King, Kennedy, and Obama
First off, congratulations to Clay Risen for a terrific book which brilliantly captures one of the most important single weeks of the Twentieth Century. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968 and the rioting that followed in city after city helped shape the fate of American liberalism for a generation, and Clay's book helps us understand that period much better.
I'm struck by Clay's use of the phrase "the King riots," because, as Clay himself points out, rioting was the ultimate repudiation of King's nonviolent approach to civil rights. The riots were on one level perfectly understandable expressions of justifiable rage and despair. But, as Clay notes, they played right into the hands of conservative Republicans, like Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew, who capitalized on white fear of black militancy. Nonviolence, in King's view, was not a weak or timid strategy; it was the only pragmatic route to victory in America, where black violence would surely yield white backlash.
One liberal, Robert Kennedy, understood this and in the days and weeks following the assassination he got the balance right: denouncing violence as counterproductive and simultaneously denouncing the economic inequality and racism which gave birth to violent reaction. Kennedy drew cheers from black crowds in Atlanta who knew he cared about them, but he was also able to communicate a toughness as the nation's former chief law enforcement officer that many whites appreciated. Rather than emphasizing policies that would divide working class whites and blacks, Kennedy featured those that would unite them; and in the Indiana Democratic presidential primary the following month, Kennedy built a remarkable coalition of working class voters - blacks and former George Wallace supporters - the likes of which have rarely been seen since.
Kennedy was building on the insights of King's Poor People's Campaign - that working class people have far more that unites them than divides them - an idea that King's aide Bayard Rustin also sought to emphasize in the days after King's death. As A Nation on Fire explains, in Memphis, where King was shot, Rustin organized a march to herald a "totally new stage" in the civil rights movement, "the beginning of the entry into economic justice."
But then, in June 1968, Kennedy himself was shot dead, and American liberalism wandered into different pastures. One central response to the King assassination was the decision of America's great universities to adopt programs to increase the number of African American students by providing a preference in admissions. Rustin complained, as King had, that race-specific measures would divide the liberal coalition of working class whites and blacks. Moreover, these programs tended to benefit the most affluent students of color, not those who felt the combined burden of deprivation and discrimination that gave rise to rioting.
Liberal politicians didn't question this racial emphasis until Barack Obama made the remarkable comment that no, his own children don't deserve a preference in college admissions, and yes, poor whites along with poor blacks do. This statement sent chills down the spines of many right-thinking liberals, but in truth Obama is just bringing us back full circle to where King and Kennedy - two heroes of Clay Risen's book - stood proudly.
A few points where I disagree with your assessment. First, the coalition of whites and blacks based on economic status had always been fragile. The multi-year "quality of life" surveys conducted in Detroit by the University of Michigan, especially those that focus on race relations, had demonstrated consistently that even when the white survey-takers are of the same economic background as their black counterparts, race trumps everything.
Second, when financial aid is available for those students, less privileged black students do attend college at similar rates as more affluent blacks. When financial aid is not a barrier, students who want to go to college, do. It appears to be one of the "selling points" of conservative and the anti-affirmative action crowd, that "rich black kids" get all the financial aid. Similarly, there are white students of means who receive financial aid as well (and other special admissions advantages like legacy admission). I do not hear the clamor for them to give up their financial assistance.
(There always seems to be -- even in its most subtle of forms -- a desire to "divide and conquer.")
Third, discrimination is not dependent upon deprivation. Bigotry and racism affects well-to-do prominent blacks in just the same manner as poor blacks. Bigots don't check your bank account first. Another of the myths promulgated to create false distinctions. Just as racism and Jim Crow were not limited to the south, bigots know no class distinctions.
Fourth, it was not liberal politicians who had a problem with universities using race as a determining factor in college admissions, but conservatives both white and black, who did.
Consider the most recent university-based affirmative action/reverse discrimination cases, Gratz, Grutter v. University of Michigan. In those cases two white students (backed ridiculously by Ward Connerly) claimed that they were discriminated against by both the undergraduate and law schools because the university used race as one of many factors in determining admission. Race, geographic origin (urban and rural students given certain preferences), economic status and special skills, among other points were considered and weighted to help the university meet its diversity goals. Thus a white student from a rural area of the state, whose family farm was not making money, who played the tuba and football (and with an acceptable grade point average) might win admission over a white student from a suburban school with no other special skills. The university had always used the admission scale not as an absolute, but as a guideline. Exception could be and were made.
In your statement lies another conflation that deserves attention, which is, once again, that poverty and discrimination (or more precisely racism) are conjoined twins. One can be poor and one can be affected by racism, and either of the two can happen independent of the other.
Barack Obama's statement that his daughters would not need financial aid to attend college did not and does not suggest that they would never feel the sting of racism. And it is entirely possible, that they or some other black child of means might apply to a school which extends its "exclusivity" beyond being selective to to being racially discriminatory. At that point, using race as a factor for admission -- all other things, including finances being equal -- is a fair use of the criterion. "Right-thinking liberals" (and "liberal" is not a dirty word) applaud Obama's clear-eyed view of where we are as a nation and what work needs to be done.
And if there are chills running down the spines of any politicians, it must conservatives who shudder at the thought of Eric Holder running the Justice Department, especially after he spoke of a "nation of cowards."
March 30, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . Obama is just bringing us back full circle to where King and Kennedy - two heroes of Clay Risen's book - stood proudly. Rick Kahlenberg
Because 40 years of affirmative action have led to a fairer society which has allowed Obama to voice these color-blind values?
March 30, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for those comments. A few responses:
1. I agree that the working class white and black coalition is an uneasy one. Conservatives do everything they can to divide the two groups because they're terrified of the strides that could be made by liberals if working class people of all colors came together. That's precisely why it's so important that we liberals not give them tailor made issues (like racial preferences) to convince working class whites that their interests lie with conservatives rather than liberals.
2. I completely agree with you on legacy preferences. They're unfair and The Century Foundation is working with a number of authors on a volume examining this issue.
3. I also agree that discrimination and deprivation are two separate things. That's why I'm strongly supportive of tough enforcement of anti-discrimination laws to fight racism. As a legal matter, the courts have never upheld racial preferences as an appropriate remedy for societal discrimination.
4. Although places like the University of Michigan say they provide preferences in admission for both underrepresented minorities and low income students, the data suggest most universities do not. William Bowen, a strong supporter of affirmative action, found that at selective colleges and universities, being African American or Latino substantially increases one's odds of being accepted, but being low income has no impact, positive or negative.
5. I agree that liberal is not a dirty word. I consider myself a liberal, and I wrote a mostly positive biography of Albert Shanker, entitled Tough Liberal.
Rick
March 31, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink