Obama and the Politics of Race

What will be President Obama's legacy on race relations? Will he be remembered in history as the man who brought Americans together by advancing race neutral public policies or will he be remembered as the man who pulled Americans apart by favoring some racial and ethnic groups over others? The recent Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. Defano offers an important opportunity for President Obama to take a leadership role in advancing policies and remedies that will ameliorate rather than exacerbate existing racial tensions. President Obama has a chance to bring Americans together by addressing sensitive issues in a manner that recognizes the failed remedies of the past and the changing demographics of a nation rapidly becoming majority-minority.

Ricci is the reverse discrimination case won by mostly white firefighters who studied and passed a qualifying exam only to have their hopes dashed after the city failed to certify the results. Fearing discrimination lawsuits from African Americans who failed the test, the city threw out the results and decided not to promote anyone. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court recognized the rights of the white applicants. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded that the "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." The decision in Ricci makes it crystal clear that white Americans are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Other protections come from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. So far, it seems like old style affirmative action that often gave preferences to racial and ethnic minorities in competitive situations is on tenuous grounds. Consequently, there is a real need for other approaches for dealing with persistent racial disparities.

In 2009, we have long since passed the point where much moral weight should be given to arguments such as the eloquent one advanced by Justice Blackmun in the 1978 Bakke case, in which, he stated that "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently." Thirty-one years later this statement finds many deaf ears in ethnically and racially diverse America.

President Obama's election has not caused America to become a post-racial nation. If anything, racial issues have heightened. Instead of making decisions that build confidence across a broad spectrum of Americans, the President has nominated individuals such as Sonia Sotomayor, one of the lower court judges whose decision was just reversed in Ricci, to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. She is famously known for having stated that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Given the rapid growth of the Hispanic population, few people would question the raw politics behind nominating this controversial appointee to become the nation's first Hispanic woman Supreme Court justice.

America stands at a crossroads. Reports by the Department of Homeland Security have warned us of rising extremism related to the election of the nation's first black president. Clearly, what President Obama does and says matters to millions of Americans. Unfortunately, his administration has missed more than one opportunity to set a different tone on race. In fact, the Obama administration's brief unwisely sided with the City of New Haven against the white firefighters. Surely, Obama, a constitutional law expert, should have urged his administration to take a different stance. The appearance of pandering to vociferous racial and ethnic groups does not be fit the image of this President.

There are some things that President Obama can do to improve race relations. For example, he can begin by reminding Americans of the importance of forging a national identity that transcends racial and ethnic membership. Some of the problems adversely affecting blacks and other minorities are related to factors other than race and ethnicity. The President can use his shared racial membership with blacks to discuss issues in the community that have not proven amenable to governmental solutions. For example, crime, high illegitimacy rates, low-achievement levels even among the middle class, and drug abuse. This conversation can address cultural differences that work against people of lower socioeconomic status.

In addition, there is a pressing need for a national conversation about the continued job discrimination that many black men and women experience despite the existence of civil rights laws and statutes. Some of this discrimination occurs in low wage, low skill jobs where blacks find themselves at a disadvantage when competing with whites and immigrants. Racial preferences in employment and college admissions do almost nothing to address larger problems of societal discrimination that might be amenable to more creative solutions.

But until we can acknowledge the problems with current policies and practices, we can never get to more effective solutions for helping disadvantaged Americans. One thing is certain. Racial preference policies are no longer a viable solution for addressing disparities in a nation as ethnically diverse as ours. Surely, this is a leadership opportunity for the Obama administration and for others who care about justice.

Carol Swain is professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University and is author of The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration.

Follow Carol M. Swain on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CMSwain

Comments

[tjmlrc]

When I saw the difference in the way that obama greeted the Queen of England (nice, sedate, gentlemanly greeting and gifting her with an ipod) and the way he greeted the King of Saudi Arabia (aboslutely glowing, bowing, and he did bow, then gifting him with a car) I really think I started to understand this person now more than ever, and I don't believe he should be the POTUS.
Some many of the things he does are glossed over but the comparison of the video clips tells a story that apparently most people don't want to see.

Sad for this country and what may happen to us as a result.

Additionally, I believe race relations have worsened in the short time he has been in office. He is not leader material, unfortunately.

[S1m0n]

Oh, get over yourself! Sotomayor's ruling in that case was in complete conformation with the prevailing precedent, which is mainstream by definition. If you think she should have ruled otherwise, you are complaining that Sotomayor isn't enough of a judicial activist. Id that really what the right wants - more judicial activists on the Supreme Court bench?

