Politics: Weighing In
The contributors to the Liquid List are in the employ of a civil rights organization, though not the one being discussed in this (here, here, and here) blog semi-debate between Atrios and Tapped. That being said, I feel that there are some more items to be teased out of this discussion, for the edification of everyone.
First, it’s important to point out that at least once (and possibly several times) Tapped indicates that people citing low grades on the NAACP scorecard are accusing that particular legislator of racism. However, there needs to be a distinction. Opposition to civil rights legislation is just that. The motivation may be racial hatred, fiscal conservatism, personal libertarianism, crankiness, who knows. One of the best aspects of the scorecards that riddle the .org community is that they are built on facts; agree with us, you get a plus, don’t and your grade goes down. Disagree enough, and we’ll give you a low grade. Individually, there may be excuses for this or that vote, but in aggregate, they show a pattern of support for or opposition to initiatives that, in this case, are the civil rights agenda today.
Another assumption made in Tapped’s response to Atrios’ comments needs to be rebuked. The civil rights agenda isn’t trapped in amber; it evolves and grows over time to reflect the challenges facing minority groups now. Make no mistake, though, disturbingly, America is still confronting some of the old challenges today (ask the countless thousands of largely minority voters disenfranchised in Florida’s 2000 election). But civil rights groups are also assessing the threat to freedom posed by an anti-civil rights agenda forced underground by a growing awareness and opposition to its cause.
In addition to what Tapped calls ‘“traditional” civil rights issues (i.e. voting rights),’ organizations today need to fight an anti-civil rights agenda which is affected by a media-exhausted American public, powerful advertising campaigns and public relations spin factories, and the belief by many that the civil rights case is closed and that there are no longer threats to civil rights.
(To cite one example: Tapped mentions that vouchers are now supported by a majority of African Americans. One reason for that growing support is the rise in 2000 of an organization (BAEO) representing black Americans in support of tax-funded vouchers. However, a closer look reveals that BAEO is bankrolled by a few right-wing foundations better known for supporting education privatization and affirmative action rollbacks than empowering African Americans or low-income families.)
Finally, Tapped indicates that many items on the civil rights agenda, or at least the NAACP’s agenda, are in place because “the Democrats need” certain issues to be there. It can’t be denied that there is some synergy between the nation’s largest civil rights organization and the political party that has been the strongest supporter of civil rights since the Republican’s Southern Strategy changed the drivers for each party. And there are times when the cooperation between interest groups (not solely the NAACP but all groups on all sides of the issue) is frustrating. But here is where we reach the meat of this issue.
Much of the ultra-conservative agenda does impact civil rights, especially when issues affecting minority communities are viewed through the lens of other social factors. For example: the decision by the Centers for Disease Control, under President Bush, to remove information about condom usage because it clashes with conservative dogma about abstinence as the only effective form of birth control appears to just be a bone thrown to the Religious Right. But look at the population likely to receive this information. These fact sheets are distributed in clinics and health centers serving poor communities around the country. Those communities don’t benefit from this information, perhaps don’t take the abstinence-only advice, and end up perpetuating circumstances (growing populations and growing diseases) that reinforce their poverty.
Look, too, at one of the civil rights items of concern which Tapped calls a “basic Democratic” issue: Class size. Ample research on class-size initiatives demonstrates that students in smaller classes improve their grades. Is it a civil rights issue? Researchers at a long-standing Tennessee program called STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) found that the black-white gap in taking college preparatory exams was cut in half for those minorities who had been in smaller classes. In Wisconsin class-size reduction program called SAGE, which focused on students from kindergarten to third grade, the achievement gap between African American and white first graders was reduced in language arts and math while it increased in comparable schools that weren’t restraining class size. Black second and third graders scored higher on every test than their black peers in comparable schools that weren’t restraining class size.
The purpose of this isn’t to malign Tapped, whose respectability is second-to-none. However, one of our greatest dangers is to think that we can rest in our struggle. Trent Lott isn’t a lone, isolated, backwards lawmaker who somehow wandered off the reservation. He is part of a larger problem and if civil rights organizations don’t use this opportunity to point out that larger problem, then they aren’t working for their constituents, and they aren’t working at all.
