Comparative Racism and the Law--Canada/U.S.

Barack and Hillary: Once Upon a Time in America

2008-05-08T00:01:00.005-04:00

Bill Clinton once seemingly dismissed Barack Obama’s phenomenal appeal to the electorate as part of a fairy tale. As we wind down to what looks like victory for Barack Obama in obtaining the Democratic nomination for president, it seems that maybe Bill Clinton was right: it is a fairy tale.

The tale goes something like this:

Once upon a time there was a proud and haughty queen who possessed a magical mirror. Whenever she looked in and asked

“Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Who in this land is the fairest of all?"

The mirror answered,

"Thou, o queen, art the fairest of all."

Then she was satisfied, for she knew that the mirror spoke the truth.

But a child was growing up who grew more and more beautiful, and one day the child was as beautiful as the day, and more beautiful than the queen herself. And once when the queen asked her looking-glass,

“Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who in this land is the fairest of all?"

It answered,

“You, my queen, are fair; it is true.
But the child is still
A thousand times fairer than you.”

Then the queen was shocked, and turned yellow and green with envy. From that hour, whenever she looked at the child, her heart heaved in her breast, she hated the child so much. And envy and pride grew higher and higher in her heart like a weed, so that she had no peace day or night.

Sound familiar? It should—it’s the traditional rendition of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Most of us know how this tale ends. Snow While doesn’t die, despite numerous attempts on her life by the queen. She lives happily with seven little men who sustain her as she grows in strength and beauty, all while retaining her open, trusting nature. Her lack of guile almost undoes her on several occasions as she accepts toxic gifts from the disguised queen. Just when it looks as if Snow White is truly done for after the bite of a poisonous apple, she is rescued by a handsome prince. They live happily even after. The evil queen smashes her mirror in a fit of rage.

Barack Obama, having started out as a little known freshman senator quickly gained momentum as he attracted a larger and larger following with his message of change. Though first tolerated by the Democratic establishment as a youthful comer who could make little headway, toleration turned to disdain to outright enmity as the spotlight shifted from the presumptive nominee Hilary Clinton. Barack Obama deftly avoided political death after being branded an elitist and later a closet radical. Having coughed up the poisonous apple fragments from his association with the Reverend Wright, he survived and was once again victorious. The magical mirror of the media is not broken, but has lost perhaps some of its prophetic sheen.

Real life isn’t usually that easily and neatly resolved nor do real people neatly conform to the motifs and archetypes found in fairy tales. Barack Obama no doubt has many obstacles yet to overcome. He has not yet, after all, been selected as the Democratic nominee for president. This doesn’t mean, however, that fairy tales have no place in the real world of politics, law, or society. While fairy tales are often centered on magic, they address some basic concerns of their audience. Fairy tales depict normative behavior and promote adherence to norms but they do so within a framework of overcoming norms and laws—laws of nature, laws of politics, laws of society. According to Tolkien, fairy tales, while offering fantasy, do so while giving fantasy the inner consistency of reality and freeing us from the domination of observed "fact". Fairy tales suggest alternate narratives and, even once the initial euphoria is over, allow us to see things more clearly outside of the business as usual mode of our existence.

Fairy tales exist to remind us that maybe, just maybe, change can happen, even in the face of tremendous odds.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]

Victim Victorious: Does Change of Face Mean Change of Pace in the American Presidential Race?

2008-02-05T20:10:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year.

It’s February 5, 2008, and having been on hiatus from this blog during the last few months teaching and writing (see e.g. “A ‘Ho New World...” in my SSRN file), I now return, sticking my head up into the world of comparative racism and the law in Canada and the United States.

What’s been happening? A lot. Take a look at the U.S. There, the news that dominates the airwaves is the primaries and caucuses leading up to the selection of the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Today is, in fact, Super Tuesday, the day when voters in some 22 states make their candidate selections. Much of America (and the world) is consumed by two historic firsts: in the Democratic contest , the first potential woman nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the first potential African American nominee, Barack Obama, are within striking distance of one another. Obama’s progress comes as a surprise to many. As a United States senator in his first term in office, many felt that his relative lack of experience and name recognition would cause him to be far outdistanced by Hillary Clinton, a senator in her second term and a former first lady whose husband is still much beloved throughout United States. Not surprisingly, these two historic firsts have caused many to argue whether gender discrimination or racial discrimination is the biggest burden in the United States in 2008. Is a vote for Barack a vote for business as usual, male political hegemony, or is a vote for Hillary a vote for business as usual, white political hegemony? Putting it differently, whose history of oppression cries out most for political redress? As between Hillary and Barack, who can better claim “It’s our turn now?”

The answer isn’t that simple. In the matter of dueling victimhoods, I’m afraid that both women and blacks (or, getting beyond the black/white binary, racialized others) can hold their own, with enough past and continuing slights, mistreatment and outright absolute abuse to fill volumes. The problem is that this isn’t really what’s being measured in assessing these candidates. Despite all of the calls for picking a different kind of candidate who will, as a result of his or her difference, be a change agent, in choosing between Barack and Hillary we’re not choosing them because of their victimhood, we’re choosing them for their triumph over victimhood. The irony here is that when one of them succeeds in being chosen, it signifies that he or she will have convinced a sizable percentage of the electorate that despite any differentness, they are regular enough to do the job of president. Either will owe a large part of his or her success to the fact that he or she has “street cred” of a whole other kind—Wall Street cred, the type of credibility that buoys not just American spirits but American markets. Regardless of the extent to which they may represent communities who have suffered and who continue to suffer hard times, both Barack and Hillary are still, at the end of the day, members of the most august governing body in the United States and Ivy League educated lawyers married to Ivy League educated lawyer spouses. After all, the presidency is no job for the too outcast or the too outraged. A cynical take on this would be to see it all as an elaborate iterative process that fosters regression towards the political mean.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t celebrate the ascension of Hillary and Barack? Of course not. But we do need to keep in mind that while the victor of this contest may take the spoils they are little likely, at least at first, to roil—too much change could be hazardous to their political health.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]

Northward Leading, Still Proceeding: Mexican Migrants and the Lure of Canadian Asylum

2007-09-25T10:59:00.000-04:00

Follow the North Star to freedom.

That was the mantra of escaped African ancestored American slaves more than one hundred and fifty years ago as they struggled to reach first northern states and later, especially after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 took hold, Canada in search of freedom.

Now a similar drama is being played out as undocumented Mexican migrants travel to Canada from the United States in search of a place where they may work and live without fear of deportation. Most such travelers are fueled by the belief that Canada will grant them political asylum. According to a New York Times article, the move northward began a few weeks ago when just a few Mexican families began traveling by car to Windsor, Ontario, and to other land crossings between the United States and Canada and by plane to Toronto. According to many, the journey was suggested by a Florida immigrants’ advocacy group whose core constituency consists of Haitians. In recent weeks, however, the organization has attracted a number of Mexican immigrants.

