Category Archives: Higher Education

When Sorry Isn’t Enough: Blackface and the Duke Problem

Posted on by Standard Reply

When Sorry Isn’t Enough: Blackface and the Duke Problem

Dr. David J. Leonard

This past month students at Duke University attended a Halloween party at the home of Duke lacrosse coach, Kerstin Kimel. At this party for the Women’s Lacrosse team, a group decided to come as Our Gang/The Little Rascals, which, not surprisingly, included Buckwheat. With one player donning blackface, this became the latest incident at a university demonstrating the intransigent nature of white privilege and racism.

The decision to follow in the footsteps of American popular culture and their collegiate brethren is not surprising given the ubiquity of racism within contemporary parties. Dr. James Braxton Peterson describes the broader issues at work here:

White students put on blackface at Halloween, take pictures and generally circulate and celebrate their ‘costumes.’ I think of this as the “southern strategy” of the Halloween holiday. Young white folks, usually male, are able to express their racial and racist angst (conscious and subconscious) in a space and at a time that for the most part sanctions backwards, demeaning behavior. This has happened at every institution of higher learning at which I have ever worked or learned. It is strategic because the blackfacers almost never face the facts of our dark American history and almost always claim ignorance in the aftermath of outrage and the pain communicated (perennially) by the black university communities that must bare witness to these regular insults.

Although ignorance is not excuse for the student (or those other students who sat idly by), what can we say about the adults who allowed for the costume to be worn, who watched as pictures were snapped to memorialize the event, who put them on the Duke website and who left them there for multiple days. Multiple days! Yes, I said that correctly: officials at the university saw fit to put an image of the student in blackface on its website. There are many questions that deserve to be asked of the students; there are also questions that need to be answered about why a coach is hosting a party at her home. The ubiquity of blackface and parties based on degradation also deserves attention in that they have become so common that one needs to simply write a generic article, filling in the specifics of each incident. Yet, the failures of Duke University, from coaches to see a problem in blackface, on its website is telling. The failure of members of the Athletic Department/Media Relations to see an image of its student-athlete in blackface should give pause. The recent “apology” is equally troubling, pointing a systemic failure.

Responding to the outrage about a blackface costume and its appearance on a Duke website, Coach Kimel offered the following faux apology that seems to have been purchased from nonapologies.com:

This year, some of our costume choices were insensitive and entirely inappropriate. No offense was intended, but that does not matter because we should have realized how these choices would be viewed by those outside of our program. On behalf of our coaching staff and our student-athletes, we apologize to anyone we may have offended and understand while we believed we were making decisions in good fun, we should have been much more sensitive to the implications of our actions.

Yes, this was “insensitive” and “inappropriate”; that should be the starting point of an apology, one that also acknowledges the pain, violence, and hurt resulting from this “party.” Do you always have parties that dehumanize and mock, or just on special occasions? The focus on “intent” and the reaction of others demonstrates the power and persistence of privilege. The cross-generational white allegiance to blackface is illustrative of a sense of power and superiority. Amid claims of lost power and the changing demographics, it is the living example of the sedimented realities of white privileges. It becomes a moment to tell the world, particularly communities of color, “Hey we can still mock you; we can still become you; we can still degrade you; we can still control you.”

If I accidentally stepped on your foot, or knocked you over, is it fair for me to say, “I didn’t mean to knock you over; no offense was intended and I didn’t realize it would hurt if I stomped your toe. I didn’t realize you were so sensitive about your toe being squished.” That is what the above “apology” does, ostensibly telling those outraged by blackface, by university officials allowing blackface to take place at a party, by university officials thinking it was a good idea to put blackface images on its official website, “our bad, we are sorry you are oversensitive.”

The actions and the fraudulent apology leave me wondering, are you apologizing for what you did or for getting caught? Rather than apologizing for actions, it is about the reaction; rather than highlighting steps that will be taken to address the behavior of university officials (coaches; publicity department) and the players themselves, the “faux apology” was imagined as a sufficient step. Not even close.

While the incident at Duke is yet another example of Blackface 2.0, the specific inclusion of the Our Gang characters also deserves pause. In Our Gang, “the black characters were often buffoons in racially stereotypical ways. They spoke in dialect — dis, dat, I is, you is, and we is. Farina, arguably the most famous pickaninny of the 1920s, was, on more than one occasion, shown savagely eating watermelon or chicken,” notes The Jim Crow Museum. “He was also terrified of ghosts — this fear was a persistent theme for adult coons in later comedy films. Farina and Buckwheat wore tightly twisted ‘picaninny pigtails’ and old patched gingham clothes which made their sex ambiguous.” In other words, the costume embodies multiple traditions of American racism: Blackface and the dehumanizing and stereotypical representations of the American media.

