Comments

1. IkoIko wrote:

   I definitely have to wonder why the hedging on their motivations for running the cartoon… hmm. If they really wanted to make a statement, they would’ve stood by it, so it’s evident that there was not much of a “statement” at all, no?

   Apropos this item, literally just finished reading an excellent piece in the Sep. 2006 Harvard Business Review titled “Rethinking Political Correctness” by Robin J. Ely, Debra E. Meyerson, Martin N. Davidson, touching on, and challenging, many of the same points in similar organizational contexts.

   http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b02/en/common/item_detail.jhtml?id=R0609D

   (unfortunately not available for free but also in bookstores/newsstands)

   This is really well-done academic piece (authors’ affiliations at the end here), which I won’t be able to do full justice, but the arguments and contradictions they raise still linger in my head as a reality check.

   Basically, there’s a conundrum: any organization allowing certain forms of expression by certain groups to occur specifically because of race, gender, religion– yet prohibiting other groups from commenting specifically because of the same or similar race, gender, or religion is heading for a train wreck.

   Why? Because you kill the incentive for groups to building any meaningful, much less effective relationships. It limits the things they can talk about. [I also realized, by extension, that it can build the very unhealthy curiousity or perpetuate the same sterotypes the groups in question take issue with in the first place.]

   The diversity people bring to their organizations are often viewed or perceived at best as forced diversity or as one-way learning opportunities, but rarely as moments for the individual to look within themselves to gauge how their own assumptions stack up or change. That level accuracy is a key factor in diversity, because without knowing the assumptions one brings to any organization, one won’t know the comments, gestures, actions they’ll perform much less react to from others in a particular way from particular groups.

   Knowing all that goes a longer way to building trust and relationships than prohibitive speech restrictions. You have more incentive to do something positive (i.e. refrain from offending someone I know) than following something negative (i.e. adhering to speech restrictions, whereby I’ll find anonymous means to publish a racist email that means nothing where I don’t care who it hurts).

   As long as the actions and recipients are depersonalized, removed, not internalized, and forced upon what’s my incentive to go along? I’ll always find a way around the rules, as long as I know the costs.

   But if I know the benefits, wouldn’t I want to take advantage of those at every turn? Wouldn’t it just br better to give people the skills and means to diffuse the tensions earlier by building the relations and giving them the ability to express their sentiments equitably and call everyone on the mat for what they might be doing wrong?

   The authors lay out some tricky, yet common, scenarios where it isn’t so simple to navigate what’s the right thing for one person of color against what’s responsible for the balance of everyone else– given things like age, gender, and position of authority– and trying to assume the intentions and motivations of the person who offended you without that person knowing you and you knowing them (or at least having as high a level of mutual knowledge and understanding of the respective social and institutional factors that play out for one another).

   What they attempt, among other things, is really well-thought out strategy for addressing the “political correctness” quandry that balances the interests of the offended against an organization in a fair practical manner.

   (1) Pause to short-circuit the emotion and reflect

   (2) connect with others, affirming the importance of relationships

   (3) question yourself to identify blind spots and discover what makes you defensive

   (4) get genuine support that helps you gain a broader perspective

   (5) shift your mind-set from one that says, “You need to change” to one that asks, “What can I change?

   My $0.02: No principle is worth anything unless it costs you something, and if you truly support the principle of “free speech”, it’s going to cost you a lot of comfort.

   Personally, I really hate the term “political correctness”, the assumptions behind it, and the lame defensiveness with which “free speech” gets met in its wake.

   There is so much that is “politically wrong” to too many people, I’m not certain who was fortunate enough to co-opt my right to select. So it’s not a question of challenging all these charges with more speech or proper speech codes, it’s a manner of demonstrating and internalizing behavior, and the principle of reciprocity (or the Golden Rule for those so inclined)– with an added twist: assuming you have something to say, and you know to whom you’re trying to say it, you have be willing to take responsibility for your actions (knowing that you can’t account for every resulting action).

   Diversity means too much to not be part of a larger anything. So that means you have to be at least somewhat civil and respectful in daily common activities where you interact with those who differ from you in any aspect. But just because you might differ in some way doesn’t give you license to lord it over someone, then not expect them to react to it, and then get upset because they did either “too” positively or negatively in thought, speech, or deed.

   Hence the trap: is the aim to recognize, celebrate, tolerate, acceptate, or simply absorb difference or diversity? And difference or diversity at what level? And is it a multi-directional street, avenue, thoroughfare, highway, etc. with limited or open-access?