In order to obtain political asylum in Canada, applicants must show, as they must also show in the United States, that they are unable to return to their home countries due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of several enumerated grounds, such as political belief, religion, or race. While a large number of Haitians have been granted political asylum in Canada over the years, far fewer Mexicans have succeeded in such applications. Even where Haitians have failed in their claims, they have very often been granted stays of deportation from Canada because of the social, political and economic chaos that has endured in Haiti. (Side note: finally, Haitians catch a break somewhere! Haitians in the United States have long decried the differential treatment of Haitian and Cuban political asylum seekers, with Cubans being given far more favorable treatment than Haitians. Many argue that the difference has to do with race. In the case of Haitians and Mexicans in Canada, the relatively favorable treatment received by Haitians likely has most to do with the large Haitian exile community in Montreal and with Canadian friendliness to fellow francophones in need. ) This has not been the case for Mexicans. Mexican applicants are further hindered by the fact that many persons who proceed to Canada from the United States seeking political asylum may be barred from doing so notwithstanding the merits of their cases because of the operation of safe third country rules which require asylum seekers in most cases to apply for asylum in the first “safe country” which they enter. In short, for Mexicans traveling to Canada in search of freedom via political asylum, the trip is more likely to be bust than boom.

The idea that Canada offers a safer haven than the United States for Latin migrants is not a new one. A documentary by filmmaker Arturo Perez Torres titled Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary, chronicles the journey of five people from Central America and Mexico who seek to travel over multiple national borders in order to reach Canada. Although the typically profiled undocumented alien in North America enters the United States and remains there, the post 9/11 climate in the United States has made the United States even more hostile than it had previously been to such entrants. Canada, in contrast, is often viewed as a bastion of racial tolerance, and is perceived as having a greater number of jobs. Canada has thus become a destination of choice for many persons from various Latin countries. However, such notions are all too often not supported by reality.

Canada will, very likely, staunch the flow of Mexican migrants seeking political asylum, at least for the short term. But the larger problem, that of the very real human rights implications of forbidding our neighbors to the south from accessing jobs, health care and other basic human needs, remains unsolved. If, as W.E.B. Du Bois stated, the problem of the twentieth century was the problem of the color line, then the problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of the borderline[1], or rather, of multiple borders.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]

[1] Lolita Buckner Inniss, Dutch Uncle Sam: Immigration Reform And Notions Of Family, 36 Brandeis J. Fam. L. 177 (1998), citing W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk 54 (photo. reprint 1969) (1903).

Vote with Your Face: The Canadian Voter Identity Conundrum

2007-09-11T12:54:00.000-04:00

When I was younger and experiencing seemingly insurmountable problems within institutions or organizations my mother always said to me: don’t whine, work, and when you get the chance, vote with your feet.

Sound advice, and advice often given to and taken by legions of people of color, women, and migrants of every type. Vote with your feet is a metaphor for addressing problems in a system wherein one has no voice, and where the only option for effecting change is to leave.

So what does it mean to vote with your face?

Canadian Prime Minister Harper would likely say that it means uncovering your face at polling places in order to vote. Harper believes that this is what is required under the changes made to the Canada Elections Act in summer 2007. Bill C-31 amended the Canada Elections Act to require proof of identity at the polls. It requires, among other things, that voters provide one original piece of identification issued by any level of Canadian government or an agency of that government that contains the voter's photograph, name and residential address. In the absence of photo identification, a voter must provide two original pieces of identification from a list authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Both alternate forms of identification must contain the name of the voter and one must also contain the voter's residential address. In the absence of any of these forms of identification, a voter may be vouched for by another voter whose name appears on the roster of voters in the same polling place who possesses acceptable forms of identification. In the latter case, both voters must make a sworn statement. Does the principal reliance on photo identification mean showing one’s face at the polling place? Harper says yes, and decries a decision by the Chief Electoral Officer to allow women who are veiled, presumably for religious reasons, to vote without lifting their veils.

It is true that a requirement to provide a photo identification would seem to come with the implicit assumption that authorities will compare it with the face of the voter who proffers it. However, as many have noted, Canadian law both before and after the recent amendment allows for voting by mail, where there is no way of knowing if the person casting the vote is the same as the person who registered. Moreover, one of the principal concerns of legislators in drafting the new identity provisions of Bill C-31 was to address the complete absence of any preliminary requirement that a voter prove his or her identity. Under prior law, voters needed only to state their names and be found listed among the registered voters. Identity became an issue only if the voter was challenged by an election official, a candidate or a representative of a candidate. Even then, there was no clear statement of what constituted satisfactory proof of identity. For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs heard anecdotal evidence that in some polling stations, magazine subscription labels were accepted as satisfactory proof of identity and address. This was detailed in the Committee’s report Improving the Integrity of the Election Process, a document which was one of the bases of Parliament’s decision to amend the Election Act. It would thus appear that potential fraud by veiled women was not part of Parliament’s concern in its deliberations to enact Bill C-31 and that accordingly the bill is (I can’t resist) facially neutral in this regard. This is the interpretation adopted by Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Mayrand will allow veiled women to vote without showing their faces. Though veiled women will be requested to remove their veils at the polls, they will not be required to do so and may vote using the alternate non-photographic forms of identification permitted under the recent amendments.

It is indeed ironic that veiled women, most of whom are covered for religious reasons, would become the focus of a debate on voting, one of the liberties most crucial to maintaining a free, just, and inclusive society. A number of veiled women have already voted with their feet, seeking refuge in Canada away from places of political, social and economic upheaval. These women should now have the right to expect to vote in elections without their faces becoming an issue.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]

How Now, Brown? Parents Involved in Community Schools and the Triumph of Color Blind Ideology

2007-06-28T16:50:00.000-04:00

In the wake of the 1954 ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education and in the subsequent creation and later dismantling of mandatory integration plans, a question has remained unanswered: What can the government do when the last vestiges of state-sponsored segregation are erased (or have never existed) and schools nevertheless remain racially isolated because of housing patterns and societal discrimination? On Thursday, June 28, 2007 the United States Supreme Court said clearly what the government can’t do in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1. There, in a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down voluntary integration plans in the public schools of Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the combined cases. On the two school plans, the majority found that the districts had "failed to provide the necessary support for the proposition that there is no other way than individual racial classifications to avoid racial isolation in their school districts."

This decision may be the death knell for the promises of Brown v. Board of Education. Brown has been hailed as a seminal event in American jurisprudential history. Numerous books, journal articles, and films have chronicled the case. The original case was brought by black parents in Topeka, Kansas to challenge the de jure racial segregation of schools that resulted in black children’s attendance at separate public schools. Brown is said to have settled the question of whether or not blacks and whites could receive an education integrated with or separate from each other, as Brown overturned the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the doctrine of "separate but equal." However, in recent years, scholars have raised doubts as to whether the legacy of Brown is quite as rosy as first believed, and have chronicled the decisions narrowing its import and its impact. The decision in Parents Involved, if it didn’t kill what remained of the spirit of Brown, certainly seems to bring us much closer to the sad day of Brown’s complete demise.

What has perhaps most saddened me is the implicit assumption by the Court in Parents Involved that if blacks are racially segregated in their neighborhoods and ultimately in their schools in the absence of de jure segregation, it is because of the exercise of “private” decisions about where to live and attend school, and such choices cannot and should not be addressed by government. The reality is that housing "choice" may still be a long way off, even for financially able members of minority groups. For example, data compiled by the National Fair Housing Alliance indicates that racial “steering”—the practice by real estate professionals, sellers and other involved in real estate transactions of recommending or discouraging the purchase of homes or choice of school districts to potential home buyers based on their race or national origin—is alive and well. My own anecdotal experiences seem to support this conclusion. I've bought 6 properties in various states and towns in the course of my life, all in predominantly white neighborhoods. I've placed bids on several more. All of the properties were offered by real estate professionals who were highly experienced, well known and respected in local circles. I believe that I’ve experienced race-based discrimination in some aspect of the process in all but one of these transactions.