Continue reading @ Dr. David J. Leonard: When Sorry Isn’t Enough: Blackface and the Duke Problem.

Dr. David J. Leonard: An Open Letter to White America, Particularly White Youth

Posted on by Standard Reply

An Open Letter to White America, Particularly White Youth

This is not the first time I have written an open letter to you, and clearly my previous letters have not had the necessary impact. Despite history lesson after history lesson, from a myriad of people, certain sh*t continues. Despite reminders that Blackface is never funny, the “N-Word” should never be uttered in any context, and making jokes about racial violence, domestic violence, or sexual violence is never okay. They are all forms of violence that continue to be perpetuated and celebrated each and every day. While the racism, sexism, and homophobia evident in these social spaces and at GOP political rallies are nothing new, the justification, the denial, and the overall societal complacency about racism (and sexism) because our president is black, speaks to a broader issue confronting America.

I know how hard conversations about race can be, and how invariably these conversations lead to claims about the “race card” or it being “just a joke,” and I know the defensiveness that ensues, but if not now, when? Today I read about a horrible and disheartening example of American racism. At a pep rally at Waverly High School, which is located in Upstate New York and is 97% white, three white students decided to put on a skit involving blackface, simulation of domestic violence, and a disgusting level of callousness. The sight of students in blackface, as if that makes them look like Chris Brown and Rihanna as opposed to Al Jolson and Shirley Temple, is yet another reminder that we have a long way to go with race. And when I say “we,” I mean white America. The sight of a skit designed to mock and find humor in domestic violence is evidence of a misogynistic culture that sanctions and promotes violence against women. Within the United States, a woman is assaulted or beaten every 9 seconds; “Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women.” In fact, 1 in 5 teenage girls reports having a boyfriend who threatened violence at the prospects of a breakup. So spare me “it’s just a joke” or “relax” responses. It isn’t funny; is reprehensible, sickening, and should be condemned nationwide. And while “it” is the skit and the response (yes, those in the comments section), it is also a racist and sexist culture that perpetuates these daily examples of violence. I am angry and wonder why you aren’t similarly outraged, so I am going to make it plain.

 

There is no acceptable reason to ever don Blackface. It’s not a joke, it ain’t funny, and it’s not some creative license that adds to the value of your artistic endeavors. Blackface has a long tradition that is part and parcel with white supremacy. It is part of a history of dehumanization, of denied citizenship, and efforts to rationalize, excuse, and justify state violence. From lynchings or mass incarceration, white supremacy has utilized dehumanization as part of its moral and legal justification for violence. Spare me your reference to “White Chicks,” the Chappelle Show. Stop with your references to satire. Spare me your dismissive arguments about intent and not being racially motivated. Blackface is part of the violent history of white supremacy. If you don’t know, now you know, and if you still don’t know, go here or here.

 

While we are on the subject, there is no place for racist costumes that dehumanize and demean, that mock and ridicule, that stereotype and otherwise reenact a larger history of racism. As the students at Ohio University reminded us this year, they “are a culture, not a costume.” Were you not listening or just don’t care? The costumes have to go along with those theme parties. I am talking about “ghetto parties, “cowboy and Indian parties,” “pimp and ho parties,” “South of the Border parties or any number of gatherings that see humor in mocking and demeaning others. If dressing up “as janitors, female gangsters and pregnant women” for Cinco de Mayo is in your plans or a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration includes a “gangsta party,” or Black History month is celebrated with the most disturbing stereotypes, it’s time to reevaluate. Just say no!

Continue reading at Dr. David J. Leonard: An Open Letter to White America, Particularly White Youth.

NewBlackMan (in Exile): Higher Education in Mitt Romney’s America

Posted on by Standard 1

Higher Education in Mitt Romney’s America

by David J. Leonard | NewBlackMan (in Exile)

The media focus on student debt, on congressional battles over student loans, and the scarcity of jobs for college graduates obscures the racial and class dynamics that define America’s colleges and universities. With the public discourse surrounding the unfairness of affirmative action for Whites, the threat that Ethnic Studies represents to (White) America, and the absence of “White student unions” in college campuses, public discussions re-imagine Whiteness as precarious, and Whites as victim and at the frontlines of a changing educational landscape. Despite the daily lamenting of the state and future of America’s White students, particularly those with middle and upper-middle incomes, college campuses are still White. In fact, Whites, particularly those whose parents are part of the top 5% of the income distribution, continue to reap the benefits of privilege in (1) admittance, (2) scholarship, and (3) treatment. Let’s not get things twisted here; these colleges and universities are in America, so yes the rules of the game (racism, sexism, classism) do apply.

