In the early 1990s, Columbia University was entrenched in a tense battle over whether or not to demolish the Audubon Ballroom in Washington Heights, the place where Malcolm X was assassinated. In protest, each day, I wore a button with only a large “X” and the phrase “just a man” underneath. For me, it was a reminder of the humanity in us all, the need for us to remember that no matter how great the legacy or the legend, at the end of the day, we’re all people and deserving of a basic humanity. During this time, the Black Student Organization hosted the award-winning poet Nikki Giovanni on the campus, and I was appointed to be her escort. At one point, while Ms. Giovanni and I were standing alone, she looked at me, pointed to the button and said simply, “I like that…just a man.” At the time, I was quiet, inspired to explore why its message was so powerful. Since that time, I’ve continued to process how we remember those who gave their lives so that others may live, how we honor those who lead the struggle for a just and honorable human experience. Still, I ask, how do we honor their sacrifice while not perpetuating the conditions they fought to destroy?

This question is still unanswered as the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts considers how to physically represent Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in what will be a 28-foot “Stone of Hope,” or tribute to Dr. King and the Modern Civil Rights Movement on the National Mall. In addition to a controversy surrounding the selection of Chinese sculptor Lei Yixin as the artist, there has also been a debate about whether to “soften” Dr. King’s physical appearance in the monument. Apparently, there was a recommendation to soften his brow and mouth to make him look less angry, and to unfold his arms, so as to make him look less confrontational.

In a recent article discussing the recommended changes, the Commission Vice Chair Pamela Nelson was quoted as saying, “This is how people are going to remember (King)…It’s critical to his legacy for ages to come. That’s why we’re so careful.” I can understand that; but I also believe that it would be a huge disgrace to construct a false depiction of the urgency of the movement and its true role as a highly confrontational stance against injustice. To soften his resolve–especially in stone–feels like a comparable attempt to place a muzzle on the power and vigilance of the Civil Rights Movement.

While the Commission ultimately decided to keep Dr. Kings’ arms folded while softening his facial expression a bit, I would still like to remind folks that Dr. King was very discontent with segregation, lynching, and other despicable conditions of racial and economic inequality. When we look at other public images of Dr. King, his face is concerned. His energy, while nonviolent, was certainly vigilant. Why should this monument reflect his story as anything else? He was assassinated–killed in an attempt to silence his growing impatience with the conditions inequality. Why should he look happy about that?

To memorialize an international figure such as Dr. King is a tremendous honor. I also recognize that it is also a tremendous process, one filled with artistic license and immense criticism. However, the one thing I hope to see come out of this is the public recognition that like Malcolm X, Dr. King was a man–one who was angry with oppression, one who was a loving father and husband, one whose powerful words are now being co-opted by those who wish to negate the gains made over the past forty years in equal access to education, employment, and other economic opportunities. You see, he and his legacy are very complex; but in it, I see a truth about people. People are fallible. People are powerful. People are angry and people are vulnerable. People are in a constant cycle of trying to improve their conditions, achieve a greater “freedom.” To me, this memorial should reflect that the struggle for equality is not a thing of the past. Tell the truth, US Commission of Fine Arts. Tell the truth.

Copyright 2008 Monique W. Morris

“I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race…That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, or find some absolution.” – Joseph C. Phillips, Actor

Behold the warring souls of “Black conservatives.” Actor Joseph C. Phillips, who played Denise Huxtable’s husband on The Cosby Show, is not alone with his hope that a successful campaign of Sen. Obama could potentially transform America into the quintessential post-racial society. A couple days ago, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Wardell Connerly, champion of initiatives in California, Washington, and Michigan to eliminate affirmative action. Connerly is currently leading similar efforts in Nebraska, Colorado, and Arizona, claiming that because we seek a post-racial American identity, there is no longer a place for race-and gender-conscious remedies to discrimination. In Connerly’s public mind, at least as it is conveyed in the media, race doesn’t matter. He writes in the WSJ article about being inspired by Sen. Obama’s supporters in South Carolina who were chanting, “race doesn’t matter.” Well, if you have to say it…