In my first transaction the selling agent told me that the sellers were “nervous” about taking my offer (why?) but it would allay their fears if I made a full priced offer and put over 30% down (huh?). In my next transaction the seller's agent told me that because of credit problems (What credit problems? She didn’t know me.) I had to have all cash to purchase the house (Whoever heard of that?), and she later refused to return calls placed by my agent. In another case the selling broker took my offer and sent it around to fellow agents in an effort to drum up competing bids while asking for extensions of time in which to accept my bid. Not surprisingly, I was ultimately outbid. I learned later through acquaintances of the sellers that they had no intention of considering my offer since they felt that my family didn’t “fit” into the neighborhood, but they were glad to get my offer in order to start the ball rolling (the house had sat with little activity for months.) I thus became an unwitting shill. In several cases the agents never conveyed my offer to the sellers and I was forced to contact the sellers and let them know about the offer I'd made. This doesn’t even begin to count the numerous times I appeared with my agent to view a property but was refused admission by a plainly visible seller who ignored the ringing doorbell or offered excuses to avoid a showing (“I know you have an appointment but this isn’t a good time,” “We’re not sure if we’re going to sell after all.”)

Gee, isn’t all of that stuff is illegal? Maybe. That’s the problem. There are in most places some combination of local, state and federal laws barring racial discrimination. There are also typically professional codes of conduct that hold real estate brokers and agents to certain standards. But trying to hold real estate professionals accountable for violating the law or professional standards (never mind holding the sellers accountable) in such cases is all too often a losing proposition. This is especially true in housing discrimination litigation, since there is a requirement of a clear showing of discriminatory intent. This means that an action which could somehow be construed as neutral on its face may not easily be the basis of liability. Given the time, money, headaches and heartaches of litigating, even a practicing lawyer or law professor may just move on to the next deal notwithstanding suspected racial discrimination.

The Chief Justice indicated in his oral announcement of the ruling that the Court was remaining faithful to Brown v. Board of Education in barring public school districts from assigning students on the basis of race. Roberts wrote: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Seems like a no-brainer. If only it could work that way. Regrettably, the racial discrimination aimed at blacks and other racial minorities is often stealthy as well as stalwart. To assert that governmental use of race to remedy past and continuing discrimination against blacks and other racial minorities is the same as deeply entrenched, longstanding white racism seems a bizarre and disingenuous embrace of the color blind ideal. Such decisions, while purporting to disrupt racist practices, instead run the very real risk of legitimizing them. Perhaps we are doomed to return to the days before Brown.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]

The Faux British and the So British: Looking for the Real McCoy in United States Visa Waiver Admissions

2007-05-02T21:48:00.000-04:00

There may be a plan afoot which would distinguish between the faux British and the so British in Visa Waiver Program admissions to the United States.

According to the New York Times, United States homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff has opened talks with British authorities to close an apparently dangerous “loophole” in United States visa laws. Under current regulations, persons from specified countries are allowed to enter the United States as tourists or business visitors for up to ninety days without a visa under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), Section 217 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (U.S.C. 1187) . Most of the favored countries are in Europe and include the United Kingdom (an interesting study is to look at which European countries are excluded—faux Europeans?). Canadians may also enter the United States under similar terms, but their admission is premised on different regulations.

The loophole complained of apparently allows British citizens of Pakistani descent to enter the United States under the VWP as other British citizens do. Some American officials, observing that a number of British terror plots have involved British citizens of Pakistani descent, fear that Brits of Pakistani ancestry will export terror plots to the United States and reportedly wish to limit entry of such persons .

Two possible solutions are said to be on the table. The first would divide British entrants between Brits of Pakistani descent and everybody else, and allow only those not of Pakistani ancestry to enter under the VWP. This would leave Brits of Pakistani descent to make regular visa applications for admission and thereby be subjected to full scrutiny. Under the second solution the VWP could be eliminated for all of the British, so instead of separating the faux British from the so British we'd simply go to no British in the VWP. This would, admittedly, avoid the messy problem of making ethnic, racial or nationality-based distinctions among British entrants seeking VWP admission to the U.S. It is worth noting that shortly after the publication of the supposed plan British officials denied reports that they are working with United States officials to close the “loophole,” and stated that singling out Britons based on ancestry would not be “acceptable”. United States officials also repudiated the reports, rejecting “the notion of profiling based upon ethnicity, religion, sex, age, what have you.” Forceful denials, indeed.

The alleged plan comes on the heels of a heightened concern with “British identity” and the way in which the lack of such identity may foster terrorism. After the London bombings of July 7, 2005, there was a fear that British universities were hotbeds of extremism. In response, the British government commissioned a study of the citizenship curriculum, which has been in place since 2002 (in response to the 2001 British race riots.) The report, released in January 2007, found that British identity was insufficiently covered in the curriculum and that much more was required to provide the "essential glue that binds people together". It was not so long ago that discussions of British identity often centered on class and issues such as whether one spoke English in a U, upper class, or non-U dialect. Given the multiracial, multiethnic climate of Britain and much of the Western world, we’re now well away from such concerns. Today’s young Brits can apparently call the knave a jack if they want to, just so long as they learn about “democracy, tolerance and duty”. The reported on proposal seems to be a way of assigning a proxy for those who don’t get the lesson.

Let’s just imagine that such a proposal is in the works. How different would it be from other regulations now existing in the United States which discriminate based on national origins, all in the service of the antiterrorism agenda? Since 9/11, the United States has either enacted or started to enforce a plethora of regulations aimed directly or indirectly at entrants from Arab and Muslim countries. Among these initiatives are mandatory detention in connection with removal proceedings involving terrorism claims and even in the case of certain asylum claims based on the nationality of those involved (mostly those from Arab or Muslim countries). Other regulations allow the detention of "Unlawful Combatants", and extensive intelligence-gathering programs, often without warrants. In addition, provisions on requiring financial institutions to police “suspicious” activities and persons have focused heavily on those from Arab and Muslim countries and other so-called pariah countries.

The United States has had no shortage of allies who have embraced a number of the stringent, seemingly discriminatory regulations of the post 9/11 world and even crafted their own. I 've written before in this blog about the transnational reach of U.S. domestic law. Consider for example how U.S.-based antiterrorist banking regulations have had a spillover effect in Canada and other countries offering U.S. dollar accounts. In January 2007 the CBC reported that the Royal Bank of Canada had refused for much of 2006 to open U.S. dollar accounts for Canadians who may be dual citizens of Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea and Myanmar. The Canadian citizenship of those barred apparently availed them nothing. So, is it really likely that antidiscrimination norms will insulate British citizens of Pakistani ancestry from discrimination in the administration of the Visa Waiver Program? Only time will tell—but I wouldn’t bet on it.

N-word Brown and the Colour of Globalized Ethnic Slurs

2007-04-16T16:28:00.000-04:00

An African-ancestored family in Brampton, Ontario was in for a rude surprise when their 7 year old daughter observed that the labels on their new chocolate brown, three piece furniture set read “nigger brown.” Read about it at Racial Slur on Sofa Label Stuns Family.