   Author References:

   Ely is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Harvard Business School focusing on race and gender relations affecting organizational change, group dynamics, learning, conflict, power, and social identity.

   Meyerson is an Associate Professor of Education and Organizational Behavior at Stanford University’s Schools of Education and Graduate School of Business, focusing on social justice and social responsibility within organizations as it relates to gender and race relations (with a side interest in the role of communications technologies).

   Davidson is an Associate Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, focusing on the role of culture and ethnicity in career development, conflict management, and comparative advantage.

   Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 9:12 am ¶

2. site admin wrote:

   Thanks so much for the tip on the HBR article, IkoIko! I just bought a copy and plan on reading it later this week. It sounds interesting. And yeah, I really wish people would stop using the term “political correctness.” Can we please let go of the 1991 buzzwords, for god’s sake? –CVK

   Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 9:41 am ¶

3. eric daniels wrote:

   Hey the cartoon’s offensive, but I think we as Black Americans at Ivy League Colleges do the same thing like ‘Watch Whitey Fly’ Sept 11 Redux” or Affrimitive Action for Whitey and show G.W. Bush and other white conservatives who got into college because daddy and mommy were alumni. Racism is a two way street in my view, don’t play the game unless you want the escalation.

   Posted 20 Sep 2006 at 3:57 pm ¶

4. Merq wrote:

   Eric,

   While I agree with your point and find the “Watch Whitey Fly” idea reprehensible, I have to disagree with your Affirmative Action for Whites argument. There’s nothing racist about that joke.

   Posted 21 Sep 2006 at 11:45 pm ¶

5. IkoIko wrote:

   The example is an intriguing line of thought, but it assumes some stuff that’s not too clear.

   (a) In what context would/would it not be a joke?
   (b) Assuming it is a joke, when would/wouldn’t be considered “racist”– and by whom?

   Not being facetious, just asking it like this:

   If one means it, for example, as a serious gripe/opinion, to whom would one direct it? (e.g. Particular group of students, their parents, the university administrators…)

   For what purpose and to what end? (e.g. Change admission or financial aid policies for the benefit of everyone, more equitable distribution, less favoritism, more favoritism for particular groups…)

   If it’s meant as a joke, the trickier part, especially in print, is that things are never guaranteed to be received the way the speaker intends, and only exclusively by the parties to whom it’s actually directed, and in the terms and language the speaker may have meant.

   That’s where trouble usually erupts. And if speaker did actually make themselves heard loud and clear, well, they can’t say they didn’t expect a response…

   The formula we learned in class was:

   Time + Place + Manner + Context + Intent + Primary Audience = Whothehellknowswhatwillhappen

   Posted 22 Sep 2006 at 12:05 pm ¶

6. eric daniels wrote:

   The problem here is, Republicans and conservatives in general don’t respect tolerance Merq, all you have to do is see what they did nearly a decade ago. When Khalid Muhmmaad made a racailly, ethnic, religous speech. Jewish Americans like Howard Stern, Don Imus, politicans Like Joe Liberman and Peter King and conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh practically bogarded black leadership into apologizing. Liberal Jews and Whites like Joe Klein wanted the federal government to withold Monies to Black Colleges and the got U.S. Senate and Congress to censor Mr. Muhmaad and the Nation of Islam.

   No private citizen in this country’s history has been censored for offending someone, that is usually reserved for folks like Bin Laden, Hitler, and people who have committed human rights abuses. Now to have the majority society come down on a private citizen’s speech and deny monies to HBCU’S because a representative of the NOI said offensive things, what’s next. Do you know why this country has some black men with racist and anti semitic attitudes, it is because of this country’s double standard when it comes to free speech. Hardcore racists like David Duke have never been censored by the legislative branch of our government, but one black man makes a speech at Howard and out comes all the anti- P.C. brigade. what freakin Hypocrisy.

   Posted 22 Sep 2006 at 8:14 pm ¶

7. IkoIko wrote:

   Eric: You’re aiming for something truly big here, but the example kind of confusing…

   While he had the right to, when the late Khalid Muhmmaad delivered his infamous Kean College speech, which drew the 1994 Congressional rebuke of which you passionately reminded, he directed it towards a host of specific groups (i.e. Jews, Catholics, Whites, etc.) with intent to harm, incite, and provoke through racial, ethnic, and religious assertions. So guess what? He received response and condemnation from people who were white and Jewish, among other things.

