Opinion
Black Voters: Ignored and Taken For Granted
W
hat will it finally take for
Black people to accept
the fact that we have no
real political clout? A little influ-
ence, yes, but no power. If our
voting bloc were as strong as we
like to think, the Republicans
would not ignore us and the
Democrats would not take us for
granted. If we had real political
power, both Mitt Romney and
Barack Obama would have
accepted the invitation by the
National Newspaper Publishers
Association (NNPA), NAACP,
American Urban Radio Network,
MSNBC-TV, and the Grio, to a
debate at Lincoln University on
October 9. But both candidates
declined.
Yet, Romney did more than a
half-hour and Obama did an hour
on the Spanish-language TV net-
work, Univision, both answering
questions specifically related to
Hispanics. Jewish people always
get their audience with the candi-
dates, and the gay groups never
fail to get their face-time with the
president – Romney won’t have
anything to do with them – but
Black folks never get the same
positive response when it comes to
E CONOMIC
E MPOWERMENT
James
Clingman
being included in such events.
Ever wonder why?
It is so obvious that Black folks
are the last to be included, if not
omitted altogether, in political dis-
course when it comes to debates,
press conferences, and private
meetings, that is, unless you are
Jay-Z and his friends who are will-
ing to bring $40K to the table –
$50K if you want to hang with
Romney.
Not that we learn anything new
from political debates, as scripted
as they have become. But it would
be nice to have the candidates dis-
cuss specific Black issues every
now and then. It would be great to
see several, not just one, Black
reporter asking both candidates
questions relevant to Black peo-
ple. You know, the way the
Hispanic and Jewish people do.
So what does all of this mean?
Is it that Blacks are willing to
accept symbolism and platitudes
over substance and pragmatism?
Does it mean that we are willing to
do the opposite of what MLK
decried when he wrote the book,
“Why We Can’t Wait?”
King
opposed the gradualist approach to
the work in which he
was engaged, noting
that Black people had
been waiting for 300
years and could ill-
afford to continue to
keep waiting.
What King called
the “fierce urgency of
now”
was
his
response to the waiting game
being promoted by some of his
critics during the early 1960s, but
as Howard University’s African
American Resource Center Direc-
tor, E. Ethelbert Miller, shared on
NPR: “How long is now”? Miller
reminded us that King’s “I Have a
Dream” speech was based on an
economic premise, i.e. debt, a
bounced check, and the “econom-
ic condition and problems in
America.” How true.
After all the speeches, the
activism, and the deaths that took
place in the 1960s, many Black
folks are still saying, “Let’s wait a
bit longer.” Many are oblivious to
our lack of substantive political
recognition and inclusion. They
would rather stand on the outside
and chant slogans instead of kick-
ing in the door and insisting their
South, but by independent
action.” He went on to write,
“Any people who would vote the
same way for three generations
without thereby obtaining results
ought to be ignored and disenfran-
chised.”
Malcolm X characterized the
same principle in more colorful
words. He said, “Any time you
It is so obvious that Black folks are the last to
be included, if not omitted altogether, in
political discourse
voices be heard and their issues be
addressed.
It is a sad situation, but that’s
exactly what we deserve for going
with the “wait” model.
Historian Carter G. Woodson
wrote, “The Negro should endeav-
or to be a figure in politics, not a
tool for the politicians. This high-
er role can be played not by
parking all of the votes of a race
on one side of the fence as both
blacks and whites have done in the
throw your weight behind a politi-
cal party that controls two thirds
of the government, and that party
can’t keep the promise that it
made to you during election time,
and you are dumb enough to walk
around continuing to identify
yourself with that party, you’re not
only a chump, but you’re a traitor
to your race.”
The University of Texas’ Long History of Racism
T
he affirmative action pro-
gram at the University of
Texas now under review by
the United States Supreme Court
should not be looked at in isola-
tion. As Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor wrote in Grutter V.
Bollinger, an affirmative action
case involving the University of
Michigan, “context matters when
reviewing race-based governmen-
tal action under the Equal
Protection Clause.”
An amici curiae (friend-of-the-
court) brief filed by the
Advancement Project, an equal
opportunity advocacy group, in
support of the University of Texas
provides excellent context of how
the issue of race has played out in
from the University and from its
T HE C URRY graduate and professional
schools.”
R EPORT
In one of the most famous
Supreme Court cases, Sweatt v.
George E.
Painter, the court forced the Uni-
Curry
versity of Texas Law School to
admit Herman Sweatt, a qualified
egation of blacks to second-class
citizenship.
The
litigation
involved Dr. L.A. Nixon, a black
physician in El Paso, Texas and a
member of the Democratic Party.
Dr. Nixon filed suit claiming he
was unlawfully excluded from
participating in the Democratic
Party primary elections. The case
made its way to the Supreme
“[University of Texas] is the progeny of
a state that seceded from the Union
in 1861 with the explicit goal of
preserving ‘negro slavery’ for ‘all
future time’”
Texas and the University of Texas
for decades.
“UT is the progeny of a state that
seceded from the Union in 1861
with the explicit goal of preserv-
ing ‘negro slavery’ for ‘all future
time,’” the brief observed. “Even
after rejoining the Union and
despite passage of the Reconstruc-
tion Amendments, Texas sought to
implement its goal of excluding
blacks from public life and politi-
cal personhood. In the early
decades of the twentieth century,
the Court repeatedly struck down
Texas statutes designed to deny
blacks full citizenship.”
The brief noted, “Nixon v. Hern-
don, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), ranks
among the many Texas-based
cases that illustrate the state’s rel-
Court, where Justice Oliver Wen-
dell Holmes, writing for a
unanimous Court, held that Dr.
Nixon’s rights had been violated
under the Fourteenth Amend-
ment.”
Despite the ruling, Texas
refused to allow Dr. Nixon to par-
ticipate in the political process.
He appeared before the Supreme
Court again five years later and
got another ruling that forced
Texas to comply.
Higher education was also sub-
ject
to
state-mandated
segregation.
“Texas’s flagship university was
founded by white Texans for
white Texans,” the Advancement
Project brief stated. “UT categori-
cally barred black Americans
African-American who had gradu-
ated from Jack Yates High School
in Houston and Wiley College.
“During Sweatt’s first semester
at the law school, a cross was
burned on the law school grounds.
Opponents of integration threat-
ened Sweatt’s life, in person and
by mail. Vandals defaced his home
and threw rocks, shattering win-
dows. Sweatt fell ill and struggled
academically, financially, and per-
sonally. Life at UT became
unbearable. Sweatt eventually
dropped out of school—a ‘physi-
cal and emotional wreck.’”
Week on the Web
Financial Aspirations
and Your Kids: The
Birds, the Bees…and
Credit?
In Opinion
For The Skanner News
on your smart phone
go to www.
theskannermobile.com
or scan this QR code
with your app.
Family Owned Insur-
ance Agency Opens
Doors in St. John’s
In NW News
Conference Showcas-
es Hip-Hop as a
Learning Tool
In NW News
Armstrong
Team-
mates
Recount
Dodging,
Tricking
Drug Testers
In US News
Putting Social Justice
at the Heart of Wellness: Libera-
tion-Based Healing Conference
In NW News
OPENING THIS WEEK: For
Movies Opening Oct. 12
In Entertainment
www.
The Skanner.com has the latest news from Portland and beyond, on your mobile or your desk-
top, it’s your go-to place for the news you won’t see in mainstream publications.
It’s your community. It’s The Skanner.
October 17, 2012
The Portland Skanner Page 5