[IrisBittencourt]

Another fundamental flaw of your article is your equation of blacks with other "minorities," which ignores the unique ongoing effects of racism on blacks. Most importantly, you fail to consider differences in wealth between so-called racial groups. Slavery was first and foremost about the creation of white wealth with black labor. In 1863, blacks had zero cents for every dollar of wealth that whites had. One way, then, to measure black "progress" is to measure their relative wealth compared to whites. One would assume that affirmative action for blacks should end when blacks and whites enjoy rough parity in wealth. So, how far have blacks come since 1863?

Today, blacks have between 7 and 11 cents for every dollar of wealth that whites have. Is it your view that we can end affirmative action for blacks and that there is no moral imperative to close this gap further? Since when do you score a touchdown at your own 10 yard line? It is difficult to take whites and others who call for an end to affirmative action seriously in light of these wealth differences, which concretely show and quantify the continuing effects of racism in society.

[IrisBittencourt]

You suffer from the same analytical shortcomings as most people who write about race. The first clue is when you state that the Ricci case was won by "mostly white firefighters," implying that the one Latino is of a different "race." You should know that "hispanics" are an ethnic group not a race, as evidenced by the census. Moreover, a majority of Mexicans and almost 100% of Cubans self-classify as "white."

But more fundamentally, "race" does not exist as a biological category and is only a social construct. This means that everything done in the name of "race" is based on a lie. This, however, does not confirm your view that "In 2009, we have long since passed the point where much moral weight should be given to arguments ... that "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race." Such a view fails to address racialization, or the reification of race as a concept that ascribes certain characteristics to dark-skinned people racialized as "black." What Blackmun was trying to say then is that to get beyond racism (which is the racialization of certain people as "black"), we must first take account of race (or in other words the effect of being racialized as black in our society).

So, the moral imperative remains strong today, because in order to treat people who have been racialized as black equally, we must treat them differently (i.e., not racialized as black).

[EndRacismNow]

Wow intellectual hullabaloo. You sound smart but essentially you are saying nothing.

Maybe in academia you can sit on your pedestal and claim their is no such thing as race because it is 'social construct' but in the real world race is a big issue. I wish it wasn't but people are tribal and always have been. Intellectuals like yourself will never be able to change that with your pontificating drivel.

[Mary50]

Great article.

[Mares]

cookie monsta, apparently your ancestors came here just for money, is that what you're saying? Because you don't seem to be capable of grasping what being an American means, what was long and hard fought for. Try pulling your head out of your "diverse and confusing ethnicity" posterior, and try reading the constitution and bill of rights.

Being an American doesn't dilute anything. What I recognize in the sort of lunatic responses made by people like you is, that you're in aid of diluting citizenship, rights and freedoms down to little more than something to exploit. Being an American means that rights aren't a one way street.. as confusing as that might be for someone who only thinks of them self, but the fact that the rights of citizenship requires reciprocity. It means that while you respect your ethnic heritage, you cut all ties of loyalty to other countries. That you are required to uphold the constitution, and commit to the US and it's people. Now, if that's too much for you, you are not required to remain here. You're more than free to return to one of the diverse and ethnically confused countries your forebears fled. BTW, I'm an American of indigenous ancestry, so stuff the trite response you no doubt are considering letting fly. ;)

[The Albany Kid]

For the 1,000,000th time, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination".

And considering that Obama already has to play a racial balancing act that is so delicate that he usually refers to Martin Luther King, Jr. simply as a "young preacher from Georgia" instead of by name in his speeches, jumping into the racial preferences arena (especially considering the scope of his current economic and foreign relations challenges) would be a horrible idea....he doesn't have time to spare for culture wars, at least not right now.

[dillydawg]

I know it makes your head spin like a top. Reverse Racism what a conard.

[Cookie Monsta]

My concern in seeking "a national identity that transcends racial and ethnic membership" is that we do not abandon our ethnicity. I do not want to loose my diverse and confusing ethnicity just to be a diluted American.

[dillydawg]

It is what makes us so socially and culturally rich.

[Mares]

cookie monsta, apparently your ancestors came here just for money, is that what you're saying? Because you don't seem to be capable of grasping what being an American means, what was long and hard fought for. Try pulling your head out of your "diverse and confusing ethnicity" posterior, and try reading the constitution and bill of rights.

Being an American doesn't dilute anything. What I recognize in the sort of lunatic responses made by people like you is, that you're in aid of diluting citizenship, rights and freedoms down to little more than something to exploit. Being an American means that rights aren't a one way street.. as confusing as that might be for someone who only thinks of them self, but the fact that the rights of citizenship requires reciprocity. It means that while you respect your ethnic heritage, you cut all ties of loyalty to other countries. That you are required to uphold the constitution, and commit to the US and it's people. Now, if that's too much for you, you are not required to remain here. You're more than free to return to one of the diverse and ethnically confused countries your forebears fled. BTW, I'm an American of indigenous ancestry, so stuff the trite response you no doubt are considering letting fly. ;)