   That 1994 Congressional “censure motion” (not censor) of Khalid Muhammad was a sad spectacle to watch, when the Senate voted 97-0 (the irony was that folks like Trent Lott were in a position to vote for it) and the House voted 361-35 in favor of a motion for the first in our country’s history to publicly condemn the speech of a private citizen. But it was not, again, a “censor” on his speech. It did not in any way prevent him from speaking and he did indeed continue to spew what he felt he needed to say.

   FWIW: 20 Congressional Black Caucus members for, 11 against, 4 simply voted “present” and three failed to vote. Congress reacted to public outrage, you can argue from who specifically, but I’d maintain, given the speech transcript, it was enough people from a wide range of races, ethnicities, and faiths that were simply offended, because others felt harmed, or because of the harm they themselves felt from the content of the speech itself. Fact, fiction, half-truths that go unchallenged from the folks with whom we feel affinity can be just as damaging as the things we want to challenge from the people we don’t like.

   In terms of censorship and other constraints of speech by private citizens, I think the national or any local ACLU chapter or American Library Association branch would be all to happy to give you short list of recent and historical examples from liberal to conservative, small to large. It’s not about human rights, it’s basic civil liberties. And it is a serious, criminal, scary, and sad complex yet still hard to navigate First Amendment matter.

   True hypocrisy is talking about a belief that you don’t actually hold. Your point of resonance is right on here: the most visible, hardcore, unrepentant of racist like David Duke are not punished and we are left to wonder what the hell.Those who can apologize, like Trent Lott, actually can reinvent themselves with an apology with actually shedding the ideology.

   I would note, however, that Khalid did not just make those remarks in one speech; he was by his own admission a proud Anti-Semite, and was eventually dismissed by the Nation of Islam. That, however, doesn’t excuse the fact that he received a disproportionate punishment for essentially the same infraction.

   As you also point out (unintentionally perhaps), Khalid’s speech received condemnation from people who were white and conservative, white and liberal, as well as white and Christian. Here’s where I’m curious though: You could easily make your point using without naming the folks you did, much less lumping them under a broad imprecise label. Why assume they have affiliations they did? Appearances, personalities, reputations?

   Howard Stern, Joe Klein, Sen. Joe Lieberman are religious and culturally Jewish. Don Imus is a Welsh descendant and varying degrees of practicing Christian. Rep. Peter King is Irish and Catholic. Rush Limbaugh, Methodist. Thankfully none of them has any individual power to sway government or media (despite their claims) to silence America’s voices, or cut off funding to Historically Black Colleges or Universities.

   Point is this: an individual usually gets more benefit of the doubt regarding how they are perceived in relationship to others in a group with whom they bear the most superficial of relationships. Not the casual observer who has a bone to pick with that group through the target of their remarks or humor.

   Stern, Imus, Limbaugh are offensive fools by choice, not by virtue of racial/ethnic/religious background. Their aim is to shock and offend every group possible under the veneer of commentary and humor in order to gain maximum exposure and attention, no matter what damage is caused. Arguably worse with Stern and Imus for employing African-American staffers whom they’ve ridiculed in an offensive manner on- and off-air, moreso with Stern’s African-American female sidekick. Further, the medium in which they operate in general (radio) leans towards a “conservative” demographic by virtue of the medium itself, attracting a like audience. Wouldn’t any opportunistic speaker play to all of the virtues and vices that come with it?

   But why limit all this fun to any individual’s combination party affiliation and political philosophy? Or their professional and religion affiliation? Republicans and conservatives definitely do all manner of labeling and stereotyping in their humor-oriented messaging, to be sure. But so do Democrats and liberals, registered Independents and moderates, etc. Party label doesn’t determine your philosophy, your philosophy doesn’t determine your personality, but the three all matter to differing degrees for people in how they style their identities, make their decisions, and present themselves. Plus, hell, you change your intensity if not outlook over time, disagree with others under the same labels, and yet still manage to identify with others who call themselves the same thing.

   You threw out Lieberman and King as examples of, respectively, shady moderate CT Dem (currently running as Independent) and unnerving conservative NY Republican? As public figures and members of Congress, they’ve got their own baggage, but not by virtue of their race/religion. Rep. King has never endeared himself racial or ethnic communities through his remarks, but then again, looking at his congressional district he has no incentive to. His record of comments makes him more offensive than his background does.

