The Rooney Rule: White Privilege Means Not Being a Token Interview

With the firing of many NFL coaches and general managers on Monday, there are many openings to be filled.   All the articles I have read about these openings have mentioned the Rooney Rule, the NFL policy that requires that at least one candidate of color be interviewed for an opening.  These mentions are usually near the end of articles after the article reviews all of the candidates, most if not all of whom are white.  In particular, the Cleveland Browns my beloved, bedraggled hometown team has a clear list of coaches in whom they are interested.  There pictures were plastered all over the front of the sports section.  None of these fine football minds happen to be people of color, so the Browns at some point will have to bring in a candidate of color to fulfill the Rooney Rule.  As I have noted before, the rule is positive in that it forces those in positions of power to broaden their pool and reach beyond the so called old boys network.  However, I do wonder how it works for the actual candidates who are brought in to fulfill the Rooney Rule.

I am reminded of conversations with educators of color who are mid level administrators and find themselves often called by search consultants to be candidates for division head or headmaster positions.  They have to suss out whether they are being called to make the pool diverse or if they are being called because they have a legitimate shot at the job.  I heard many talk of disappointment when they realized they were not a serious candidate, but had thought they were and had invested time and emotional energy in the search process.

That is one part of white privilege I and the white potential hires in the NFL benefit from.  We know that if we are invited to interview for a job, we are not being invited just because a person of our race is needed to diversify the pool.

Chip Kelly, supposedly the top candidate to coach the Browns (from U. Oregon website)

The Hillbilly in American Culture

Has the hillbilly trope returned to American culture?  If so, what does it mean?  Michelle Dean answers these questions in a piece on Slate that combines cultural critique and her own memories.

Her primary proof of the trope’s return is the show Honey Boo Boo, an offering I have yet to watch.  I am more interested, though, in Dean’s analysis that in hard times, hillbilly themed shows appear in American culture.  In particular, she asserts that these shows allow for middle class whites to project all kinds of negative traits on another group.  The hillbillies (also called poor white trash and hicks) allow for someone to say I may be struggling, but at least I am not as irredeemably backwards as they are.

From my perspective these shows also present a group of people it is safe to make fun of.  Many people are out there trying to breakdown stereotypes of all kinds of groups, but there seems to be more of a trend for individuals to claim a hillbilly stereotype with pride rather than decrying its application.

(The section on the origin of Mountain Dew and its hillbilly origins was also enlightening.)

Presidential Debate Moderators: Gender and Racial Distribution Needed?

Candy Crowley

There was a lot of attention paid recently to the fact that 50% of the presidential and vice presidential debate moderators will be women.  This is certainly big news as for the first time in 20 years a woman, Candy Crowley, will moderate a presidential debate.  Given the attention paid to women’s issues and the charge of a “war on women” being waged this equality makes sense.  The underlying question of whether a only a woman can effectively make sure women’s issues are addressed seems to be answered with an unspoken “yes.”

But what about moderators of color?  A piece on The Root expresses concern with the lack of black moderators, pointing out the job Juan Williams did in challenging Newt Gingrich on Gingrich’s “food stamps president” line of attack.  The Root then goes on to list issues that are important to black audiences, issues unlikely to make it into debates: racial profiling, gun violence, and AIDS.

I agree that it would have been preferable for there to be a moderator of color given the diversity of American society and the idea that the debates should in a way appeal to and reflect the ideas of all people.  However, I am not sure that having a black moderator is essential for a discussion of issues of importance to blacks.  As a teacher I have often been reminded that if there are only one or two black students in a class, I should not in any way expect them to serve as spokespeople for their race, for example turning to the one black student in the class for the black perspective on Huck Finn.  So, should the nation turn a black moderator to represent the concerns of all black people?  Should the nation turn to female moderators to represent the concerns of all women?

Wrestling with America as Meritocracy

As I was running this morning, I was wrestling with the concept of America being or not being a meritocracy.  I had read an article the night before presenting what happens when students take a class on racism and how one aspect of understanding the role of race and racism in America involves realizing America is not a meritocracy.

That statement, “America is not a meritocracy” makes me stop and pause because it goes against so much of what  I learned growing up.  Based on my college studies and experiences afterward, I know the statement is correct, but I still have an emotional stake in its truth.

First  from the Oxford English Dictionary, a definition of meritocracy:

“Government or the holding of power by people chosen on the basis of merit (as opposed to wealth, social class, etc.); a society governed by such people or in which such people hold power; a ruling, powerful, or influential class of educated or able people. Also in extended use.
Originally spec. with reference to ‘merit’ as assessed by a competitive educational system.”