The family contacted the seller of the furniture,Vanaik Furniture and Mattress store in Mississauga, Ontario. The assistant manager of Vanaik’s, Romesh Kumar, disclaimed any knowledge of the labels and passed the blame to his supplier, Cosmo Furniture in Scarborough, Ontario. The owner of Cosmo, Paul Kumar (no relation to Romesh), while expressing regret over the labels, blamed the labeling on the manufacturer in Guangzhou Province, China. He indicated that he would demand that all such labels be removed from future shipments.

Since when has nigger brown been a part of the Chinese colour palette?

Perhaps since the phrase came into common usage in England in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. “Nigger brown” has been documented as a colour used by English designers and manufacturers for well over one hundred years. Fabrics, thread and other materials in dark brown were routinely referred to by that name throughout the United Kingdom. This usage spread to English colonial possessions, including parts of China. While the phrase was not quite so common in the United States, its usage was not unknown. Indeed, the United States has had, throughout its history, no shortage of commonplace usages of the word nigger and other racial slurs. It is noteworthy, for example, that in the United States and Canada there were once scores of towns, cities and other geographical places with racist names such as Nigger Island, Chinks Peak and Squaw Tit. Most such names have been changed in recent years in response to greater public sensitivity. In both the United States and Canada geographical place names are governed by detailed sets of regulations developed and administered by official government bodies, the United States Board on Geographic Names and the Geographical Names Board of Canada.

The fact that the word nigger is still being employed as part of a colour description is, according to Jack Chambers, a professor in the University of Toronto department of linguistics, an “imperial excrescence” and a “colonial marker.” Such usages are not, however, unique to English language and culture. One such example is tête de nègre, a round, meringue-filled French pastry covered with chocolate. The phrase has also been used in French to describe a dark brown colour (it was an equivalent for the colour known in English as nigger brown). The literal translation of tête de nègre is “nigger head.” Lest we assume that this is a relic of the distant, racist past, such pastries are still sometimes found in modern day France and in other Francophone countries. Though increasingly the dessert is no longer labeled tête de nègre (and in an almost humorous bow to political correctness the chocolate frosting is sometimes replaced with white frosting) it remains a staple French dessert. It was reported, for example, that tête de nègre was served at no less august a global gathering than the 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

It may be argued that, given the way in which the furniture ended up being labeled with the word nigger, there is no significant harm done. Even if members of the family that purchased the furniture were, because of their black ancestry, uniquely sensitive to being offended by the label, perhaps it may all be written off as an unfortunate glitch in the chain of global commerce. After all, how many times is it the case that items made in non-English speaking countries are mislabeled or poorly described, sometimes humorously so, because of the imperfect use of English? Moreover, in the particular instance of the use of the word nigger, there seems to be no clear consensus as to whether nigger can or should be considered as an offensive word when used in mainstream public discourse, given its pervasiveness in American popular music and culture.

While some would say that nigger has lost much of its sting, others argue that the word is as offensive as ever. There have even been attempts to bring the effect if not the force of law to bear on the matter. In February, 2007 the New York City Council declared a moratorium on the used of the word nigger. Supporters of the measure also urged the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc., a private organization of music professionals who administer the Grammy Awards, not to nominate for Grammys those songs which use nigger in their lyrics and asked cable television network Black Entertainment Television (BET) to stop using the word in its shows. Though the declaration was purely symbolic, it followed similar resolutions by the New York state assembly and state senate.

Despite a split of public opinion as to whether the word nigger belongs in mainstream discourse, the fact remains that the word, even when used casually and offhandedly without immediate racist intent, still often has a unique power to wound because of its long history as a word which was meant to articulate the degraded social position of African-ancestored persons. Despite arguments that the apparent absence of malicious intent divests the word of its unique power, no amount of global buck-passing can easily or quickly unhitch the freight born by the n-word--hundreds of years of past race-based oppression and the continuing race-based inequities suffered by persons of African ancestry.

Don Imus, the Not So Merry Christmas and the Law of Insults

2007-04-10T10:37:00.000-04:00

Don Imus, a white American male radio sport show host called the mostly African American women of the Rutgers women’s basketball team nappy headed Merry Christmases. Read about it at Networks Condemn Remarks By Imus.

For the uninitiated, a Merry Christmas is what we in my almost all black neighborhood often said in lieu of the word ‘ho (whore). We took the use of profane insults pretty seriously, so there were rules to govern their use. One rule was that substitutes and euphemisms were often used in place of the worst of the words in our arsenal, words like ‘ho. To call someone a ‘ho was a pretty brutal, low down insult, suggesting an unbridled, wholly undiscriminating sexuality. For us, a ‘ho was the kind of girl who “did it” with just about anyone, anytime without even the pragmatic, instrumental approach of a prostitute. Part of the power of ‘ho was that it was a distinctly gendered insult; we had no equivalent term for boys who behaved the same way. (Nowadays there is “man ‘ho” but it doesn’t come close to having the same sting.) No, back in the day, we didn’t throw around the word ‘ho—that was playing with dynamite. Before you openly called anybody a ‘ho, you’d better be pretty sure you could beat up the so-labeled girl and her defenders, because to call someone a ‘ho was a prelude to a fight. If the word we sought was ‘ho, (and we usually resorted to much less serious name calling before we got to that) better to say “Merry Christmas” in sotto voce snickers when the girl walked into the room and leave it at that. Such was the law of insults in our neighborhood.

Don Imus is a law breaker. On open microphone he called members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed ‘hos”. Moreover, the racial and gender insult wasn’t just random; there was apparently a theme running through the show. Imus’s comment immediately followed the comment of his executive producer Bernard McGuirk, who called the women “hard core ‘ho’s”. Later in the show, which was simulcast via CBS radio and on MSNBC television, McGuirk described the match between the Rutgers women’s basketball team and the Tennessee women’s team as the “Jigaboos versus the Wannabees”. In his defense, Imus has said that it was an “idiot comment meant to be amusing,” and has apologized. No apology has been published by McGuirk. A recent op-ed by Bob Herbert of the New York Times indicates that McGuirk, in the words of Imus himself dating back to 1998, was "there to do nigger jokes."

Many of us don’t need to wonder where Imus got the idea that he could throw around the word ‘ho in reference to African American women without consequence. One need only listen to the lyrics of numerous gangsta rap songs performed by mostly African American singers in which the use of the word ‘ho has reached epic if not epidemic proportions. In such songs, words such as ‘ho and its close kin bitch are chanted with impunity. But, what Imus and a lot of other people have apparently failed to see is...that’s not most people’s real life. Despite what those media portrayals suggest, that’s not necessarily anybody’s real life. All too often, what we have in gangsta rap is not art imitating life but art imagining life. As I’ve written in other work, one of the most pointed critiques of the gangsta rap genre is that it not only glorifies actual profanity and violence but also imagined profanity and violence. Life in ghettos and poor neighborhoods is often shown as excessively profane in order to gain market share and “street cred.” In point of fact, many of those involved in songwriting, production and sometimes even the performance of gangta rap are themselves well-educated products of middle and working class homes, where, I assure you, nobody is openly calling anybody a ‘ho. Even where ‘ho is used in gangsta rap, it is usually meant to be offensive and hence intentionally transgressive as a means of expressing rebellion. It has even been inverted and portrayed as a term of endearment, but in such instances its use still engenders a frisson of the forbidden. One thing it is not meant to be is funny.