The contributors to the Liquid List are in the employ of a civil rights organization, though not the one being discussed in this (here, here, and here) blog semi-debate between Atrios and Tapped. That being said, I feel that there are some more items to be teased out of this discussion, for the edification of everyone.
First, it’s important to point out that at least once (and possibly several times) Tapped indicates that people citing low grades on the NAACP scorecard are accusing that particular legislator of racism. However, there needs to be a distinction. Opposition to civil rights legislation is just that. The motivation may be racial hatred, fiscal conservatism, personal libertarianism, crankiness, who knows. One of the best aspects of the scorecards that riddle the .org community is that they are built on facts; agree with us, you get a plus, don’t and your grade goes down. Disagree enough, and we’ll give you a low grade. Individually, there may be excuses for this or that vote, but in aggregate, they show a pattern of support for or opposition to initiatives that, in this case, are the civil rights agenda today.
Another assumption made in Tapped’s response to Atrios’ comments needs to be rebuked. The civil rights agenda isn’t trapped in amber; it evolves and grows over time to reflect the challenges facing minority groups now. Make no mistake, though, disturbingly, America is still confronting some of the old challenges today (ask the countless thousands of largely minority voters disenfranchised in Florida’s 2000 election). But civil rights groups are also assessing the threat to freedom posed by an anti-civil rights agenda forced underground by a growing awareness and opposition to its cause.
In addition to what Tapped calls ‘“traditional” civil rights issues (i.e. voting rights),’ organizations today need to fight an anti-civil rights agenda which is affected by a media-exhausted American public, powerful advertising campaigns and public relations spin factories, and the belief by many that the civil rights case is closed and that there are no longer threats to civil rights.
(To cite one example: Tapped mentions that vouchers are now supported by a majority of African Americans. One reason for that growing support is the rise in 2000 of an organization (BAEO) representing black Americans in support of tax-funded vouchers. However, a closer look reveals that BAEO is bankrolled by a few right-wing foundations better known for supporting education privatization and affirmative action rollbacks than empowering African Americans or low-income families.)
Finally, Tapped indicates that many items on the civil rights agenda, or at least the NAACP’s agenda, are in place because “the Democrats need” certain issues to be there. It can’t be denied that there is some synergy between the nation’s largest civil rights organization and the political party that has been the strongest supporter of civil rights since the Republican’s Southern Strategy changed the drivers for each party. And there are times when the cooperation between interest groups (not solely the NAACP but all groups on all sides of the issue) is frustrating. But here is where we reach the meat of this issue.
Much of the ultra-conservative agenda does impact civil rights, especially when issues affecting minority communities are viewed through the lens of other social factors. For example: the decision by the Centers for Disease Control, under President Bush, to remove information about condom usage because it clashes with conservative dogma about abstinence as the only effective form of birth control appears to just be a bone thrown to the Religious Right. But look at the population likely to receive this information. These fact sheets are distributed in clinics and health centers serving poor communities around the country. Those communities don’t benefit from this information, perhaps don’t take the abstinence-only advice, and end up perpetuating circumstances (growing populations and growing diseases) that reinforce their poverty.
Look, too, at one of the civil rights items of concern which Tapped calls a “basic Democratic” issue: Class size. Ample research on class-size initiatives demonstrates that students in smaller classes improve their grades. Is it a civil rights issue? Researchers at a long-standing Tennessee program called STAR (Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) found that the black-white gap in taking college preparatory exams was cut in half for those minorities who had been in smaller classes. In Wisconsin class-size reduction program called SAGE, which focused on students from kindergarten to third grade, the achievement gap between African American and white first graders was reduced in language arts and math while it increased in comparable schools that weren’t restraining class size. Black second and third graders scored higher on every test than their black peers in comparable schools that weren’t restraining class size.
The purpose of this isn’t to malign Tapped, whose respectability is second-to-none. However, one of our greatest dangers is to think that we can rest in our struggle. Trent Lott isn’t a lone, isolated, backwards lawmaker who somehow wandered off the reservation. He is part of a larger problem and if civil rights organizations don’t use this opportunity to point out that larger problem, then they aren’t working for their constituents, and they aren’t working at all.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home