In 2005, less than one in eight youth from the poorest 25% of society would enroll at a 4-year college university within 2 years of high school graduation. According to Peter Schmidt, author of The Color of Money, “a rich child has about 25 times as much a chance as a poor one of someday enrolling in a college rated as highly selective or better.” Colleges’ overreliance on SAT scores, heightens cultural bias, and the unequal advantages resulting from SAT prep classes, which have proven to benefit Whites and the middle-class. In addition, because admissions give credence to a school’s reputation (which cannot be seen apart from segregation, and racial and class inequality), the rules and the game of college are set up to advantage Mitt Romney’s America: the already privileged. Worse yet, the hegemony of the narratives of meritocracy and the illusion of diversity—which Lani Guiner describes as “a leaf to camouflage privilege”—obscure the endless privileges afforded to the members of middle and upper middle class White America, before they ever step foot on a college campus.

This is evident as we look at the racial and class stratification of student loans and other forms of aid. The Chronicle of Higher Education found that “colleges with more than $500 million in their endowments…served disproportionately few students from families with incomes low enough to qualify for federal Pell Grants.” In other words, the money that makes college a possibility is funneled to those whose families often have the requisite dollars to make college a reality. Schmidt tells us that “[j]ust 40 percent of the financial aid money being distributed by public colleges is going to students with documented financial need,” adding that “[m]ost such money is being used to offer merit-based scholarships or tuition discounts to potential recruits who can enhance a college’s reputation, or appear likely to cover the rest of their tuition tab and to donate down the road.” Despite the widely circulated, albeit factually false ideas about students of color and scholarships, the vast majority of scholarship money finds its way into the pocket of White students.

Continue reading @ NewBlackMan (in Exile): Higher Education in Mitt Romney’s America.

Shoes, Diplomas, and the American Dream – The Conversation – The Chronicle of Higher Education

Posted on by Standard Reply

(Christian Petersen/Getty Images for Nike, via ABC News)

Shoes, Diplomas, and the American Dream

September 7, 2012, 12:26 pm

By David J. Leonard

The media is abuzz with reports of Nike’s fall release of the LeBron X. Not surprisingly, the widespread commentary doesn’t focus on production conditions or even the technological components of the shoe, but instead on the cost of the shoes. According to The Wall Street Journal, the LeBron X would retail for a whopping $315 dollars; subsequent reports noted that Nike would market the model with all the hi-tech bells and whistles for only $290, with a basic model costing around $180. Pushing the boundaries of what constitutes a shoe (not just laces and “leather”), the LeBron X will include Nike’s + technology, which allows athletes to measure vertical leap, activity, and otherwise assess basketball progress.

Rumors of a $315 shoe led commentators to wax sociological, using the moment to lament the values and cultural priorities of the nation. More specifically, these sociological impersonators lamented the warped values of the poor, of inner-city residents, and of youth—blacks—who would probably flock to stores to purchase the shoes. “The lust for expensive LeBron X sneaker signals a bigger problem,” writes Daryl E. Owens, a columnist at the Orlando Sentinel. Whether linking it to warped priorities or reviving memories of black youths murdering each other for expensive shoes in the 90s (and more recently), Owens points to the dangers of consumption from certain communities: “For too many, the problem is a malignant mutated strain of conspicuous consumption, crossed with hardship and low self-esteem.” Greg Doyel of CBS Sports also objected that “LeBron is trading on the most vulnerable part of his fan base: their self-image.”

Imagining black youth as lacking values, self-esteem, and agency, Doyel and company see the shoes—and not poverty, job and housing discrimination, the prison-industrial complex, divestment in public education, etc.—as the destructive influence on the future of this generation. In other words, the allure of these shoes, and the desire to get one’s hands on them at any cost, is the explanation for persistent inequality. Painting a picture of black youth rioting and killing for these shoes, of a community lacking values, these commentators play on the worst kind of stereotypes and misinformation.

Yet it seems clear that Nike does have a message to market. The company is selling high-school and college athletes the prospect of not just a career but also a future. As with higher education as a whole, this is a message directed at the middle-class—at suburban whites rather than blacks. The LeBron X provides the electronic wizardry for student athletes to better their game. These shoes are imagined as yet another device or investment in a path toward the American dream. Akin to private coaches, the best equipment, nutritionists, private traveling teams, and other financial burdens, the shoes are yet another example of how sports achievement is tied to consumption and investment, to privilege. Akin to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a degree from an elite college, tens of thousands on private high schools or preschools because they are pipelines to the American dream. The shoe itself—and the reaction—is a metaphor for what is happening to higher education.