Should sorry be enough in this instance? Judging from the response to Imus's utterance, the answer is no. Despite Imus’s apology, on April 10, 2007 Imus’s show was suspended for two weeks by his broadcasters CBS Radio and MSNBC cable television, in response no doubt to the pressure brought to bear by sponsors and by a public mortified by a vicious verbal assault on college women athletes for the sake of amusement. After the suspension there remained a maelstrom of controversy surrounding the matter and nationwide calls for his firing and for a boycott of his sponsors. This was, after all, not the first time that Imus has made offensive sexist or racist remarks. One of the best known is a 1993 incident in which he called then New York Times White House correspondent Gwen Ifill, an African American woman (now with PBS) , a “cleaning lady.” In another instance his show offered a parodic song that referred to former First Lady and now Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s urinary habits and menstrual cycle. Read about it in a blog piece by Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle . No, Imus was no stranger to serving up the lowest forms of sexist and racist insult.

The chickens finally came home to roost when on April 11 NBC News canceled the televised simulcast of the Imus radio show aired on MSNBC cable news and on April 12 when CBS News canceled the "Imus in the Morning" radio program. So, it looks like, at the moment, Imus's career on traditional terrestrial radio is over. There is always satellite, though. Just ask Howard Stern.

The bigger issue, the one well beyond Imus’s outrageous remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team, is why he and others like him have been allowed a broadcast reign of terror which routinely debased women, racial and religious minorities and gays and lesbians. As Andrew Ross suggested in his blog, citing the Manhattan Institute’s John Leo in an April 13 Wall Street Journal op-ed, many powerful persons in politics and the media “enabled” Imus by willingly appearing on his show despite and perhaps even because of its often profane nature, giving it an imprimatur of respectability. (On another note, I was none too amused by Leo’s use of a brothel metaphor to explain what was wrong with Imus’s show. Will some of these men never get it?!) But it's not just the high and mighty who promote the likes of Don Imus. While many of us may be loathe to admit it, what he routinely expressed in his broadcasts well represented the lowest common denominator of thought in many segments of the United States population. In a world where political correctness, tolerance and inclusion increasingly require reining in offensive remarks in public, Imus's show represented a last bastion of the clubby, old boy (and good old boy) atmosphere that prevailed in most of the places that mattered in the United States for much of its history. Until we acknowledge this, the level of discourse promoted on the Imus show will continue to flourish in other fora, nourished by a sadly corrupted notion of what freedom of expression means.

The Expulsion of Cherokee Freedmen--Aboriginal Self-Determination or Racism Writ Large?

2007-03-06T22:25:00.000-05:00

On March 3, 2007 the Cherokee Nation, one of the largest of the federally recognized aboriginal tribes in the United States, voted to withdraw membership for persons descended from Cherokee Freedmen. You can read about it in a BBC article Cherokee Eject Slave Descendants.

The existence of the Freedmen is one of the least known chapters of both North American African-ancestored and aboriginal history. The Cherokee, once among the wealthiest of the North American aboriginal tribes, sometimes owned large plantations in the southeast United States in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The Cherokee, like white plantation owners, often worked those plantations with African-ancestored slave labor. When the Cherokee were expelled from the the southeast United States by the federal government and and sent to live on reservations in the southwest, some took their slaves with them on the long, brutal march known as the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, an agreement signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River.

The Cherokee Nation acted to abolish slavery in 1863 and in an 1866 treaty titled Articles Pertaining to African Cherokee Citizens and Ending Slavery in the Nation the Cherokee Nation recognized the citizenship of former black slaves held by blooded members of the nation. It was estimated that over 20,000 persons of African ancestry, known as the Cherokee Freedmen, were officially recognized by the Cherokee Nation after the 1866 treaty. Notwithstanding the treaty, those of African ancestry were frequently denied membership, despite the fact that some could trace ancestry to the Dawes Roll, a list of Cherokee by blood, intermarriage, adoption, or former slave status drawn up by federal officials at near the end of the 19th century. A March 2006 ruling by the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court held that the 1866 treaty assured freedmen descendants tribal citizenship. Since then, more than 2,000 freedmen descendants have enrolled as citizens of the tribe. This decision of the Cherokee Nation Supreme Court and the subsequent enrollment of new African-ancestored persons led to the March 2007 referendum vote in which Cherokee members by blood were asked whether membership should be limited to those meeting blood quantum rules. Almost 77% of those voting (representing less than 5% of voting members) opted to amend the tribal constitution to limit citizenship to "blood" tribe members. Over three quarters of enrolled tribe members have less than one fourth Cherokee ancestry.

The decision expelling Cherokee Freedmen has caused dismay in some parts of the African-American and the North American aboriginal communities, as the decision seems to suggest that the practice of race-based discrimination against blacks in the United States is not limited to those of European ancestry. The decision also served as a rather rude awakening to a number of African-Americans who had for generations passed down lore about their Cherokee ancestry either with little knowledge of the fact (or ignoring the fact) that such ancestry may have originated when their ancestors were slaves of the Cherokee. The Cherokee, moreover, were not the only tribe to hold African-ancestored slaves. By 1824, it is estimated that the Cherokee owned almost 1,300 black slaves. The Choctaw and the Chickasaw held over 5,000 blacks in slavery by 1860. In my own family we are well aware that some of our Oklahoma and Arkansas ancestors had ties to the Cherokee, but these ties were shrouded in mystery despite what was an otherwise quite detailed recitation of family descent.

While the right to self-determination is an understood attribute of a sovereign people, it comes in this instance at the cost of expelling persons who, in many cases, have longstanding cultural and often genetic ties to the tribe.

What do you think?

Youth Prostitution in Winnepeg: The Role of Race and Class

2007-02-23T17:09:00.000-05:00

A recent article in the Globe and Mail titled Hundreds of Young Girls Work Winnepeg's Sex Trade reported that girls as young as eight years old work in Winnepeg's sex trade, either as prostitutes or by engaging in "survival sex"--sexual acts performed to obtain food, shelter or other necessities, and in some cases, drugs.

As disturbing as this fact is, perhaps equally disquieting is the fact that seventy percent of the victims are poor Aboriginal girls. At least one person faults class bias and racism for the over representation of Aboriginal girls in the sex industry, and for the relatively muted social outcry in response to this tragedy. Jane Runner, head of New Directions, an agency that helps girls get off the street, suggests, for example, that Internet luring, a more middle class phenomenon wherein adult predators attempt to arrange sexual trysts with minors via the Internet, has caused more widespread outrage because of the identity of the victims.

Youth prostitution is a scourge in Toronto, Vancouver and Alberta as well. Although the most common response is to adopt social service measures or public education schemes, perhaps most controversial is Alberta's approach. In 1999 Alberta adopted the Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Act, (PChIP), thereby becoming the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow officials to take young prostitutes off the street and place them in safe houses. This legislation also introduced legal penalties for those who procure clients (pimps) or act as clients (johns). It is not clear, however, that the PChIP can be unequivocally declared a success, as there are few objective ways of measuring its full effect.

The problem of child prostitution is certainly not unique to Canada. It is, by many accounts, a global problem in danger of reaching epidemic proportions. As is true in the case of Winnepeg, however, racial and social discrimination figure prominently in the commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls. Research indicates that where societies are historically stratified along racial, ethnic, or caste lines and/or are deeply xenophobic, a large number of clients seek prostitutes who represent the Other: the racial, ethnic, caste or national identities of the prostitutes are often different from the clients. In addition, because of the additional stigma of abusing children, clients' selection of child prostitutes whose social identities differ from the clients allows clients to retain their views of themselves as moral and good.

