Playing The Race Card

The Associated Press recently sponsored a discussion on affirmative action with a dozen students attending the University of Maryland’s Young Scholars Program for exceptional high school students. (Link via Howard Bashman) All the students sounded bright and appealing, but many of their comments were sadly revealing.

Chrisheena Hill, a black senior from Niagara Falls, N.Y., demonstrated a keen grasp of the obvious when she stated that “affirmative action can still help minorities get into places that might otherwise be shut off from them,” although her use of “shut off from” rather than “shut off to” may reveal a recognition on her part that “diversity” is a justification for providing a benefit to majority, not minority, students.

Several minority students reported discomfort at listing their race or ethnicity on application forms. “I want to be accepted for what I’ve accomplished,” one said, “not just because I’m Hispanic.” Another said he would prefer schools to consider “the strength of [my] character along with the obstacles [I] faced growing up in New York City,” but he was also not blind to his own interest. When asked if he would thus leave race information off his application, he replied:

If it’s a safety school I could care less about, I probably won’t do it…. But if it’s a school that I really want to attend and I think it will help me, I’ll use it.

It’s hard to criticize this young man for playing the race card that has been dealt him, but at the same time it’s hard to feel good about the lesson race preference teaches.

Perhaps the saddest comment was from a black student who hopes to attend a historically black college, Yale, or Sarah Lawrence. “We live in a world rooted in race and racism, so it’s always going to be an issue,” she said, calling race-blind admissions policies “a very Utopian idea.”

Of course, the fact that race may “always be an issue” (always?) doesn’t mean that the best way to deal with it is to teach young blacks to play the race card whenever it serves their interest and to regard the principle that people should be treated without regard to race as hopelessly utopian.

Thanks again, Sandra.

Say What? (10)

  1. Ravi Kumar August 4, 2003 at 8:27 pm | | Reply

    Interesting stuff, but I wonder why you found it necessary (or, at any rate, appropriate) to call attention to the race of Chrisheena Hill and the student last quoted. I can understand why you identified those quoted in the third paragraph as “minority” students: that they are members of favored minorities has evident relevance to their quoted statements and to the point that you wish to make about those statements. Not so in the other two cases. There, the racial identification seems perfectly gratuitous.

  2. John Rosenberg August 5, 2003 at 1:29 am | | Reply

    Ravi, I think you raise a reasonable question. The answer, for better or worse, is that I didn’t really think about it and simply reported the identifications provided in the linked article. For example, the article introduced Chrisheena Hill as follows:

    “Chrisheena Hill, a black senior from Niagara Falls, N.Y., said affirmative action can still help minorities get into places that might otherwise be shut off from them.

    “It gives us a chance to get our foot in the door to prove ourselves,” she said, pointing out that – even with affirmative action – whites far outnumber minorities on American college campuses. ”

    Although I see your point, I wonder if it would not have been even more arbitrary on my part to leave out the identity of Ms. Hill provided in the article.

    Ditto with the last student quoted, Michelle Orr. Here’s how the article introduced her:

    “Meanwhile, Colleen Swim, who is white, and Michelle Orr, who is black, each said that no matter who you are, it hurts to feel picked on because of your race.

    A black junior from Washington, D.C., Orr said she feels the sting of racism each time a white store employee monitors her during shopping trips.”

    I certainly agree that gratuitous introductions of race can be irrelevant, and worse, but on re-reading it seems relevant here.

  3. Karen August 5, 2003 at 3:01 am | | Reply

    “Whites outnumber minorities”? No kidding! Could it be that whites are a majority in this country? And that other races are “minorities”? Does she even know how dumb this sounds?

  4. Cobb August 5, 2003 at 1:18 pm | | Reply

    My brother the cop made an interesting observation yesterday. He said that in the locker room, he was brushing his hair and a white colleague looked at him strangely and asked what he was doing.

    One of the reasons racial profiling is so entrenched is that whitefolks don’t even possess the vocabulary to describe blackfolks hairstyles. Ask a cop in your city.

    Will race always be a factor, say maybe 25 years? When a black man can go to any city in America and expect a decent haircut in any barbershop without regard to color. You tell me when that’s going to happen.

  5. StuartT August 5, 2003 at 3:35 pm | | Reply

    Interestingly, I once had a black colleague regard me askance and inquire as to what I was doing. I also knew immediatly the baleful subtext of his seemingly innocuous query. Why, the unmitigated temerity! Suddenly I knew the oppression that tortured prison-philosopher blacks like “Cobb” must suffer daily. My heart aches and bleeds in memory of the injustice.

    And to heap insult on injury, many “whitefolks” (I love this black racist shibboleth, by the way)don’t even possess the rudimentary language skills to sufficiently describe black hairstyles! Does white iniquity know no bounds? Truly, if a man can’t get a decent haircut–how, where, and when he wants it by God–then the shadow of evil still walks this land. A curiously pale shadow, I’m certain.

