There's a troubling op-ed in today's Washington Post written by Michael Meyers, a former assistant national director of the NAACP, is executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. It describes an emerging pattern of "separate but equal" treatment for young black males spreading across college campuses. These Black Male Initiatives or BMI's are supposed to address the "at risk" nature of black males.
The latest of these race fads are the Black Male Initiatives (BMIs), government-funded and university-sponsored, and underway on campuses in states including Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. The initiatives focus on recruiting, schooling and "saving" black men.
Until recently, when the New York Civil Rights Coalition filed a complaint against the City University of New York, these special programs were unassailable. But more and more they are being shown to feature new variants of an old prejudice. This has included stereotyping all black male students as "at risk," and, for example, running special classes only for black men at CUNY's Medgar Evers College. This special instruction focused on black men's alleged deficiencies and their need to act more responsibly in order to reclaim their traditional patriarchal roles as leaders in the black community and of the so-called black race. A tenet of the program at CUNY's Queensborough Community College is to provide black men with special tutoring, career services and academic advice. Until caught, CUNY's Hunter College invited only black male students to a planning conference on its BMI.
This is a particularly insidious form of racism at work. Couching it in all the best intentions in the world does not change that. There is an underlying assumption that young, black males, by virtue of being young, black males are at risk, are in need of special treatment, are, in fact, deficient. I can think of no greater insult.
Many black leaders in and outside academia seem to have no objection to these figurative black-only signs over certain doorways at America's colleges. Not surprisingly, this racial identity ferment — aka self-determination — is proudly endorsed by white liberals disturbed by the dwindling numbers of black men on campus, as well as by many black female students for whom interracial dating is either taboo or impracticable.
Hence, college presidents are listening to their black students and to their officials for diversity and affirmative action or minority affairs, and they are setting up BMIs as a way of making life on campus more comfortable for black students. And black faculty have a new source of grants to apply for, from foundations that urge the study of the black male problem and experimentation with intervention techniques. No educator rebukes such offerings with the hard, nonstatistical truth that there is no such thing as "the black male," just as there never was such a thing as "the Negro."
Here, I think Meyers has it exactly right. There should be no such thing as the black male in America. We should not even think in those terms. We should think in terms of "Americans", Michigan's wrong-headedness aside.
The psychologist Kenneth Clark, who was my mentor and whose research did so much to bring about Brown, steered his colleagues on the New York State Board of Regents away from state-sponsored racial thinking. He persuaded them in 1972 to declare as policy that college officials were to avoid "any practices which would perpetuate a caste system in which groups are placed in certain stereotyped positions with little regard for the needs and desires of the individual." That policy continued: "Racist patterns of segregation can lead only to blocked communications, with a resultant social climate that is close and tense, if not hostile. Moreover, the de facto segregation of a minority group, even if demanded by that group, often results in peer pressure on individuals which may lead to intragroup hostility."
Dr. Clark died just last year, by which time the regents had long since abandoned the wisdom in that policy.
We should be breaking down the old walls. Not rebuilding them.
UPDATE: One blogger took one sentence I wrote completely out of it's context to make it appear I was making an attack on black males. This is unconscionable distortion. It is also not the first time this has been done to support someone's agenda, here or in other places. Anyone who can construe what I wrote as racist, is being willfully blind or twisting things to fit an agenda. This blog, and myself personally, have always stood for a 100% racial equality and a complete colorblind application of all standards.
I believe the impression the BMI’s send out is that Black Men need special attention to come “up to par” with the rest of society. This labels the black man as weak natured. This is sterotyping. I have met men of all races who need aid in developing strong moral leadership abilities. The breakdown of these abilities is not racial but governmental and social. How about teaching our children from an early age the family values of 25 years ago? Respect for yourself, your parents, GOD and country. Man is the head of the household. I’m not saying that all women HAVE to be June Cleaver but what was wrong with being a wife and mother? We’ve taken the role of men away and then wonder why we have weak men….black and white. Building up the American black mans moral terpitude is leaving out the American white man. I’d like to see a society of strong AMERICAN men of both races. Perhaps then THEY could stand together to protect our country against those who would break it down. Segregation weakens America.
My point exactly. You’re quite right about the breakdown being across the board as well.
I am curious about how such an article gets to be published in the Washington Post. Meyers , of course, prepares the article. Then what happens? Does he go to the Post and say “Will you publish this?” Or, did the Post go to Meyers and ask him to write the story? and then publish it. Who would answer such a question?
I’m guessing the post has something on their website about submissions and how to make them. Usually, newpapers take both submitted op-eds and make requests for people to submit them. I have no isea which category this falls into.
Altough I agree the wall should be coming down and the worst stereo types arise from the thought that black males are at risk by virtue of their race alone. But the question that seems to go unanswered is what do we do about the black males that are in fact at risk. Stats show the steady decline in black male enrollment in college campuses across America coupled with a steady mediocre level of achievement at the high school level that in alot of instances do not lead to the pursuit of higher education. Focus and intensified attention to those individuals that demonstrate a need for such attention is not a bad thing. Perhaps the name is an issue. Lets not call it BMI. Lets call it Achievement Focus Initiative or AFI. Lets take out the word “Black” and thus the stigma we seem to attach to efforts to address issues inherent to our modern day culture of mediocrity. Thus any effort that recognizes our weaknesses and addressess the same with solutions that target a particular group cannot be charachterized as inherently racist. Eventually when the playing field becomes level, we can do away with AFI gradually. Affirmative action worked very well for a long time to help level the playing field. Perhap AFI can to.
I don’t disagree that there is a problem, but I suspect it applies across racial lines and has a lot to do with economic and general social factors. We should be addressing those on a need basis without reference to race. I do not think one’s race enters into one’s abilities, or into one’s needs, either. Nor should we ever think that way.
Gaius – I agree, thus AFI should be offered and encouraged to those that need it without regard to the racial component.
That would be a fabulous idea. It would remove what I really see as a particularly nasty form of racism at work here. Assuming there is a racial componenet to the behaviors is a bad thing.
Hmmmm? Let me see if I got this right. Just get rid of the Black males and viola’ America’s 350 year race problem will be solved? How about this. Don’t stop with getting rid of the Black male, get rid tof white male too and perhaps racism and all of its disabling spinoffs will be solved. A synergisim of iinterest of sorts. BTW, ttherer may be problem that are truly cross racial lines. But simply ignoring the dispicable treatment of this nation’s Black citizens narrative only serves to widen the divide between us. That is a fact! And as to Micheal Myers he needs to go and F— himself!
And there we go. Did you bother to read the whole post?
Of course I read the “whole” post. AND IT STILL SUCKS!
Oh, I forgot. What do ya think about my solution for ridding the world of racism? Don’t ya think it’s a good start?
I think you’re purposely being a jerk.
Colorblindness is not a virtue, in and of itself… and holding that position doesn’t mean much.
And that “One Blogger” you are apparently talking about did NOT call your statement “racist” or suggest anything to that effect. So, really, the fact that you even mentioned the word is telling.
Been to confession, lately? There has to be some explanation why you’re spilling your beans and milk all over the place…
Oh… wait a minute! You’re quick to characterize things as “racist” and “racism”, even “insidous” racism but… But, someone who brings attention to your curious notion (“There should be no such thing as the black male in America”) by noting that “there’s no such thing as “the American people”…” if that’s the logic you want to apply…. Well, they were suggesting your idea was racist…. HOW?
So, explain how you construe that your statement was “misconstrued” and where you get the idea that your quoted statement (which was supposed taken out-of-context) was labeled “racist.”
Funny how you feel so free to label and so free to imagine being labeled.