In view of the way the race and class impact child prostitution in Canada and elsewhere, what is the role of law in ending child prostitution?

The York University Presidency and the U.S. Presidency--Of Historic Firsts and Slate Cleaning

2007-02-11T20:41:00.000-05:00

Evelyne Kostanska sent the following issue to the blog:

Mamdouh Shoukri, an Egyptian-born engineer, will become the new president of York University this summer. In doing so he will be the first Muslim appointed as the permanent head of a Canadian university. Read about it in a Toronto Star article titled Muslim President for York University.

"This is Canada. It's a mosaic," Shoukri, 59, was quoted as saying.

Students, both Muslim and non-Muslim, expressed happiness at the appointment. One student,
Adam Hummel of Hillel at York, the centre for Jewish life on campus, indicated that Shoukri's selection was "very Canadian" and expressed hope that Shoukri's appointment would "wipe the slate clean" on the acrimonious tone of Israel-Palestinian debate on campus.

Similar discussions are being conducted in the United States regarding the candidacy of Barack Obama for United States president. Read about it in a New York Times article titled Obama Formally Enters Presidential Race. As some pundits have suggested, if Barack Obama, the son of a white American mother and a Kenyan father, is elected president, this will mean that racism in the United States has come to an end. Many doubt this claim, given the United States long history of racists practices. But what about Canada, and more specifically, what about York University? Does the appointment of of an Egyptrian-born Muslim have the potential to "wipe clean" the history of acrimony on the Israel-Palestinian debate on the York campus? What do historic firsts, like Mamdouh Shoukri and Barack Obama (if he is elected) do for long-standing ethnic, religious or racial controversies in which they represent the historically oppressed Other?

Evelyne Kostanska writes the following in response to the Toronto Star article regarding presidency of Mr. Shoukri:

The election of a new president to head York University is going to re-spark debates that have recently catapulted York into fame. While I applaud York’s appointment of Shoukri, the first Muslim to hold the post of University President, I question whether his election was truly as apolitical and credential-driven as university officials claim. As many of us no doubt recall, over the last few years, York has gained notoriety for student driven Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While students have borne the brunt of blame, York’s administration itself has been attacked. Most commonly, critics assert that instead of allowing for freedom of speech and association, the University, in the name of “safety,” has adopted draconian measures – stifling debate, breaking up peaceful rallies, and suspending students.

In addition, though never explicitly stated, York administrators, and particularly Lorna Marsden, have often been accused of siding with its pro-Israel students in an effort to appease its large Jewish student population. As such, is it really merely coincidence that in an effort to shed its reputation of pro-Jewish bias, the University appoints an Arab leader who subscribes to Islam? Call me cynical, but as a former York undergraduate student, I have witnessed 4 long years of false promises and justifications. Most importantly, I worry that President Shoukri’s skills and accomplishments may be belittled if students view his election as a political ploy meant to appease. Furthermore, as York already suffers from a tense political climate, if students view the appointment as threatening, they may become further divided along ethnic and religious lines.

Finally, I wish to point out an additional danger illustrated by the Toronto Star article where this story is found. The report features a quote by a Hillel member, Adam Hummel, where he states that he hopes Shoukri’s election will “wipe the slate clean” in light of York University’s Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While such a desire is admirable and no doubt uttered in good faith, I contend that there is a very real danger any time a proposal to erase history is made. As we discussed in relation to racism, “color-blindness” or appeals to forget the past (based on ideas that things “are better now”) serve to erase the voices and history of the oppressed. We have also seen that ideologies such as those of “color-blindness” are a mere screen for more subtle forms of racism. Similarly, many in the Jewish community decry attempts to “move past” the Holocaust, arguing that it is thorough remembrance of atrocities that we avoid their recurrence. Likewise, I would argue that just as we cannot forget the historical realties of racially motivated violence, so too we should avoid wiping clean the history of Palestinian and Israeli relationships in York. There are better ways to move beyond conflict than resorting to “erasing” the past. While the past may be painful, it is not only a learning experience, but more importantly, it is the lived reality of people who do not deserve to be forgotten.

What do you think?

More from Quebec: Ethnic and Religious Behavioural Codes

2007-02-07T10:38:00.000-05:00

Danny Auron sent the following issue to the blog:

Recently the town of Saint-Roch-de-Mékinac, Quebec adopted a behavioural code which "forbids stoning women, the donning of burqas, and wearing Sikh ceremonial daggers in school." Read about it in a Toronto Star article titled Quebec Town Spawns Uneasy Debate.

As we learn from the article, there are no foreign-born residents and no visible minorities in Saint-Roch-de-Mékinac. Nonetheless, the measure passed unanimously before the city council. "This should have been done here long ago," said Claude Dumont, Saint-Roch's elected mayor. Saint-Roch is not the only town to adopt such a code; a nearby town, Hérouxville, had previously put into place a similar code of conduct. Mayor Dumont acknowledged that he had little knowledge of immigrant communities and that "we don't live with them side-by-side here like they do in Montreal, but if I've chosen to live here it's because I like the way we live ... and I don't want it to change."

What does it mean when behaviour codes are based more on tradition than on reasoned principles? What does it mean when positive law is used as a means of countermanding behavior that is completely outside of the experience of the drafters and so closely focused on the potential activities of religious, ethnic or racial Others?

Such codes raise obvious Charter concerns. Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes Canada's multicultural heritage and is generally read to mean that courts should respect multiculturalism when making decisions under the Charter. But beyond that, the drafting of such codes raises more general concerns about relatively non-hierarchical processes of rule-making (like the city council action here). Many may argue that rules which appear to express obvious bias will easily be understood as the doings of persons who are out of step with the norms of equality that most of us embrace. However, when such groups first articulate policy and then translate it into positive law they may give added luster to the law because of the presumed reasonableness of rules reached by local community consensus as opposed to more distant executive fiat. This remains true even where the rules may be used as tools of oppression.

What do you think?

Race, Ethnicity and the Transnational Reach of Domestic Law—Maher Arar

2007-01-30T19:26:00.000-05:00

Many of you are familiar with the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria who later emigrated to Canada. After earning bachelor's and master's degrees in computer engineering, Arar worked in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer. On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Montreal, Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he had links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was the holder of a Canadian passport.

There is evidence that the United States may have been acting on misleading information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in seizing Arar. Arar’s removal was initially described as a deportation. However, his removal was not validated by the United States department of Homeland Security and hence his removal was more in the nature of an extraordinary rendition, a United States extrajudicial method involving the removal of suspected criminals or terrorists to third countries to undergo what are often abusive interrogation techniques. Arar is not the only person to have been subjected to this process. Another well-known case is that of Khalid El-Masri, a German born in Kuwait to Lebanese parents. El-Masri was detained by Macedonian officials at the border when he sought to enter on a vacation trip. He was handed over to American security officials and flown to Afghanistan where he underwent abusive interrogation techniques. No charges were ever brought.When Arar returned to Canada more than a year after being seized, he, too, indicated that he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that torture would be practiced. Click here to listen to Arar telling his own story.

On January 26, 2007 Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government and announced that Arar would receive a total of 12.5 million dollars to settle his claim. In the United States, United States Senator and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy has indicated that he will hold hearings into Mr. Arar's case. Senator Patrick Leahy has called the United State's removal of Mr. Arar to Syria absurd and outrageous, noting that instead of sending Mr. Arar a "couple of hundred miles to Canada and turned over to the Canadian authorities, . . . he was sent thousands of miles away to Syria."