When I think about who holds power in America, I know America is not a meritocracy.  Those with wealth have greater access to education and other resources and thus are more likely to be judged meritorious and selected for position of leadership.   I grew up in the upper middle class and had access to a private school education followed by four years a  selective college to which I was admitted in part because my father went there.  If America were a meritocracy, all students would receive the same education in equal schools and then compete from that start for admission to college based on skills and traits they had an equal opportunity to hone, and I likely would not be where I am today.

If one does not want to start with education, then when it comes to employment and promotion in a meritocracy the hiring process would be based only on one’s skills and performance with no networking or connections involved.  If one can get a job because one’s family or friends have a connection to the person in power, that is not a meritocracy.  One’s merit did not make one stand out from the pool of applicants.

Then one must factor race into the equation.  Considering the great gap in family wealth between black and white families (see above graph), black families may not be able to provide for their children the education and access to resources provided for white children. This lack of resources in many cases means that while a student may have great merit, forces of race and class inhibit prevent him or her from achieving the outcomes a student of equal merit but greater resources might achieve.   Likewise, without the wealth necessary for a place in the American elite, a black family is less likely to have the connections that would help a child of merit stand out and be chosen for a position.

This analysis saddens me, and I hate to believe in its truth.  I know from my studies that it is true, that American is not a meritocracy.  Once one gets to a certain level some decisions may be based on merit, but getting to that level takes money which can purchase opportunities, and the history of race in American determines who has that money.

It all comes down to the fact that I want to believe that I somehow earned my childhood in a big house on a hill, prep school education, and inherited financial resources, when in fact I did not.  However meritorious I am had little to do with my advantageous beginning in American society.  Yes, I could have squandered those advantages, but even then I would have more chances to get back up, recover, and pursue success, chances those with much greater merit but fewer lucky quirks of birth would not have.

White Privilege: Having a Comic Character to Emulate

Cassandra Cain

Kendra James’s piece for Racialicious, “Race + Fandom: When Defaulting to White is Not an Option” begins by discussing dressing in costume as a comic book character but dressing as a character of another race.   James talks about the reactions she receives at fan events when fans are in costume as she is a person of color in the costume of a white character.  She ties this experience to white privilege, in that white fans can easily find a character of their own with whom to identify and then play at fan gatherings, while a fans of color cannot.  In a similar context she discusses the impact of characters of color disappearing, “Pull Cassandra Cain …and the number of Asian heroes starring in their own books–not just in the DC Universe, but in all of mainstream comics–ticked back to zero in 2006 “. She also talks about the assumption that characters are white and brings up the controversy over characters in the Hunger Games and Thor films who were played by people of color against fan expectations. I enjoyed the thoroughness of her meditations as well as the way they connected to my much more limited experiences growing up, watching the Super Friends and noticing the small number of minor characters added for diversity, one for each ethnicity.  It also ties to the recent hype over the first gay marriage in comic book history.

What strikes me especially is the paradox here in that the fantasy comic universe is one where all kinds of amazing, unbelievable things can happen, but where issues of identity are still immutable, white is white, and of color is of color.

White Privilege: Can Video Game Analogy Lessen My Unease

I have my doubts about white privilege.  I know I benefit from it.  I understand that I am more likely to see people who look like me in roles of power, less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have inherited family wealth as a white person.  (See this Peggy McIntosh peice for details.)  However, while I totally accept that I am white and privileged, I cannot really separate out that privilege from socioeconomic privilege.  I also have access to housing, education, social networks and other resources because I grew up upper middle class.  When I read a book like Knockemstiff by Donald Ray Pollock set in Appalachia, I find it hard to think of the characters in that book as privileged, white though they may be.   Does it really matter that if they turn on C-Span the senators look like them?

A video game analogy by John Scalzi has potential as an explanation for how white privilege plays out, but I am not sure it works.  He says that if life were a video game, being a straight white male is like playing the game at the lowest difficulty setting.   On the other hand being a black lesbian would be the highest difficulty setting.  His explanation of the analogy is complex; it boils down to the fact one can win or lose a game at any difficulty setting, but that does not change the fact that it is easier at some settings than others.  He goes into character points, dump stats and various elements as analogies for wealth and other attributes, but not being a gamer of any sort, my understanding is hazy there.

I am still not sure I buy this argument perfectly.  Is there not a similar game where being rich is the lowest difficulty setting?    Still this analogy did get me thinking about white privilege and my uneasiness with the term and my uneasiness with that uneasiness.

White Privilege: The Right to be Mediocre

In an  Essence  piece on success in a multicultural workplace, Tanisaha Sykes gives some good tips based on her experience based on transferring to a majority white high school.  Her lines about what she learned at that high school is a great summary of how diversity helps challenge assumptions”

“It was also the first time I was really exposed to white folks. Chile, I was just as shocked as they were. But you know what’s funny? The Caucasians were actually nice, something that flew in the face of what I had been taught: that they weren’t, to say the least.”