Continue reading @ Shoes, Diplomas, and the American Dream – The Conversation – The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Dr. David J. Leonard: Just Say No to Blackface: Neo-Minstrelsy and the Power to Dehumanize

Posted on by Standard Reply

Just Say No to Blackface: Neo-Minstrelsy and the Power to Dehumanize

In recent weeks, social media was set ablaze with news that an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn donned blackface and simulated prison rape in pictures taken while he was a college student. Troubling and offensive on some many levels, these photos are particularly disturbing given that as a DA in Brooklyn – as part of the criminal justice system that puts black and brown youth behind bars in disproportionate numbers – Mr. Justin Marrus has tremendous power in his community. Further undermining confidence in a criminal justice system that has proven itself to be hostile to communities of color, the sight of Mr. Marrus mocking and disparaging leaves me wondering how these past practices shape his present role as a prosecutor.

Jorge Rivas at Colorlines describes the photos of Justin Marrus as follows:

In one picture — from an album called “Halloween” — Marrus sports blackface, a wig made of what appears to be dreadlocks and a tie-dyed T-shirt. “What part of Jamaica you from mon? da beach mon,” the caption reads. A second photo — from an album called “Courthouse for 4th of July” — shows Marrus and another man simulating sex in what looks to be a cell with white bars.

The sight of his finding pleasure in the simulation of prison rape, his posing with his friends with a fake confederate flag tattoo, and his engaging in the time-honored tradition of blackface, should give us all pause for thought.

Ignoring the fact that the pictures remained on Facebook for six years – evidence that Marrus saw little wrong with them – a DA spokesman defended his colleague: “This is something he did about six years ago while he was in college. He apologized. He admits it was childish and inappropriate.” Others, such as Sharon Toomer, have rightly criticized Mr. Marrus. Toomer describes Marrus’s actions as a sign of his sense of “entitlement and privilege” and she calls upon all of us to take this matter seriously:

Through my lens as a Black and Latino woman, a taxpayer and a human being, I view these images as dehumanizing, degrading, arrogant, racist and problematic for a public institution. My lens is not that of White men or women, or even Black men and women who are so jaded by the work they do as prosecutors, that they fail to see or connect the dots on how ADA Marrus’ past thought and actions may influence his current and future decision-making. A ‘let’s give him a break and see what happens’ is too great a risk for my community.

Although some may dismiss the photos and Mr. Marrus’ behavior as youthful indiscretion, as something of the past, and as harmless, these photos point to a larger history, one that whites have yet to reconcile within contemporary culture.

The practice of white students donning blackface is not an isolated incident but reflects a larger trend at North America’s college’s and universities. Although these spectacles usually take place outside the view of the public at large, the minstrel tradition is alive and well at North American universities. Tim Wise, in “Majoring in Minstrelsy: White Students, Blackface and the Failure of Mainstream Multiculturalism,” notes that during the 2006-2007 school year there were 15 publicly known instances of racial mockery. He describes this practice:

Continue reading @  Dr. David J. Leonard: Just Say No to Blackface: Neo-Minstrelsy and the Power to Dehumanize.

BIGGER THAN PENN STATE: Does Our Culture Neglect Child Abuse Victims? – News & Views – EBONY

Posted on by Standard Reply

BIGGER THAN PENN STATE: Does Our Culture Neglect Child Abuse Victims?

By David J. Leonard

 

Amid all the self-righteousness and demands for accountability, justice and changes are the realities that speak to a societal disregard for the injustice of child abuse. Clearly, Penn State, a culture of hero worship, and most specifically those who turned their back on Jerry Sandusky’s victims in the name of bowl victories and football tradition, are complicit. Dollars and wins were deemed more important than the safety of children, an indictment of many.

We can all point to the various enablers within Penn State – administration, the Board of Trustees, Joe Paterno and countless others. Yet, the NCAA and the sports media, which not only promote a culture of football, a “victory culture,” and a “win by any means necessary” are also complicit here. They provided the incentive, the financial remunerations, and the institutional support that gave rise to this tragedy. Did what the NCAA did today make kids any safer; did it change the culture of college sports; did it adjust societal priorities; did it change the ways we define heroes. The plague of child abuse necessitates systemic action, including budgetary support for the prevention of child abuse; it requires financial commitment that actually puts kids first, that cares for those who have faced the unthinkable injustice for child abuse. As the NCAA wags its finger at Penn State and as ESPN and others in the sports media congratulate them, I am left to wonder who will hold the American political structure accountable for making kids more vulnerable.

