President Barack Obama and “Colorblindness”: Disappointing, Unfair, and Harsh Statements concerning Blacks Made in His Morehouse College Graduation Speech

President Barack Obama made statements at the Morehouse College graduation that immediately caused concern upon hearing him state it. I am disappointed with this speech in general as a result. Apparently, the President attempted to cover-up these thinly veiled attacks with feel-good stories in the speech. Hence, I was initially on the fence about it. But once I applied questions to the statements, the speech started to fall apart (to my dismay).

The statements to which I refer follow.

“I understand there’s a common fraternity creed here at Morehouse: “Excuses are tools of the incompetent used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness.”  Well, we’ve got no time for excuses.  Not because the bitter legacy of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they have not.  Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; we know those are still out there.  It’s just that in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with millions of young people from China and India and Brazil** — many of whom started with a whole lot less than all of you did — all of them entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything that you have not earned.  (Applause.)

Nobody*** cares how tough your upbringing was.  Nobody cares if you suffered some discrimination.  And moreover, you have to remember that whatever you’ve gone through, it pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured — and they overcame them.  And if they overcame*** them, you can overcome them, too.  (Applause.)”

My comments for the asterisked (mine) words indicated in the quotes are below.

**First, what Black person ever expects that he or she will be given anything in the United States of America, where for many of them their ancestors were in bondage as slaves or suffered under the Jim Crow policies? Spreading this idea worldwide with the insertion of students from BRIC countries does not make the assertion any more apt because those students are likely to find jobs in their own countries. Brazil, in particular, has its own issues with race, so easily glossed over with the President’s broad-brush statement. Black (and mixed-race) people in Brazil face the same systematic discrimination issues as Blacks in the United States. The college students in the jobs competition President Obama speaks of in his speech are very likely to be light skinned and wealthy.

 ”Going to university in Brazil is not a mass experience, as in the United States. And only a quarter of places are in public institutions. Other government education programmes, such as creche-building in poor neighbourhoods, better literacy training for teachers and subsidies for poor students who attend private universities, will improve the lives of many more black Brazilians than the quota programme. But public universities are more prestigious—and barred from charging fees by the constitution. That their places have long gone disproportionately to the 12% of Brazilians who are privately educated, most of them rich and white, is hard to swallow.”

***This paragraph of the President’s speech is exceptionally harsh, especially considering the fact that no matter how hard a Black person works individually, that person (being a college graduate is understood to be hard working) will not be able to overcome the disproportionate distribution of social power (which heavily favors the White population). This reality has been covered many times in this blog. The words “nobody cares” and “overcame” in light of the racial reality being discussed is therefore excessive.

“Colorblindness”: Without Clear Explanation of the Hegemonic Power Structure in the United States, Blind Use of Initiatives to Determine Human Rights Can Have Unfair Results for the Minority Group

The use of ballot referenda to amend the definition of rights that primarily affect a minority group should not be allowed. (I have argued this position before in the blog.) This issue was somewhat hinted at in the majority opinion of Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by any Means Necessary (BAMN) v. Schuette (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2012).

United States (population: 308,745,538) (2010 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	72.4%	223,553,265
Black	12.6	38,929,319
Native American	0.7	540,013
Asian	4.8	14,674,252

While the majority opinion had a similar argument as on this website, it is hard to see the specific issue raised without the Census data describing the population of the state of Michigan. Without this critical piece of information, the argument defaults to a “majority wins” argument (that is, presuming the racial categories have equal social power (which is not the case within the United States of America), which prevails in the dissenting opinions.

Michigan (population: 9,883,640) (2010 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	78.9%	7,803,120
Black	14.2	1,400,362
Native American	0.6	62,007
Asian	42.4	238,199

Also disconcerting was the low attention placed on the effect of ballot referenda on protected groups. Given Michigan’s population, opponents to Proposition 2 were effectively shut out of the process.

The ballot referendum being examined in this case, Proposition 2, was a Ward Connerly initiative that was funded by right-wing groups. (I have analyzed the Connerly’s wording of the initiatives earlier in the blog.)

NCAA: Health Insurance for Student-Athletes–Who Pays When Injuries Occur?

NCAA: Health Insurance for Student-Athletes–Who Pays When Injuries Occur?

It is unfortunate, but when serious injuries happen (requiring hospitalization), one has to think about the cost of the medical care. The expenses quickly stack up, reaching levels that people cannot pay. A Louisville basketball player, Kevin Ware, suffered a terrible injury that was witnessed by many. The injury required surgery, and perhaps some level of rehabilitation. Other student athletes also suffer injuries while participating in college sports, though those injuries likely are not on a widely watched televised competition.

My expectation was that the colleges that these athletes play for would pay for any injuries that occur during the athlete’s participation in the athletic program. David Sirota’s article states that this expectation is often incorrect and that players often are expected to pay the medical bills.