Is this a case of impermissible racial or ethnic profiling? Some have argued thatin the wake of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, discrimination against people of apparent Middle Eastern background has become commonplace throughout much of the West. In the first few years after the attacks, any person from the Middle-East had to be fingerprinted and photographed before gaining entrance into the United States. It has been reported that of all the people searched or otherwise stopped at the security checkpoints, people with passports from a Middle- Eastern country or a specific stereotypical “Middle-Eastern” look made up the largest percent. In response to the criticism of this increased scrutiny, some have argued that a failure to look closely at those appearing "Middle-Eastern" would be a bow to political correctness and would endanger the public.

For the most part, prior to September 11, 2001 those profiled as criminals in Western countries, especially the United States, were typically of African or Latin ancestry. Phrases such as “driving while black or brown” (a DWB), and “walking while black” became part of the lexicon as persons of color were far more often stopped, questioned and searched while in motor vehicles or on foot than their white counterparts. Prior to September 11, the principal crime concern in the airports of the West was illicit drugs, and very often African and Latin-ancestored women and men were questioned , harassed, and even strip searched by airport security officials in search of drugs.

Subsequent to September 11, as race and ethnicity based security profiling broadened to include those of apparent Middle-Eastern descent, many blacks and Latinos engaged in sarcastic jokes whose punch lines centered on the fact that they enjoyed new “company” in racial and ethnic security scrutiny. Middle-Easterners had, up to September 11, enjoyed the status of honorary white in some Western venues; or at least, it was clear that they were not to be feared in the same way that blacks or other racial minorities were. However, in a post September 11 world, “flying while Muslim” (based on the obviously erroneous assumption that every Middle Easterner is a Muslim) has joined the panoply of imagined offenses of the members of the “Other Brotherhood”.

What do you think?

The Clark Doll Experiment and Racial Self-Esteem

2007-01-24T12:48:00.000-05:00

Click here to watch the video

In the 1940s psychologist Kenneth Clark, along with his wife psychologist Mamie Phipps Clark, performed experiments in which they offered black children the choice of two dolls identical in all but skin color. The Clarks' doll experiments grew out of Mamie Clark's master's degree thesis titled "Development of Consciousness of Self in Negro Preschool Children" . The Clarks found that Black children often preferred to play with white dolls over black, thought the white dolls prettier than the black dolls, and characterized the white dolls as "nice" and the black dolls as "bad". Moreover, when black children were asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate. From this evidence the Clarks inferred that the children had internalized the racist views of the society around them.

The Clarks testified as expert witnesses in several school desegregation cases, the most noteworthy being Brown vs. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In Brown, the United States Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public education facilities violated the U.S. Constitution. The testimony of the Clarks in Brown is said to have been a significant factor in the Court’s decision. Indeed, some portions of the Court’s decision in Brown have been read as a reference to the harms of segregation demonstrated by the doll experiment: “to separate them [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Brown at 494.

The use of social science data in legal cases was relatively novel at the time of Brown and engendered some controversy, particularly since close examination of the data suggested that more black children in the less segregated Northern states favored the white doll than did black children in the highly segregated American South. Recently high school student Kiri Davis reprised parts of the Clarks’ doll experiments in a short documentary. In Davis’ documentary, an overwhelming majority of the black children presented with the two dolls, one black, the other white, preferred the black doll. A number of observers have suggested that the outcome of the reprised experiment indicates that black children continue to suffer from internalized racism, and that the law should go further in addressing race-based school inequalities. Other observers have remarked that black children’s preferences in dolls may not be a clear indicator of the children’s self-esteem and that such data should be excluded from legal assessments of educational policy.

I think that social science data in general has been and will continue to be a useful source of evidence in legal cases. However, the Clark doll tests, both then and now, may be a test not of self esteem but of what black children believe is the "right" answer to such questions. The proliferation of media images depicting the the dominant white culture is bound to affect what children understand about what society says is "nice" or "beautiful," but may not be a fully accurate indicator of what they themselves think. Of course, if black children think that society believes that white is "better" this may ultimately affect their own beliefs; the tyranny of majority opinion is hard to resist.

Nonetheless, one of the earliest lessons that young children learn in school is to dissemble, not to lie per se but rather to suppress their actual thoughts and beliefs in order to adopt the answer deemed correct by the teacher or other questioner. Heck, I'm still smarting from the time in Kindergarten when Mrs. Johnson told me that October started with an O and not an A as I insisted. She said that if I listened carefully I could hear the O sound and that it was nothing like an A sound. To me, October sounded more like amen (we pronounced it ah-men in my house) than over and open, words whose spelling I was pretty sure I knew (I prided myself on being the smartest kid in Kindergarten). But after that public correction, from there forward I dutifully recited that October started with O, that it sounded like it started with O, and that it didn't sound like it could start with anything else. I kept my actual opinion to myself.

What is your opinion?

Are Qubecers "Racist"?

2007-01-24T11:39:00.000-05:00

Jamie Greenberg forwarded the following link:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/15/mtl-racism.html

Professor Inniss writes:

Do the results of this survey mean that Qubecers are "racist" ? Post your comments.

Congressional Black Caucus Racist?

2007-01-23T18:15:00.000-05:00

Please read the article at the link below, read the comments that follow and then submit your comments.

Jamie Greenberg submitted the following link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html

Prof. Inniss replied:

*Very* interesting. Do you think that members of the Congressional Black Caucus should be allowed to exclude Representative Cohen?

Jamie Greenberg wrote:

Well as a representative of a majority African-American district I
think it is in his constituents best interests that he join the
caucus, and furthermore I could only imagine the uproar if the
situation was reversed (an African-American member of congress
rejected from an all-white caucus).

On the other hand, it does seem anachronistic having a "white" member
of a "black" caucus, especially (and I'm inferring here) because rep.
Cohen is likely Jewish may not consider himself "white", and very
likely may be unwelcome in a "white" caucus should one ever
hypothetically exist.

I'm not sure what I think of this, except that it seems to be aimed at
maintaining a boys club, and not acting in the voters' best interests,
which would be to include a non-"black" house member who is ostensibly
involved in the "black" community and represents a mainly "black"
riding.

Prof. Inniss wrote:

Thanks for your opinion; I'm torn myself for some of the same reasons. The history of blacks in the U.S. Congress and in other government leadership positions in the U.S. has been one of exclusion. Even when blacks were included, they remained on the periphery and continue in that position today. The CBC is meant to be a "safe space" which exists in response to such problems, and I sympathize with the desire of the members to remain all black.

On the other hand, if Representative Cohen's desire to join was to serve his majority black district, I understand his efforts to join, assuming that he believed that the primary goal of the CBC was to provide constituent service and not to serve as a vehicle to support blacks in Congress. Over time, the goals of many such groups evolve. So, for example, in many Canadian and U.S. law schools (maybe all), the Black Law Students Association now welcomes students of all backgrounds who are interested in and support issues of concern to black law students. Also, I'm concerned with what appear to be some of the tactics of the CBC. The article seems to suggest that they have in the past and will continue in the future to support black candidates over non-black candidates based mostly on race, even where the white candidate is the incumbent. If a goal of the the CBC is to promote the interests of blacks overall, they should ideally look first at how a particular candidate serves black constituents.