Her other pieces of advice are fairly mundane regarding socializing, finding mentors, joining affinity groups not just based on diversity.  I do wonder about her suggestion that one great way to be accepted is to excel:

“In order to really work it to your advantage on the job, become a standout — do something in the company that no one else is doing that adds value. Trust me, if you are delivering the goods in a way that no one else is, then they will come to you.”

That is good advice for anyone.  When directed at people of color it reminds of the saying that women/people of color have to be twice as competent as men/white people to be treated equally.  If this is true, that to be welcomed as equal women/people of color must excel, then that leads me a to a conclusion.  The ultimate  form of white privilege–the freedom to be mediocre.

Museum of Racist Memorabilia

Item from the museum collection (one of the less offensive pieces).

Ferris State  in Michigan has opened a Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia.  The collection is extensive, graphic and utterly horrific, but also historical and educational.  I wish, however, it were not a stand alone museum.  If there were some way of working this material into a larger collection, giving a broader perspective.  I would not say a positive spin, but a sense that this collection is only one part of a broader world.  I would not go and make a trip just to see this museum and I certainly can’t imagine school groups going.  Perhaps that is one of the benefits of white privilege that I can avoid such material, so I should go, but I just can’t.

Here is a link to an article featuring images of the collection.  Be warned they are graphic and disturbing.

Inside the new $1.3m Museum of Racist Memorabilia with 9,000 exhibits that leave most visitors ‘angry or offended’

Private Colleges Adding Lacrosse to Draw [rich, white] Students

Lake Erie College Lacrosse (Joshua Gunter, The Plain Dealer)

I read a piece in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on the ways private colleges in the area are adding lacrosse to draw students.  Something about the article struck me as wrong, or bothersome.  The article discussed the way colleges were adding the sport to draw smart, wealthy kids who can pay full tuition.  In other words kids who come from good schools who will not require the college to expend money in aid or academic support–kids on whom the college can make a profit.

I know the economics here make sense.  A school needs full pay students to survive.  However, the idea of adding a program to get these students made me uneasy.  Is the only reason for adding lacrosse because it brings in tuition revenue?  Do sports played by other students who are not wealthy get ignored because they do not bring in cash?  Clearly one has more college options if one has money.  That is a fact of life; however the bluntness of this piece stunned me.  Perhaps I prefer my classism hidden.

Then there is also the issue of race.  According to ESPN,  ”In 2009-10, less than 10 percent of the student-athletes playing NCAA lacrosse were black…. That statistic carries over to both men’s and women’s lacrosse in Divisions I, II and III. ”  Given that fact, it appears that these colleges are adding programs that are not only targeted at wealthy students but at white wealthy students.

As I said above, I understand the need for schools to do this.  It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Here are some quotations from the article showing the basic ideas involved:

“”The holy grail in enrollment in tuition-driven institutions are the proverbial full-pay students,” [Michael Victor, President of Lake Erie College] said. “

“The college’s men’s and women’s lacrosse programs have drawn smart students from middle-class families in states from across the country, Victor said.”

“”For us it was a real simple decision,” said Timothy Bryan, assistant to the president at Hiram. “More and more of our students are asking for it. Most (lacrosse players) are very sound academically and come from very good schools. It is a buyer’s market and they are looking for a great education and to continue in a sport they love.”"

“In the last five years, college growth in the Midwest is really big,” [Brian Logue, Director of Communications for US Lacrosse] said. “Because the sport has grown so much at the high school level, more kids are looking to play in college. At private schools it is a big thing to get them to come there. These are kids with good academic backgrounds and from families that are better able to pay for college and not need as much aid.”

Derbyshire, Satire, Discourse

John Derbyshire

The John Derbyshire piece “”The Talk: Non-Black Version” is remarkably offensive.   So remarkably offensive that I still have to believe it may be satire.  After all, Jonathan Swift famously promoted cannibalism as a way of critiquing the Irish ruling class in “A Modest Proposal.”  Derbyshire’s piece effectively hits all of the hot button race issues from racial IQ discrepancies, to crime, to general fear of groups of blacks.  One sample passage discusses “intelligent and well-socialized blacks [ISWBs]” and states “IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous.”  Blacks as property, there is another inflammatory trope.  Given that Derbyshire was fired for this article, I must read it as a serious commentary that effectively enrages me at every turn.  If that is the case then woe unto discourse in America.  Both sides are guilty (the bounty on Zimmerman by the New Black Panthers is another example of provocation), and we will not get anywhere as a nation in terms of having an intelligent discussion of race if all we do is try to aggravate and scare one another.