Will Ware have to pay? His injury was too public, so such a cost shift would be unjust. But, according to a 2009 article in the New York Times, other NCAA athletes have had to pay tremendous amounts of medical expenses as a result of their participation in collegiate athletics. A 2012 article in the Birmingham News, seems to indicate that the burden of medical bills falls on the player.

Kevin Ware, Louisville basketball player, beginning recovery process from injury

Kevin Ware, Louisville basketball player, beginning recovery process from injury

I was listening to this game, but I was preparing Easter dinner. I turned to watch the TV and saw people with facial expressions of shock. It took a while to figure out exactly what happened. (I luckily missed the two CBS Sports replays.)

The Futility of “Colorblindness”: David Leonhardt’s Economic Diversity Argument Will Only Cause More Pain

David Leonhardt argues for economic diversity rather than programs focused on race. It is tempting to use socioeconomic arguments to evade the painful racial history in the United States, but socioeconomic arguments like that advanced by Leonhardt only causes more pain.  

The issue that Leohardt fails to address adequately is that the so-called top colleges are expensive to attend. Yes, the students can get scholarships, but they need pocket money to live daily on the campus. In addition, poor students will come with far fewer resources than many of their peers, much of which will be readily apparent. These reasons probably explain, in part, why low-income students with scores to possibly get into these schools do not apply. 

In addition, attending these schools will likely give a degree, but these colleges cannot necessarily make a low-income graduate increase their socioeconomic status (unless, perhaps, the student is white).

In short, Leonhardt’s  focus on economic diversity is not the panacea he seems to think that it is. The United States needs to continue to work on eradicating the legacy of race-based disadvantage against Black people while attending to socioeconomic inequality.

U.S. Supreme Court: Court is Agent of the Public; Its Proceedings Must Be Published as Widely as Possible

Video of oral arguments may be too much; audio recordings and transcripts are necessary.

Walter Pincus in the Washington Post, argues that cameras should not be permitted in the Supreme Court. He appears to have three concerns (based on his experience from broadcast television):

• Video cameras capturing activity during oral argument would not be good because people would be able to view the body positioning of the justices as they listened to the oral arguments.
• Video cameras would take away from the sober deliberation of issues.
• The result of video coverage of Congress had a bad result. [Supreme Court is a different branch of government, plus the justices do not run for election. In addition, I do not think Congress's problems came from the C-Span cameras.]

While I can grudgingly see the point about video cameras (although I think fixed-camera coverage by C-Span would serve the public well), I do not agree that the Supreme Court should be an opaque and elite institution, speaking only through its published written opinions to a relative few attorneys and parties (according to Pincus, there are only 400 seats in the courtroom (U.S. population 308,745,538 2010 Census ). The Court’s decisions affect the whole nation, and thus the Court must be accessible to all citizens.

The release of audio recordings and transcripts shortly after the conclusion of the oral arguments seems to be a good compromise and should definitely continue. The Supreme Court is an agency of the citizenry of the United States, and thus is accountable to the citizenry to handle controversies fairly. Hidden activity encourages an idea that the Supreme Court derives its power solely from its past decisions alone. However, the Constitution was written at time that did not contemplate television, the Internet, cars, gasoline, electricity, and numerous other elements of 21st century life. So, the Court must be able to integrate these changes into its deliberations. One of those ways is to ensure that the public is able to hear or read the inputs into its decision making (that is, oral arguments).

U.S. Judiciary: Chief Justice John Roberts Issues 2012 Year-End Report

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, issued a 2012 year-end report on the judiciary.

The Chief Justice essentially presents the judiciary as a branch that is acting responsibly with its budget but cannot reduce its budget further without affecting the quality of judicial services.

Considering the size of the judiciary budget (fiscal year 2012–$6.97 billion appropriations request out of a total U.S. budget of $3.7 trillion), it appears that the branch is taking appropriate steps. The Chief Justice listed three main areas that the judiciary is focusing on: rent, personnel, and information technology. In the Chief Justice’s discussion, there is a discussion of the exploration of sharing administrative services within a judicial district. Because some judicial districts span over a large georgraphical area, I would be interested in receiving a bit more detail as to how this idea will be placed into practice.

[Note 1: Judicial pay is the same as for 2010. See Executive Order ____, schedule 7 (http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2012/2013PAY_Attach.pdf).]

In the appendix to the report, the Chief Justice provides and explanation of the workload of the judiciary. I will focus on the Supreme Court’s workload.

	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Filings	8521	8857	8241	7738	8159	7857	7713
In forma pauperis	6846	7132	6627	6142	6576	6299	6160
Paid docket	1671	1723	1614	1596	1583	1558	1553
Cases:
argued	87	78	75	87	82	86	79
disposed	82	74	72	83	77	83	73
signed opinions	69	67	67	74	73	75	83