Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Media Incorrectly Asserts that Pastor is a Political Figure; He Had to Speak to Correct Calumnies

It is error to view Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright through a political lens. Rev. Wright is not running for nor holds a political office. Yet this is how the media generally is treating Rev. Wright.

Various media outlets (here, here, and here) have criticized Rev. Wright for continuing to speak at various events (speech to NAACP in Detroit, National Press Club speech). The underlying view is that his speeches act to undermine Senator Barack Obama’s campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. [See my post providing the full context of Rev. Wright's past sermons here.]

[Observation: One must wonder, if Sen. Obama has the majority of the pledged delegates, why are a large number of superdelegates still undecided?]

This analysis is irrelevant as Rev. Wright has never sought political office. Indeed his sermons were brought into the campaign.

But as Sen. Obama characterized Rev. Wright as a “crazy uncle” and an embittered older person, Rev. Wright had to respond to those derogatory remarks. His speeches and interview with Bill Moyers demonstrate that Rev. Wright is a man of great learning, caring and humanity as a pastor should be. Moreover, it is only proper for Rev. Wright to identify and criticize the social injustices that exist in the United States.

I think he has made it clear that his words cannot be attributed to Sen. Obama. Regardless, it should be noted that a church member, who is also a politician, can never dictate the content of righteous ministry.

“Colorblindness”: The Fiction of “Self-Segregation”

A columnist for the Cavalier Daily, a University of Virginia student newspaper, provided his support for a UVA plan not to allow freshmen to select their dormitory. UVA’s administration fears that the students were living in dormitories based on sharing the same race with other student residents.

The Cavalier Daily columnist reasoned that students joining groups which recognize a student’s identity are engaging in “self-segregation.”

[...]Yet whereas the administration wants to randomize dorm selection, it celebrates students’ decisions to only hang out with those similar to themselves: Witness the institutionalization of ethnic groups ranging from the Organization of Young Filipino-Americans to the Indian Student Association.

This “self-segregation” leads to the racial division on the UVA campus, the Cavalier Daily columnist asserts.

Paradoxically, the same student leaders and administrators who celebrate this self-segregation in the name of diversity then bemoan the lack of inclusiveness at the University. It is contradictory simultaneously to enshrine minority identity while criticizing self-segregation as it is the very preference to socialize with people of the same ethnic group that causes the segregation.[...]

The Cavalier Daily columnist reasons that “self-segregation” is equally the fault of the majority White student population and the non-White minority.

Too many columns on these pages blame the majority for not getting out and attending minority events. But this fails to recognize that self-segregation is a two-way street. People may feel more comfortable around those of similar background to themselves, but both minorities and the majority need to make an effort to expand their horizons.

I disagree with the Cavalier Daily columnist’s use of the term “self-segregation.” The term “self-segregation” implies that non-Whites refuse contact with White students, creating a social division on the campus. UVA students opposed the columnist’s assertion (here, here, here).

The fact is that UVA is a predominately White university. White students are a significant portion of the undergraduate population (62.9%).

UVA undergraduate population (2007)
Race	Number	Percentage
White	8581	62.9%
Black	1223	9%
Asian	1537	11.30%
Native American	26	1.90%

Thus, the Cavalier Daily columnist’s use of the 1971 paper, “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” by Thomas Schelling does not really apply to his column. The reason is that the dormitory selection of non-Whites undergraduates will have no affect on UVA social dynamics. Regardless how non-White students feel, the choice to attend UVA requires them to interact with the majority-White UVA campus on a daily basis. Living in the United States has the same requirement for non-White residents, as the United States is 75.1% White (2000 Census).

Therefore, the Cavalier Daily columnist’s implication that all groups are equal (without recognizing that one group (Whites) has significantly more people than the rest) is an inadequate assertion.

Self-segregation is a problem in of itself, but it has tangible effects on the University through self-selection. It is well known that many important organizations on Grounds, such as the Honor Committee, are disproportionately white. Similarly, there is currently just one black student living on the Lawn. Some see this as institutional racism. Just last week Ryan McElveen wrote that “bigotry is sewn into the fabric of this institution.” I find this wholly implausible. A much more likely explanation for this outcome is that minorities are simply not applying for these groups and honors.

Again, the Cavalier Daily columnist must realize the fact that UVA is a White university. Thus, even with more applications, most student organizations will have Whites as the majority group.

In the end, this issue is not new for UVA. There are many Cavalier Daily columns on the subject (here, here, here for a start. Search for the term “self segregation” using the Cavalier Daily’s search function on its web page).

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Arizona): Student Columnist Defends Initiative Proposal

A student opinion columnist for the Arizona Daily Wildcat favors the American Civil Rights Institute’s (ACRI) initiative proposal to end affirmative action in Arizona (column titled “Racism by Any Other Name“). [Note: For my previous posts on Arizona's anti-affirmative action initiative proposal, search on Arizona in the search box on the left column.]