Fortunately, Sen. Obama’s campaign has been clear that he recognizes the importance of maintaining affirmative action, the nation’s most effective policy to date to bring about equal opportunities in access to employment, education, contracting, and public services. Obama’s campaign has confirmed that he opposes Connerly’s effort to eliminate policies and laws which seek to “break down historic barriers to progress for qualified women and minorities,” a stance which I applaud and completely support. I continue to be perplexed by Connerly and others like him who seem so committed to the ideal of a post-racial society that they are blinded by the realities of the present. Research that I have led at the Discrimination Research Center and at the Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice at UC Berkeley’s Law School have confirmed that people of color and women of all racial groups continue to face barriers to employment and equal access to public contracting opportunities. Our research has also found that without specific policies to enforce equal opportunity, access to contracting and employment erode over time and become reserved for the “good old boy network,” which is virtually impenetrable to women and people of color.

While I can empathize with the desire of “Black conservatives” to eliminate the use of race as a negative credential, the fact remains that racial bias is ingrained in the public psyche so much so that one cannot simply decide to be post-racial. You have to actually work on it. You have to have structures in place to hold individuals, governments, and institutions accountable to a raised standard of justice and equality. You have to make sure those in decision-making positions are aware of the historical manifestations of racial injustice–referred to by Condoleeza Rice as “America’s birth defect” –and its current legacy on access to many aspects of our society.

While I, too, am excited about the opportunity to cast my vote (again) for a candidate that I believe evokes a change in direction from the current disaster in leadership, I am also keenly aware that just because people of all racial groups are willing to vote for a man of African and European descent, that does not mean that racial bias and structural racism are no longer a part of the American social fabric. Just because one has made it, does not mean that the nation has transcended the real impact of racial bias. If one has been watching closely, this election has made it ever more apparent just how deep America’s biases are, and how much we are capable of reversing the course if we make a conscious effort to change.

It is not only unrealistic, but illogical, to think that removing race and gender-conscious remedies to discrimination will correct the deeply rooted biases that lead to real systems of preference, like those which come from elite schools that seek out potential legacy admits, and those which come from public agencies that consistently deny public contracting opportunities for people of color and women of all racial groups. While I agree that the election of Sen. Obama to the Presidency would signal tremendous social growth for this country, it will by no means negate the disparities in incarceration, poverty, health, education, and other areas that are so prevalent among people of color, and particularly, African Americans. And while I agree that it is time to change how we talk about race, the important thing is to keep talking about it so that we can overcome the cultural and social incompetencies that make for unhealthy assumptions about the diverse people that make up the American public. This is the discourse we long for; this is the discourse we deserve.

Copyright 2008 Monique W. Morris

“The truth is that Chevron’s violations have been taking place around the world,” said Atossa Soltani, executive director of the nonprofit group Amazon Watch, which helps Ecuadorans suing Chevron over oilfield pollution in the rain forest. “In fact the violations seem to permeate Chevron’s operations.” – From the San Francisco Chronicle

Ecuador. Nigeria. Burma. Richmond, California. In each of these cities, Chevron is facing tremendous scrutiny and criticism regarding its alleged human rights abuses. Despite a record profit of $18.7 billion reported in 2007, things are not all gravy for the notorious oil company. It seems so simple, right? Don’t abuse those who are most vulnerable or the entire empire could come crashing down. Don’t abuse nature or the air we breathe could one day fill our bodies with pollutants that make us sick–mentally and physically. These are old lessons —ones I discuss with my young daughters after reading Dr. Seuss’ Yertle the Turtle or The Lorax. These are lessons we are supposed to learn while we’re young; but for some of us, greed seems to take over, leading those in decision-making positions to the conclusion that they can do whatever they want in the name of “profitability.”

Many are outraged not only by this single example of corporate human rights abuse and social irresponsibility, but also by the trend of poor people of color being exploited and harmed by corporations because the world is usually not paying attention to these communities. Monique Harden, Co-Director of the Advocates for Environmental Human Rights, once told me, “If the world cared about the pollution and toxins that impact poor communities of color, maybe we wouldn’t have a problem with global warming.” Maybe she’s right.

Copyright 2008 Monique W. Morris

« Previous entries