For the first time in 18 years, the budgetary support for the Victims of Child Abuse Act was cut to ZERO for the 2013 budget. Monies that supported the victims of child abuse, that served almost 300,000 abused children in 2011, are gone, unless Congress restores them. According to the National Children’s Alliance, the cutting of funding for the Victims of Child Abuse Act will result in among other things:

  • Fewer abused children will receive services in every jurisdiction;
  • CACs will not receive the technical assistance and training they need to do their work effectively;
  • Prosecutors would not receive the training and technical assistance they need to get successful prosecutions, hold offenders accountable, and keep our communities safer;

If we as a society are truly concerned about child abuse, lets put our money where our mouth is. Instead of purchasing tickets for one game, instead of donating to our favorite athletic program, instead of donating to politicians who vote against the interest of children, instead of forking over $$ for the latest game gear, lets make our priorities clear with some investment in those actually promoting justice.

Continue reading @ BIGGER THAN PENN STATE: Does Our Culture Neglect Child Abuse Victims? – News & Views – EBONY.

Why Shouldn’t Diddy’s Son Get a Scholarship? – Entertainment & Culture – EBONY

Posted on by Standard Reply

Why Shouldn’t Diddy’s Son Get a Scholarship?

By David Leonard

The announcement that Justin Combs, son of Sean “Diddy” Combs, would take his talents – on the field and in the classroom – to UCLA has prompted widespread debate (err haterism). Despite excelling on the football field and with his academics, some have questioned whether he deserves or should be given a scholarship, especially in our current economic climate. More than the issue of the cost of collegiate athletics and rising tuition costs, the “controversy” surrounding his scholarship to UCLA comes from a belief that Combs is not entitled to an athletic scholarship because of his father’s wealth.

A blog post – “Should rich kids be ineligible for college scholarships?,” gives voice to those who have questioned the decision from UCLA and the Combs family:

Justin shouldn’t keep this money: Here’s the bottom line, says Dennis Romero at LA Weekly: “The son of a guy worth nearly half a billion dollars” doesn’t need a free ride to college, especially to “a school where student tuition and fees have nearly tripled in the last 10 years.” I mean, this is a kid who poses in front of “a $300,000-plus Maybach,” likely the car his dad got him on his 16th birthday. Now that’s “a free ride that could pay for half dozen full-ride scholarships to UCLA.”

The mere fact that this subject to debate on CNN or that CBS affiliate in Los Angeles sent a reporter to ask students their opinion is troubling and points to some larger issues at work. Justin Combs earned a scholarship; UCLA decided that his football skills and his academic preparedness were worthy of an athletic scholarship. That should be the end of the discussion yet for those who see his Diddy’s mogul status, his MTV Sweet 16 bash, his car, or his father’s stock portfolio as reasons to deny an earned, merit-based, scholarship, let me say a few things.

First off, the scholarship is “compensation” for his athletic labor; it is payment for not only his hard work but also a skill set that has proven to be valuable. It is compensation for the job of being a student-athlete, one that not only includes practice, games, media sessions, film sessions, workouts, travel, physical and mental wear and tear, and public appearances, along with being a college athlete. It is remuneration for the millions of dollars generated by collegiate football and basketball players, whose talents the NCAA, its partner institutions, and the sports media have converted into a billion dollar industry. While an exploitative relationship, this is still the “wage.” Unless the sons and daughters of America’s 1-percent are going to be asked to forgo wages at their various jobs, there is little one should say to Justin Combs.

Second, the idea that budgets or student fees are being impacted by athletic scholarships is without basis. Beyond the reality that state monies are not used for athletic scholarships, the efforts to link Combs to the budget is faux outrage. Where is the outrage over excessive salaries for coaches? High-price administrators? High cost tuition has nothing to do with scholarship athletes, or “overpaid professors” but an overall divestment in higher education. It reflects an unwillingness to invest public monies, to raise the necessary tax dollars, to maintain great universities. Blaming student-athletes and condemning Justin Combs is nothing more than a rhetorical weapon of mass distraction, one that so often cites hip-hop as the source of societal ills.

Additionally, if one is going to “mean’s test” scholarships, wouldn’t that ostensibly eliminate all merit-based scholarships? Does that mean all scholarships will be allocated based on need or just when involving the sons and daughters of hip-hop moguls?

For those who don’t think Combs deserves an athletic scholarship, are you willing to take the same position for a student who earns academic scholarship? If athletic excellence doesn’t matter for a student of wealth, should artistic or academic excellence matter either?

Continue reading @ Why Shouldn’t Diddy’s Son Get a Scholarship? – Entertainment & Culture – EBONY.