The writer writes his column as if social minorities in the United States are in control of social institutions in Arizona. If this were the case, his column would be persuasive.

Reality, though, vehemently contradicts the writer’s assertions. Contrary to the opinion of student writer, power is not measured by wealth alone. The social group that has the most people possesses the most power. As a result, there is no question that Whites have the most power in Arizona and the United States. Whites are, by far, the largest racial group.

Arizona (population: 5,130,632 (2000 Census) [NOTE: high number of “some other race”])

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.5%	3,873,611
Black	3.1	158,873
Native American	5.0	255,879
Asian	1.8	92,236

 

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

 

Thus, neither situation in Zimbabwe nor in Malaysia is equivalent to the United States’ obligation to correct the damage done by its slavery institution. For more information on Zimbabwe, see an article by Dr. Chika A. Onyeani in The Black Commentator.

For Malaysia, see a Reuters article. The purpose of affirmative action in Malaysia is to help the impoverished majority population, the opposite of the goal of the United States, which is to help those who are not part of the powerful majority.

While Bumiputera [ethnic Malays and indigenous people] wealth went from just over 2 percent in 1970 to about 19 percent in 2004, Malays, who make up more than half of the population of 26 million, are still the poorest racial group — well behind the minority ethnic Chinese, who hold about 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.

ACRI’s anti-affirmative action proposal is not needed in Arizona. The small non-White population needs assurances that their ability to live will be respected.

The Futility of “Colorblindness” (Part 5): Clarence Thomas & His Troublesome Role Model John Marshall Harlan

I have written my critique of John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v Ferguson before. Harlan’s view of “colorblindness” is indifference not racial justice. Thus, it is unfortunate, yet predictable, that Clarence Thomas, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, would glorify Harlan in an article in the Wall Street Journal.

I will reiterate my view.

Justice Harlan’s Dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson

Justice John Marshall Harlan, in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), stated that Whites believed in White supremacy, but the Constitution prohibited the law from enforcing it and, most significantly, from protecting Blacks from the effects of White supremacy doctrines.

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.

Harlan’s dissent is, at best, racially indifferent to the plight of Blacks, certainly not an opinion to admire in the slightest.

The reason why I had to repeat this argument is that in the Wall Street Journal, Thomas stated that he views the flawed Harlan as a role model. However, Thomas edits out a troublesome sentence in order to try to convince the public to agree with him (emphasis mine).

It is the Plessy dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan to which Mr. Thomas points for an example of a Justice putting his personal predilections aside to keep faith with the Constitution. Harlan was a Kentucky aristocrat and former slaveowner, although he was also a Unionist who fought for the North during the Civil War. A man of his time, he believed in white superiority, if not supremacy, and wrote in Plessy that the “white race” would continue to be dominant in the United States “in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power [. . .] for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty.”

 

“But,” Harlan continued, “in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”

 

That, for Mr. Thomas, is the “great ‘But,’” where Harlan’s intellectual honesty trumped his personal prejudice, causing Mr. Thomas to describe Harlan as his favorite justice and even a role model. For both of them, justice is truly blind to everything but the law.

The way Thomas explains Harlan’s statement of white supremacy is that Whites will remain dominant as long as they follow the Constitution and the idealized view of “colorblindness” (that all people would be treated fairly regardless of their skin color). This is the view Thomas expresses in the interview with the Wall Street Journal.

But the part of Harlan’s dissent edited out by ellipses (”So, I doubt not, it will continue to be”) changes the meaning of the sentence and directly contradicts Thomas’s statement. In reality, Harlan did not separate his personal prejudice from the opinion. With the edited statement added, Harlan was actually observing that White supremacy would never go away and the Supreme Court would not challenge it (provided the society did not implicate the exact words of the Constitution).

Moreover, ideal “colorblindness” is impossible in the United States where one race (White) is the clear majority and controls all of the power in society.

The views of Mr. Harlan or Mr. Thomas are definitely not opinions to be admired in the slightest.

The Futility of “Colorblindness” (Part 4): Rev. Jeremiah Wright & Race in the United States

A Washington Post article reported on how a Virginia church handled the issues surrounding Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons (featured in the media and on YouTube).

In the article, a church member opined that the racial history in the United States was bad, but now it should be forgotten (emphasis mine):

[Karl] Heeter said that he has not focused on the controversy surrounding Wright’s comments and that he didn’t hear [Senator Barack] Obama’s speech. But he said the country doesn’t need to revisit its ugly racial history. “I’m not saying it wasn’t horrible, but we need to get over it,” he said.

