elections and the current primary season has been dismal without these voter ID laws in place.  In two examples, Chicago and Philadelphia, the election turnout in the past two elections has been well below 40 percent.

It is unclear whether or not these new voter ID laws will increase voter populations or as some believe, suppress voter turnout even further.  What is encouraging is that groups like the NAACP and the ACLU, while fighting the Constitutionality of the law, are also fighting in the streets, educating the voting population on what they need to be able to go to the polls in cities such as Philadelphia, not just during primary season, but in November for the general election.  Hopefully, this civic education will benefit the electorate as opposed to what ALEC intends which is to sway the election in their favor.  

Fall Down Seven Times, Get up Eight.

Recently there was an interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer  by Kristen Graham (http://tinyurl.com/d3ecu5d) about a young man who is currently lamenting his participation in a program in which he committed to teach in the Philadelphia Public Schools upon graduation from college.  He is second guessing his participation in this school district because of its mismanagement, so much so that he is quoted as saying “It saddens my heart that I don't want to teach in Philadelphia…”  Many responded both on Graham’s blog/webpage as well as on the Inquirer page.  The comments ranged from support to derision.  The critical take away from this article is why would this young man, young man of color to be exact, want to renege on his promise?

Let me be clear, I can understand and appreciate his sentiment.  However, perhaps because of my upbringing, or my stubbornness, or a combination of both, I’d see the troubles surrounding Philly and other major school districts as a blessing, not a curse.  I’d see it as a challenge rather than an impediment.  I see it as an opportunity to effect change and...Oh wait, I did just that.

Back in 2000 I made a failed attempt at my dream career.  I wanted to be a lawyer.  I had always been told that I would make a good lawyer, and wanted badly to be able to argue for a living.  Not to mention, I had a dream of becoming the next Thurgood Marshall, even all the way to the lifetime appointment in the building which cites “Equal Justice, Under Law” as its premise.

Alas that did not happen.  In 2003, I made the cross country journey in a car I did not own 48 hours before to a city where I did not have a home to “just” became a teacher – the family business.  What I did to become a teacher was all in.  I left my home city, moved to another city without the promise of a job, and had no where to stay.  I did so because of a plethora of selfish reasons (not wanting to be in my family's shadow in Chicago was the main one), but also because I wanted to help the students of South Central - I wanted to teach them they way I was taught in an independent school setting, in their public school environment. 

My journey into the classroom is not what I want to focus on today.  I want to critique a culture and a society in which this young man is increasingly becoming the norm rather than the exception when it comes to giving back through teaching as well those who continue to demean young folks who want to get into this business of education. Psychologically speaking for a long time (and perhaps even now if you ask some) I feel as if I let myself down by becoming an educator, that I missed my life calling.  What makes me forget that feeling are the constant reminders of the influence I have had on a large number (over 1000) young people – from a diverse range of races as well as social classes.  Not just in the classroom, but in the streets volunteering, building homes and communities with young folk from many states.  Contributing to that number of young people in such diverse educational experiences has to have had a profound impact on the leaders of tomorrow - not to mention how I view the world.  However, I strongly believe that I was not THE difference in their lives, but rather A difference in their life.  Marianne Williamson said it best; “I am not the teacher in life, I am the student.”  I have learned so much from my students, mentees and other young people that I would be disingenuous if I said otherwise.

So to the young man who doesn’t want to stay in Philadelphia after his initial teaching contract expires and for those Teach for America teachers who are constantly maligned by naysayers on both sides of the aisle, in the immortal words of two late 20^th century poets T.S. Shakur said; “Keep ya head up” and Billy Joel concurred by encouraging at the end of each of his concerts to “Don’t take no s**t from anyone!”

My message is simple.  Youth are the leaders of tomorrow.  Sometimes us “older” folk have selective amnesia when it comes to our own youth.  We look in the rear view mirror and only see our mistakes and what we shouldn’t have done.  Rarely do we see the good, and our reflexive mirror seems bent towards the negative.  Thus either through trying to protect young folk, or because we think they are too "immature," we want younger people to be “seen and not heard” to “learn the lessons from their elders” and other types of sayings that are as old as the typewriter they were written on.  In sum, in order to lead, you have to make mistakes.  If we want “perfection” we will never achieve change.  In other words, you have to fall down seven times, get up eight.  Learn from your mistakes, dust yourself off, and continue the fight.  Otherwise we will forever be mired in slow, methodical change from top down rather than organic, grassroots change from the ground up.

"Service is the Rent We Pay for the Privilege of Living on This Earth" - Shirley Chilsom

This weeks blog (due to grading and the holiday) is from the vault.  Enjoy...

Mandatory Service seems like an oxymoron, in the sense that one is being forced to perform or participate in what is generally perceived to be an inherently voluntary act. However, when it comes to service learning in schools or in urban communities, one can see that there is a strong need to for youth to reach out to either their own population or populations in which they share common boundaries. These youth perhaps might otherwise not be engaged in learning about their communities or the inhabitants, if service was not a part of their school curriculum, religious or non-profit organizations mission or purpose.

In my experience as Assistant Community Learning Program Director at the University of Chicago Laboratory High School, oftentimes I had to explain to sophomores from, in general, a higher socio-economic background, that their mandatory high school graduation requirement of two semesters (approximately 20 weeks) of service was required, but it was up to them to decide what type of service experience they wanted to perform (afterschool program, working with seniors, homeless, hospital setting, etc). Oftentimes I repeated a quote from Marianne Williamson which says “It is not up to you what you learn, but whether you learn through joy or pain.” Having to participate in service learning, regardless of your background, has been shown to raise academic performance, self esteem, connect students to their communities, and fosters an increased acceptance of diversity (Newman, Wehlage, Lamborn (1992), Blyth, Saito & Berkas (1997), Billig (2004)). Regardless of whether or not these students had previous experience with service through their churches or synagogues or other out of school organizations, creating a shared experience behind service for all of the sophomores concerning issues surrounding community, “isms” and social justice, really made their excursions into the community an overwhelming success. One of the major questions in examining this approach to service learning is – why did students respond to mandatory service more positively than many who have been required to perform service and had less than stellar results?

Service learning has the potential to transform lives. When people (especially high school students) are required to perform service, it is incumbent upon those who place the requirement or are stewards of the implementation of the requirements to make sure students are trained to be prepared for a vast array of experiences. When the adults are not trained correctly, the likelihood of students having a positive service learning experience is greatly reduced (Seitsinger, 2005). It is incumbent then that we as both researchers and educators make sure that when students are mandated to perform service, the adults are also mandated – mandated to undergo rigorous training in order for authentic service learning to occur. When we are diligent in our implementation of training adults to administer service learning programs, then the experiences of students are more likely to be positive, sustained and has the potential to be life altering experiences in which students will want to engage in for the rest of their lives.

One of the final benefits to having mandatory service is the motivational effect. In short, students need positive reinforcement and positive examples of service in order to have a favorable impression of service. Being mandated to do service – especially when programs are of high quality and possess all of the characteristics of “successful” service (Seitsinger, 2005). While working at Lab, the positive effects on the students were many. I saw students who were afraid, skeptical and uncertain about themselves and what they had to contribute, blossom into confident, concerned and engaged budding community activist. In our program, one of the benefits which seemed to be an unintended consequence was that these students would discuss their experiences at home, with their parents and others, who in turn were in positions of authority and/or influence in the city or community. Therefore the engagement of their daughters/sons had a direct impact on their own visions of the city and the community which affected their professional practice (whether they were lawyers, doctors or university professors). It will be interesting to see as the mandate for service learning expands into public schools, how this mandate will affect family members and guardians of the student participants.