   As far as Klein, you were on much better ground with him as a target, with him as your only journalist in the bunch. His politics are fair game for criticism and his racial attitudes are the most suspect. While he is kinda liberal institutionally, it’s really more on foreign matters than on domestic stuff, and only because of his longstanding Dem Party connections. But you don’t need to resort to his religion or ethnic heritage, you can simply resort to his own paper trail of columns especially in Time Magazine, about the coded political race baiting regarding Black political leadership in Congress for example.

   Quick version: Klein, though critical of the Bush administration, has a subliminal tendency of bashing non-neoconservative Democrats, and has been particularly fascinated all year with the prospect three African-Americans– Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Alcee Hastings (D-FL)– rising to the chairmanships of key congressional committees. So much so, he’s been raising the issue of race more than the Republican National Committee has in covering their contests. Klein has questioned their fitness, values, ethics, leadership ability, etc. by using the very coding and forcing the Democratic party to respond in terms while they’re already on shaky ground as it when it comes to race to someone who is perceived as a “friendly critic”. It only does more harm than good, while the Republicans don’t need to do any real work at all, and drives a wedge to the independents.

   Again, has nothing to do with Klein as a Jew or a supposed liberal, just the benefit of his odious personality in a profession in the political arena.

   So couldn’t all of this just boil down to one simple thing: speakers in general confuse “agreement” with “tolerance”, and demand “acceptance” of their opinions regardless of the means, rather than accept that there may be more than one side to what they’re saying?

   Posted 23 Sep 2006 at 11:03 am ¶

8. eric daniels wrote:

   You may be right Iko, but my pointis there is hypocricy on this issue a radical black with Anti- semitic ties makes a speech and in a whirlwind of public condemnation is criticized with a certain joy like a Chappelle skit “GOTCHA NIGGA” by people who have said the same thing or worse

   1. Don Imus continual racial attacks
   2. Howard Stern’s racial remarks
   3. Kinky Friedman’s racist statements
   4. Jackie Mason’s racial jokes

   conservative pundits

   1. Rush (hillbilly heroin) Limbaugh
   2 Bob Grant
   3. Lionel

   media

   1. Richard Cohen (he and klein both wrote that HBCU’s funding should be taken away because of the sppech)
   2. Joe Klien (who said that black colleges wer educating kids in racism)

   And then forcing every Black Organization ( including the NOI) in the media to apolgize right then, I thought that we as African- Americans had no one to represent us. The Jewish lobby got Ford and other companies to not offer the NAACP grants until they got rid of Benijman Chavis (for supporting Farahkan) and including them and not condemning the speech. Conservatives the ulitmate hypocrites who write books, spread racist propaganda on the airwaves and has it legitmized the theory that African- Americans are…

   1. violent
   2. perverse

   well you know the rest. And then to get the legislative branch of our government to write a rebuke or censor, when racists like Dinesh D’Sousa, (Who edited the Harvard Review in college and that paper made a series of racial imflammatory language) and conservative pundits in their ‘wink wink’ calling out Muhhmaad and liberal Black Leadership with their uncle tom black parrots. To me that is a double standard, I have always said that as long as racists like Randy Weaver, David Duke, had their speech protected, I wanted the same leeway given to rappers X- CLAN, BDP, Public Enemy and The Nation of Islam not because I agreed with Khalid (I thought the specch was typical NOI ) and like Comedian Paul Mooney says “Black Folks love to entertain”. I didn’t agree with any of it, but I thought that free speech is just that, the right to inspire and offend.

   But after that fiasco, I see that only Black Speech that tells the majority “we are all brothers” and what I call P.C. racial harmony crap with no challenges to authority and calling both politcal parties to account for their attitudes on African- Americans is the main reason I left the Black Church or calling out Black pathology ala Bill Cosby is acceptable speech for us ‘poor negros’ . I do not apologize for bringing Jewish folks and Peter King and Joe Liberman for bringing this sorry excuse of politcal censorship on Afro- Americans who have truly independent views on race realtions, politics, and issues affecting ths country. I read a ADL report saying that young Afro- Americans were more anti- semitic than other races, I thought considering the that Black Folks (particularly young black males) have very little intraction with Jewish folks since the 60′, I was surmising that maybe , just maybe, college- educated black men and even younger politcally active black folks saw the hypocrisy and granstanding on Khalid’s speech may have created some anti- semities. I never saw these same people criticize the “Bell Curve” a year later on African- American genetics by Murray and Hernstein.

   Posted 23 Sep 2006 at 4:17 pm ¶

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.