Election won’t end prejudice

Originally published October 30, 2008.

After centuries of exploitation, an arduous and bloody struggle for liberation in the United States, and a perpetual battle against discrimination, it’s finally happened. As we draw nearer to Election Day and watch Senator Barack Obama still campaigning fervently, it’s apparent. Racism has been eliminated.

Yep, that’s right. Now that a black man has been successfully nominated by a major party for the presidency, now that he’s run a powerful campaign, and now that he just might win that spot in the Oval Office, racism’s gone. Everyone is equal now. Yes, if one black man can make it to the top, everyone can!

So goodbye, affirmative action! While we’re at it, why don’t we just get rid of the technicalities of equal opportunity employment and nondiscrimination statements, too? After all, Barack Obama has gotten rid of racial prejudice. That must mean that we’re done with discrimination, no matter who it pertains to. Thanks, Barack!

If nothing else, the Obama campaign has shown the United States the exact opposite of my jokes–that is, how very racist we still are. From mainstream news media’s attempts to focus only on Obama’s “racial appeal” in the beginning of his presidential run to accusations that he isn’t “black enough,” from the disgusting suggestions that he and his wife are clearly black supremacists to the recently derailed assassination plot of two white supremacists, it is incredibly hard to believe that the Illinois senator’s success has eliminated racial prejudice.

That said, it’s also ridiculous to suggest that Obama’s accomplishments render affirmative action unnecessary, especially when people still have so many misconceptions about it: that affirmative action pertains only to racial minorities (wrong), that it is used to meet population “quotas” (wrong) and that its implementation means the selection of a candidate based solely on his or her race (you guessed it: wrong).

Let’s clear these up quickly. Affirmative action deals not only with race, but with gender, disability status, and veteran status. It isn’t used to meet diversity quotas, which are illegal. Most activity related to affirmative action deals with recruitment and outreach to qualified candidates (keyword: qualified) in underrepresented communities. Building on that, the policy can be used (not “is always used”) to consider a single, identity-based criteria as a deciding factor regarding a qualified individual.

The whole idea behind affirmative action is to ensure that we make an active effort to create truly equal opportunities for all people. Sorry, but just stating that a university or employer doesn’t discriminate doesn’t make it true. The policy is a means of rectifying this issue.

Because of mainstream misinterpretations of affirmative action, it’s easy to say that the issue would never have been brought up in response to Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that it applies to her, too. It’s certainly not being brought up against Sarah Palin now. If Clinton were in Obama’s position now, would we make any assessments about policies perceived to protect the interests of women?

Gender isn’t listed as an identity criterion in federal hate crime law. A wage gap between men’s and women’s earnings still exists. We’re kidding ourselves if we really believe that the placement of any woman in the White House means we’ve completely shattered that oft-mentioned glass ceiling. With gender inequity so obvious, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would have suggested some repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. Or maybe our silence has nothing to do with gender. Maybe it’s simply because Clinton and Palin are both white.

It’s not as though there’s been no change in attitudes about social identities, especially race, but let’s hold off on throwing confetti and proposing toasts to the “end of prejudice.” The appalling assumptions about affirmative action that still stand are testament to why we need it in the first place: people apparently can’t wrap their heads around the very real existence of qualified minority candidates applying for jobs and institutions of higher education, or that racial minorities can and do get selected without the implementation of affirmative action. Perhaps one day, we’ll reach a point when the policy is obsolete. For now, we still have a long way to go.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and has a dentist appointment on Halloween.

Remember race riot in Springfield

Originally published September 4, 2008.

This August marked the 100th anniversary of the race riot that occurred in Springfield. That itself may be a shocking statement. Few people even in the state’s capital know much about the two-day riot that occurred in their hometown in 1908, much less those outside the community. Probably fewer still are aware that, despite a low death toll, Springfield’s riot essentially led to the formation of the NAACP.

So what has Springfield done to raise awareness of the string of events which devastated the now-downtown area?

After 100 years, this year they erected informational markers denoting important locations during the rioting. Currently, there are weekly speaker panels discussing historical and cultural issues related to and stemming from the events of 1908. The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library also hosts a small, temporary exhibit inside with scattered facts and photos during, after, and about the riot.

Sadly, even with these small efforts on the part of the city of Springfield, people have complained-not only complained, but argued against any commemoration at all. Yes, racism is alive and well.

Many people voiced complaints (especially on the State Journal-Register Web site, as the Internet gives voices to all people, especially obnoxious ones) that there were bigger riots to talk about (not in Springfield, however), that it’s depressing and annoying to continue to bring up the event, and that discussion of the riot would simply be the cause of further racial tension and division in the present.

None of these is a legitimate reason to cease discussion about the Springfield riot. In fact, they create incentive for further, more in-depth conversation. No matter how much we complain or choose to ignore them, horrific injustices occurred in those two days.

The point of commemorating them isn’t to elicit guilt or apologies from anyone. It is to promote understanding between people, understanding of where and what we’ve developed from, and ultimately understanding how far we still have to go in the fight for equality.

In conjunction with people’s unwillingness to actively discuss the riot, another problem arises: the serious lack of information available. Upon visiting the exhibit hosted by Lincoln’s library, I found it unorganized and inconsistent in providing a full account of events of the riot. Many of the quotes used in the displays provided clarity, but were attributed to speakers from 1975. Again, it seems invalid to complain that the details and history of the riot are being shoved down your throat in the present when nobody has discussed it for 33 years.

What is it, exactly, that keeps us from talking about it? Even in an academic setting, the anniversary of the riot has not seemed to incite much discussion. The U of I home page offered a quick blurb from its “Minute With” professor, Clarence Lang, and nothing more. We are apparently so terrified of any missteps in a dialogue regarding racial historical issues (and, for that matter, just racial issues in general) that we opt instead to eliminate talk of them whatsoever.

I get the feeling that following this year, despite next year being the 100th anniversary of the formation of the NAACP, nothing will be left of this year’s efforts except the concrete markers and the mediocre amount of information they provide. The downtown walking tour that was offered this summer will likely be discontinued, due to the negative reception it has received from the community and the lack of attendance. The exhibit will vanish. And with 13 state historic sites already slated to close on October 1 due to lack of funds, it’s highly doubtful that the state will shell out the necessary green to host anything else.

Thus the lack of information will continue, unless we decide differently. Next year’s Lincoln Bicentennial could and should be used to enhance public knowledge of the two-day tragedy in 1908. After all, the riot came as such a shock in part because it took place in Lincoln’s honorary hometown. The ongoing interest in and celebration of Lincoln’s life should focus our attention on the fact that the issue of American racial equality, made mainstream by the events of the Civil War, has yet to be fully resolved.

Chelsea is a senior in English and music and is still living out of a suitcase, despite moving in a month ago.