In the end, though, I think that the CBC, while perhaps having a broad mandate, is principally a "safe space" type of organization that exists in response to the continued racial separations that exist in the halls of power in the U.S. I'm surprised (and maybe concerned) that Rep. Cohen did not "get" this before trying to join. The big problem here as I see it is not that Rep. Cohen was barred but that there are legitimate, significant reasons for a group like the CBC to desire an all black "club" even in 2007.

Jamie Greenberg wrote:

I guess I'm looking at this from a Canadian perspective, I didn't even
think of the black caucus acting more as a "safe space" then a
lobbying vehicle.

"Racial Profiling" on York Campus?

2007-01-23T12:35:00.000-05:00

The following materials were brought to my attention by Sidra Sabzwari. Please read and comment on the article and the letters to the editor that follow.

January 10 Excalibur (York University Student Newspaper)

Student arrested while protesting alleged profiling

A York student was arrested after vocalizing his opinions about racial profiling on campus and waving around an object that appeared to be a gun.
Jon Boadi, a York student, was arrested by the Toronto Police in York Lanes last Wednesday, Jan. 3 at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Ten police officers from 31 Division arrested Boadi outside of the York bookstore after they received an emergency call from York Security and other bystanders that he was holding a gun up in the air.
It was later confirmed by 31 Division that the gun reports were false. Boadi is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday, Jan. 10.
Jayson Young, a York student, was sitting in a nearby restaurant when he noticed Boadi talking loudly outside. He described Boadi's actions as an attempt at a political statement rather than as a threatening act.
"To me, it seemed at first like performance art," Young said.
Witnesses said that Boadi was suggesting that the recent York Campus Alert was an example of racial profiling on campus.
York University posted a public alert around campus in mid-December after police issued a composite sketch of a description of who they believe committed the sexual assaults in the area.
The campus alert displays the police composite photo at the top with a written description underneath: "Male, black, 25 to 35 years, 6'0", medium build, bald or shaved head, red shirt, black ballcap."
"He was proving a point; he was drawing attention to the fact that this is kind of a farcical example of justice by the university," Young said. "He was commenting on whether this is an effective way to deal with some terrible behaviour that's been going on on campus."
Although emergency calls placed to police stated that Boadi was brandishing a gun, Young finds it difficult to believe that this impression could be given.
"He wasn't even holding it like a gun."
Ellyn Sylvia, a York student, saw police and York security march past her to the bookstore.
Young believed that Boadi's actions were not criminal, adding that the only thing that might have provoked anyone was that "he seemed to stray a bit from the point."
Saada Awaleh-God, vice-president of media relations for the York University Black Students Association (YUBSA), suggested that the police responded with unwarranted force.
"He wasn't causing any harm. The amount of force put on him was not necessary. Ten officers for one man is not necessary."
Young said.
"It took about eight or 10 cops to subdue him even though he was being completely peaceful," he exclaimed. "This huge parade of police officers coming to talk to this man who wasn't doing anything criminal."
Sylvia agreed that Boadi was not strugging when police and York security led him outside. "He was pretty docile," she stated.
Young also noted that during the incident, York Security blocked off a section of York Lanes from Indian Flavour to the bookstore.
"There were two security guards saying, �You can't walk past here.'"
When Young asked why, he said he was simply told, "You just can't."
Alex Bilyk, director of media relations at York, defended York Security's decision to involve the police and block off the area.
"Nobody wants to fool around when they think there's a weapon involved," he stated. "York Security took the measures they needed to take in order to allow the police to react to this case.
"If someone is causing a disturbance, and there is reason to believe a weapon may be involved, we'll take the necessary action to involve the police as soon as possible," continued Bilyk. Bilyk, however, suggested that students should be wary of possible police involvement when considering taking similar actions to Boadi's.
"Use your own head," he suggested. "In today's environment, people are all on edge and it's not an appropriate action."
Meanwhile, some students believe that the incident was provoked by the sexual assault campus alerts on campus.
The secretary of YUBSA, Yolanda Abrahams, suggested that the composite on the campus alert is not descriptive enough to be effective.
"The sketch looked very ambiguous. Any black male could fit that description," said Abrahams.
"Racial profiling still exists on campus," she continued.
Other students have suggested that the campus alert borders on issues of racial profiling and that they could have done without the composite photo.
"It's a hard call," said Tanja Joelsson, a York student, upon viewing the composite. "I think we don't need the picture; it doesn't give enough information."
Students around Tanja agreed, suggesting that the police composite was too general to be used as an investigative tool.
Professional opinions differ on the existence of racial profiling.
Thomas Lynch, a detective sergeant overseeing sexual assault crimes in the Toronto Police Sex Crimes Unit, believes that the process used in developing composite photos is highly scientific; however, he would not provide details.
"That's a long process that we use through our forensic identification people, and that's a process I'm not willing to discuss right now, but basically we use the victims' memory of her assailant to prepare a composite."
Lynch was quick to defend the process.
"We would never solely go prosecute on a composite. We would have other evidence too."
He continued, "We would use different kinds of identification for down the road, whether it be forensic or whether it be a photo of the actual suspect identified."

Letters:

Wednesday, 17 January 2007

Dear Editor,

As I read the article by Carl Meyer "Any black male could fit that description," it really hit a nerve.
I was angered by the actions of Jon Boadi and the reactions by others around him. While Boadi can have all the freedom of speech he likes, it's the fact that it was based on ignorance that bothered me. You know what, there should be more police sketches out there on campus posted for everyone to see.
As a female student, I like having them there so I know what to look for if I'm walking by myself. And it was obviously not a form of racial profiling if the victim gave the description. So what if he's black? I know that if the suspect was a white male, no one would have anything to say about that. Would it be racial profiling then? Why do ethnic minorities get to call on racial profiling? That's racist.
I do not accept it when racial minorities pull out the race card at every stop.
Maybe the black community should put their efforts into figuring out why crime plagues their youth instead of causing unnecessary scenes of disturbance at York.
Boadi clearly has his definitions mixed up. The campus alert is not a form of racial profiling. That is the description the assaulted victim gave to the police �- it's what they saw- and to not alert other students of the dangers of this person is wrong.
So York, good job with the campus alerts. Keep them up and if there is anything else the student body should be aware of, post them up.

-Susan Macri

Allegations ludacrous
RE: "Any black male could fit that description," News, Jan 10, 2006

Dear Editor,

I was absolutely disgusted by the suggestions of York students that the composite sketch of the alleged perpetrator of the recent sexual assualts on campus was "ambiguous" and that we "could have done without the composite photo."
Are we to be so sensitive to racial profiling that we must not even issue composite sketches of alleged criminals for fear of offending certain communities? This is ludacrous. Furthermore, Tanja Joelson's suggestion that the composite photo did not "give enough information" is laughable at best. Is she inferring that all black males look alike? To me, the individual in the sketch looked like a very distinct human being, just as we all are. So much so, in fact, that two different women with whom I am personally aqquainted, recognized the suspect as someone who had frequented their neighbourhood before.
Get a grip people. Quit overdosing on political correctness and realize that there are lives that have been viciously affected here. By nitpicking and complaining about the composite sketch, we are ignoring the real victims of this situation.
Racial profiling is undoubtedly a serious and problematic issue. Let us not diminish its gravity by tossing it around in a completely inappropriate situation such as this.

-Britt Aharoni