 

As such, he doesn’t see the need to talk about racial differences in church. “I don’t see any point in stirring it up in an area where there don’t appear to be any problems,” he said.

Presuming you have not suffered the injustice and inhumanity (central to Rev Wright’s sermons), it is rather cavalier (for those who have not suffered systematic anti-Black discrimination) to tell those who have endured the burden to forget.

Tim Wise, an anti-racism author and activist, wrote about a conversation he had with a White male college student. Wise relates to the reader that the college student expressed a similar opinion to Heeter (above). Wise also describes how the racial discrimination in the past of the United States still has effects in the present day (emphasis mine):

[...] “Yes, we used to have a problem with racism, but that’s in the past and we need to move forward.”

 

That was cliche number two: this time objectively absurd and highly relevant to our discussion, which concerned what obligations (if any) the United States has to rectify the legacy of institutionalized white supremacy. Perhaps reparations for its victims? Perhaps affirmative action? Perhaps both, or neither?

 

“We should do nothing,” he explained, because — and I’m sure you can guess the rest — he “wasn’t even alive when all that happened, and shouldn’t have to pay for what others did.”

 

Cliches within cliches, all piled upon one another like driftwood, floating on an ocean of white denial, searching for a home in the minds of the self-proclaimed innocent–those who are apparently convinced that the past has no bearing on the present, that history ended sometime around 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and that inertia is only a property of the physical, but not socioeconomic universe.

 

But of course, the evidence of the past’s lingering grip on the present is all around us. Thanks to overt racism in housing markets, for example, which all agree ruled the day for the better part of the last century, white families were able to accumulate assets and wealth at a time when people of color were severely limited in their ability to do so.

It is tough to get progress when society is unwilling to acknowledge the impacts of anti-Black discrimination in the United States.

Post script:

Also, in the Post’s article, a church member mentioned a safe space would be needed to engage in racial discussions:

Frank Bertrand, the church’s lay leader, said the country has been ready to have a frank discussion about race for more than a generation. Yet he acknowledged it would be difficult to bring it up without setting parameters. People are more inclined to speak openly if non-threatening questions are asked and they know “what to expect and what the objectives are,” he said.

Tim Wise wrote an interesting article on the insistence on safety when discussing racial issues.

Although it isn’t usually made explicit, this admonition about the importance of safety is almost always really about making white people feel safe. After all, people of color rarely feel safe discussing race amongst members of the dominant group, and it’s pretty unlikely that a simple sentence calling for civility would change that. Black and brown folks know that race is a touchy subject, and yet they engage in race dialogue (whether formal or informal) as a matter of survival: they have to do it, safe or not, because the alternative is to continue neglecting an issue that is far too important to their everyday lives.

It also is important to consider the demographics of the United States. The vast majority of the population is White, a fact that is often understated.

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

 

Jeremiah Wright: Full Context of Remarks on YouTube

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright has been the focus of extraordinarily unfair criticism this week for certain statements made during sermons.

It happens that the news organizations selected statements of Rev. Wright that were dramatic and removed the context of his statements in his sermon.

The fortunate thing about the Internet is that it provides a medium for research and discussion. There is a site on YouTube that now provides the part of the sermon that gives context to Rev. Wright’s statements that were displayed on the news programs.

Here is the sermon that includes Rev. Wright’s “God Damn America” statement with the other part of Rev. Wright’s sermon that provides context for his remarks.

There are other videos at the YouTube site for Trinity Chicago that also provide context for Rev. Wright’s televised comments.

For example, Rev. Wright in speaking of the chickens coming home to roost was actually referring to a statement made by an ambassador featured on a Fox News program.

The condemnation of Rev. Wright is unwarranted and unfair.

The Futility of “Colorblindness,” Part 3

Colorblindness cannot exist where societal power is concentrated with those belonging to one race. In the United States, societal power rests with the majority population, Whites.

I have written posts on this subject before (search on the term “colorblindness” in the search box in the left column).

It is a continuing issue in the United States because of the desire not to deal with racial discrimination issues anymore. But simply turning away from the problem only prevents its solution. People in the United States must recognize and admit the reality of race (really, racial hierarchy) in the society of the United States.

Merely considering Senator Barack Obama to be a potential Democratic nominee for President is not enough. The potential placement of a Black person to operate the federal system (which primarily benefits and reflects the interests of the White majority) means that Mr. Obama (should he be nominated and elected as President) will lack the ability to alleviate the suffering Black people experience with structural discrimination.

A Cavalier Daily columnist struggles with the issue of “colorblindness” in a column titled, “After Race: Racial Labels Overshadow Our Commonalities.” The columnist recognizes the reality of racial discrimination, which has now become subtle and systemic, yet yearns for a “colorblind” society.

