Is There Such A Thing As Reverse Racism? No.


Is 'reverse racism' real?
(By Jennifer H. Cunningham)

Two high-profile incidents this summer thrust the concept of "reverse racism" -- minorities' belief in the superiority of their race over whites or discriminating against them -- into the spotlight. Former USDA official Shirley Sherrod lost her job and was publicly condemned last month after a heavily edited video surfaced of a speech she made implying that she was unwilling to help a white farmer. Sherrod was later vindicated, but not before she was forced to resign and the debacle cast doubt over her more than 40-year career in civil rights advocacy.

The U.S. Department of Justice also came under fire last month for its handling of a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense. Critics, including an ex-Justice Department lawyer, claimed that the federal entity routinely failed to pursue cases involving civil rights violations against whites. Justice Department officials have said there wasn't enough evidence, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is now investigating why the charges were dropped.

TheGrio.com spoke to leading academics and sociologists for their take on the term "reverse racism," and found that the concept is deeply rooted in the idea of race in the context of power and privilege in society, and has been internalized by Americans both black and white.

"When whites talk about reverse discrimination, I feel that they are making a silly argument, because what they really want to say is that we, people of color, have the power to do to them what they have done to us from the 13th century," said Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, professor of sociology at Duke University and author of Racism Without Racists, a book which examines how racism has evolved since the collapse of the Jim Crow era. Silva acknowledged that some minorities are prejudiced against whites, but said reverse racism implies minorities in the U.S. have the power and privilege to wholly discriminate against white people.

"The idea of reverse racism or reverse discrimination is non-sensical," Silva said. "If that by whites believe that we, people of color, have the power to enact and carry systematic policies against them -- because we don't have that."

"We do not control the economy," Silva added, "we do not control politics -- despite the election of Obama. We don't control much of this country."

The notion that racism is commingled with power was borne in part out of African-Americans defining the context of the national discussion on race following the collapse of the Jim Crow system and the end of the civil rights movement, according to Samuel Richards, senior sociology lecturer at the Pennsylvania State University. Political correctness and white guilt are also factors, Richards said. Richards, co-director of the "World in Conversation" at Penn State, which facilitates discussions on race between students across the university, said many Americans now believe if one race has power and privilege in society, they can be racist, but it's something else if you lack those things and still believe in the superiority of your race over another.

"Truthfully," Richards said, "they bought into that perspective." And although generally, it's conservative whites who use the term "reverse racism," "those same white people are accepting the debate--the assumption that only white people can be racist, or you wouldn't call it reverse," Richards said. "You'd call it racism."

The phrase "reverse racism" has been in the public lexicon since at least when the first pointed attacks on affirmative action as being discriminatory to whites began, said William A. Darity Jr. Ph.D, professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and Economics at Duke.

"The folks who were constructing the critique of affirmative action definitely wanted to deliver the message that whites were being unfairly penalized by affirmative action," Darity said. "One way to do that is to inaugurate the concept of reverse racism."

And while Darity said it was not clear whether "reverse racism" was being used more frequently today than in years past, he said some in the U.S. believe the country is now a post-racial society -- epitomized by President Obama's election -- yet blacks still cling to race issues, and that the only real racists left are African-Americans.

Darity and Silva said President Obama has had to govern his administration with reverse racism in mind. Silva said that's one of the reasons why the White House and the NAACP were quick to originally distance themselves from Sherrod.

"[Obama] is so afraid of being tainted, of being viewed as the 'race man,' she didn't even get her due process," Silva said.

Reverse racism also could be why Obama may not want to be perceived as taking actions to specifically benefit African-Americans, Darity said.

"He recognizes the nature of the climate," he said, "and the climate is that it's almost worse for a Black person to be called a racist than it is for a white person. Initially, it cost Shirley Sherrod her job, in the context of a complete misunderstanding of what actually occurred."

Dr. Cornell West Is Upset With President Obama.
By Dr. Boyce Atkins

Dr. Cornel West apparently has a bone to pick with President Barack Obama. Over time, the good Dr. West has become increasingly vocal in his critique of Obama, and even went as far as to say that Obama treated him "like a cub scout" when he allegedly refused to address West's concerns about the administration's behavior:

"Well, I'll tell you, I had not talked to my dear brother since the Martin Luther King gathering in South Carolina, and very briefly Super Tuesday. But he did come and make a beeline to me after his speech on I think it was Thursday morning in Washington, D.C. I hadn't seen him for two and a half weeks, and he made a beeline to me, though, brother, and he was deeply upset. He talked to me like I was a cub scout, and he was a pack master. You know what I mean?

I said, well, my mother and father raised me right. I respect my dear brother, but I don't like to be demeaned and humiliated in that way, and I didn't get a chance to respond to him. And I hope maybe at some time we can. But it was very, it was a very ugly kind of moment, it seems to me, and that disturbs me because then it raises the question for me: Does he have a double standard for Black critics as opposed to white critics?"

It's no surprise that West would be on the outs with Obama. The president has an intense loyalty to Harvard University and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, the man who has proven that he has almost no appreciation for black scholarship.

I, too, find myself irritated that Obama maintains such strong allegiance to those who don't respect the African American community or care to spend any time helping us address unique social and economic challenges.

A broader point to be made about the rift between professor West and Obama is one of class: Cornel West is not just a champion for Black people. He is also a champion for the poor, the powerless and the downtrodden. Dr. West's constituency is almost directly opposed to the latte-sipping, Martha's Vineyard-vacationing, Harvard University-attending folks who run with President Obama. This reminds us that fighting for Black people can be very different from fighting for poor Black people: Obama almost always stands up for black folks as long as they either went to Harvard or have millions of dollars in the bank.

Obama has chosen an unqualified woman, Elena Kagan, for the Supreme Court, primarily because she is associated with Harvard. He spoke up for Henry Louis Gates last year, not because he was a Black man, but because he was a Harvard professor who asked for his help. Obama lives among the elite, and Cornel West is an academic version of Jeremiah Wright. The relationship between West and Obama was doomed from the very beginning, given their glaring conflict of interest. For West to be surprised at Obama's behavior is like an LA Laker getting angry that the Denver Nuggets player put the ball in the other basket. My point is that Obama and West were never on the same team to begin with.

Another speculative point that can be made about Cornel West's outspoken opposition to Obama's policies is one that relates to Tavis Smiley. I've always been of the opinion that Tavis has personal reasons for accentuating his political disappointment with President Obama. I honestly believe that had Obama been more open with Smiley and provided him with the same opportunities he has received from Hillary Clinton, Smiley would not have been so harsh in his attacks.

Cornel West, being a great friend of Tavis, has been positioned within a camp of individuals who might be disappointed with Barack Obama no matter what he does. I don't believe West dislikes Obama as much as Smiley does. West's criticism lies far more with divisions in ideology than with personal differences.

The point is that our analysis of the president should be balanced with solutions, as well as a realistic understanding of the pressures he endures while trying to run the most powerful nation on earth. Being president is never as idealistic as we'd like to believe.

All the while, the notion that we must deal with Obama with kid gloves solely because we are happy to have a Black man in the White House is absolute nonsense.

Falling in love with a politician is like asking a prostitute to be faithful. We set ourselves up for disappointment when we relate to Obama with extreme emotion, while he deals with us using cold, calculated rationality. Professor West is correct that Obama manages his Black critics differently from white ones. The differential treatment is likely because Black people don't have enough votes to keep Obama in office, nor enough economic power to change his life the way other constituents can.

As a result, Black folks remain at the back of the political bus, without regard to the color of the man in the Oval Office.