  6. Cobb August 6, 2003 at 6:51 pm | | Reply

    In case you didn’t understand, this cop didn’t know that black men actually brushed their hair. The subtext is that in simple matters such as basic human contact there are a lot of whitefolks who are lacking in interpersonal experience. Big deal. But it does matter when they are cops.

    I made the comment here because I think anyone interested in a colorblind utopia might find it particularly useful to describe hairstyles instead of skin color.

    To be even more specific, what my brother and I laughed about is what a shame it is when whitefolks can’t even tell when a brother is having a bad hair day. Hell, they might even accuse them of having a, how does one say it, tortured prison philosophy. That’s funny, it almost borders on wit.

    Whitefolks are those Americans who believe they are white. What that means is a matter that is open to debate, a debate I would gladly engage. By the way, you wouldn’t happen to wear your hair in a mullet by any chance?

  7. StuartT August 6, 2003 at 9:33 pm | | Reply

    Where to begin with this simmering pot of hard-boiled idiocy…I’ll touch on a couple of the above “points” (to be so generous) though I doubt my correspondent is much interested in any discussion beyond whether “whitefolks” are Satan’s mortal avatars or merely tools of his design–only “Cobb” (and his psychiatrist) know for sure!

    1) Ok, there are lots of white cops who should be removed because they allegedly don’t know that blacks tend their hair? What about black cops who entertain this frivolous, paranoid, and wholly irrelevant delusion? It’s obvious! They should be heads of the NAACP.

    2) “Color-blind utopia…hairstyles…skin color…” Incoherent drivel. Pour some cold water on your face, take several deep breathes, and try this one again.

    3) “what a shame it is when whitefolks can’t even tell when a brother is having a bad hair day.” I know that this would never occur to you– apparently living hermetically sealed in a solipsistic bubble–but perhaps these evil “whitefolks” simply don’t give a rat’s fat ass when a brother is having a bad hair day. It’s possible they even have jobs and families to consume their thoughts. Maybe even hopes and dreams of their own. Sure, it’s a hopelessly unprovable theory, but heck, you’re a deep thinker.

    4) “Whitefolks are those Americans who believe they are white.” Truly, “Cobb,” I have underestimated your intellectual powers. What you posit is groundbreaking–breathtaking. It’s beyond what I had ever considered: some whites actually believe..they..are..white? My God, has Stephen Hawking been contacted yet? Are there any blacks who also think they are black? And forget debate, this transcends ideology. It is sublime.

    (Catching my breath from the excitement of discovery) Finally, in regard to my hairstyle–and thanks for asking–no, I eschew mullets and rather opt for corn-rows and dreadlocks; they’re far more dignified.

  8. Cobb August 7, 2003 at 3:12 am | | Reply

    This must be my lucky day. I’ve got two jackasses to try my patience. At least the other has the courage of his convictions to leave an email address. I won’t take up John’s site with this squabble. His readers have a bit more nuanced appreciation for such matters. I trust they were able to read me straight.

    You know where I live. Bring it on.

  9. StuartT August 7, 2003 at 10:08 am | | Reply

    I’ve already visited your little vanity site some time ago–and was not impressed. I particularly enjoyed, however, your (mindless) encomiums to those who murder Israelis along with the obligatory “hating whitey” pablum. How truly nuanced of you.

    And no, I won’t be darkening the door to your happy fun site again, even to “bring it on.” Though I’ll engage you here if you have a shred of logical thought to put forth. I’m certain John will inform his readership of any bandwidth limitations as they arise.

    Finally, I trust you’ll find my Email address prominently displayed. I ask only that you not clutter my in-box with Farrakhan literature. “Cobb”

  10. RedLion August 9, 2003 at 10:04 pm | | Reply

    I’m fairly certain whitefolk and blackfolk use the same term when describing hair typically seen atop blackfolk‘s heads: nappy. While not entirely accurate, it’s easier than saying, “extremely tight coilings of wiry, asymmetrical protein strands.”

    In the nine or so years that I played organized sports, I don’t recall a single instance of seeing a black guy using anything other than a pick or a rake. Of course, this was around the time when cops were called ‘pigs‘ or ‘the fuzz‘ and Lew Alcindor decided to renounce Catholicism; not only were afros in vogue, but to walk around with a pick or rake embedded in the ‘fro was the height of fashon. Things might well be different these 35 years later. I wouldn’t know as I never find myself in locker rooms. I’m too old and have become too modest to play sports that require communal grooming.

    As for the white cop not understanding that a black cop might use a brush on his hair, perhaps the white cop was ignorant and merely expressed surprize at this revelation? It’s more than just a stretch, more than a leap to brand the white cop as racist simply because he’s ignorant. It cannot be overstated how much credibility one loses by making such absurd accusations. In light of such, is it any wonder whitefolk’s skepticism has turned into cynicism?

Say What?