The columnist argues that by doing research to discover subtle racial hierarchical systems that favor Whites, the United States cannot reach the “colorblind” ideal.

We now identify race to prevent predatory bank loans, to open access to higher education, and to look after and safeguard voters’ rights. By quantifying inequality, our government and social scientists track property ownership, wealth accumulation and gross income. What the data tells us however, is that discrimination still exists. Racism is more latent now, but racial socio-economic disparity is still strong. Studies on race are important because they aim to protect minorities from gross inequality. But all the research designed to help end racism commits the same injustice that inspired the need for social protection: We separate each other into types of human. In trying to abolish racism, we actually pay attention to difference; we solidify people’s otherness; and we continue to use the same mental categories conjured up by the racist.

The reality is that the difference in skin color is readily apparent. Thus, “colorblindness” is not possible.

Ignoring the effects of racial discrimination for the sake of a false racial comity, as the Cavalier Daily’s columnist implies, would be grossly unjust and untenable. Martin Luther King recognized this in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

US Foreign Policy: Condoleeza Rice, Egypt, & Gaza

On the BBC News website, there is a story regarding the destruction of a border wall between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. This event allowed the residents of Gaza to go to Egypt to buy food and supplies and return to Gaza.

Egypt, acting on a statement from the US, first acted to close the border in part, then allowed people from Gaza to cross.

However, there was a quote from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice which re-emphasized my concern about her seeming indifference to social justice issues (discussed in a previous post).

The move by the Egyptian authorities came only hours after the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, urged them to secure the border with Gaza.

 

On Thursday evening, Ms Rice said she understood Egypt’s position was “difficult”, but said: “It is an international border, it needs to be protected and I believe that the Egyptians understand the importance of doing that.”

It is true that it is a border and crossings should be monitored. But, it does not necessarily mean that the border requires an impenetrable wall.

There is an possibility for negotiation and cooperation between the Palestinians and Egypt to regulate the movement of people and goods across the border between Egypt and Gaza. After all, Egyptian businesses on the other side of the border also benefitted from the commercial activity that occurred.

Judicial Nominations: President, Senate Must Reach Consensus on Potential Nominees

The Washington Post wrote another editorial concerning judicial nominations.

The reasoning of the editorial board of the Post is regardless how a nomination is decided, once a name is submitted, the process should go forward (presumably towards confirming the nominee).

I reject this reasoning. If the Presidential nominee selection process is flawed, yet the President still submits a nominee to the Senate, then the nomination process in the Senate should not start at all.

The people of the United States must always remember that judges have lifetime terms. Thus, the Senate has an obligation to consider carefully every judicial nomination. This includes the decision to refuse to consider Presidential judicial nominees.

The Post’s editorial summarized the circumstances surrounding President Bush’s Fourth Circuit nominees for Virginia and Maryland.

Virginia

Senators John Warner (R) and Jim Webb (D) evaluated nominees and presented President Bush with five people that they would both support for nomination to the Fourth Circuit (for the Virginia seat). President Bush nominated Richmond lawyer E. Duncan Getchell Jr., who was not on their list. This decision did not please the Senators from Virginia. [Note: Mr. Getchell was on the list of Senators John Warner (R) and former Senator George Allen (R). According to the Virginian Pilot, since Allen lost to Webb, Getchell's name was removed from the list.]

The Post’s editorial board wisely stated that the Senate would not give the nominees a confirmation hearing.

Maryland

I wrote about the nomination of Rod Rosenstein in this post. In summary, President Bush nominated Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for Maryland, for a judicial post on the Fourth Circuit, despite the objections of Maryland’s Senators.

For a smooth judicial nomination process consensus between the President and the Senate must occur before the President submits a nominee to the Senate.

Moreover, I do not consider it a priority to fill the five vacancies. Ten of fifteen seats (66%) are filled, balanced between Democratic and Republican appointees.

There is no need to upset the balance, especially since President Bush is entering his final year in office.

Condoleezza Rice: Questionable Use of Birmingham Story

 

The Washington Post had a story about how the Israeli foreign minister felt insulted about not being recognized by foreign ministers from other Middle Eastern countries (that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel).

What caught my attention is where the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, made a comment that her experience with the Birmingham church bombing helped her to understand the feelings of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Rice began by saying she did not want to draw historical parallels or be too self-reflective, but as a young girl she grew up in Birmingham, Ala., “at a time of separation and tension.”

 

She noted that a local church was bombed by white separatists, killing four girls, including a classmate of hers.”

 

Like the Israelis, I know what it is like to go to sleep at night, not knowing if you will be bombed, of being afraid to be in your own neighborhood, of being afraid to go to your church,” she said.

 

But, she added, as a black child in the South, being told she could not use certain water fountains or eat in certain restaurants, she also understood the feelings and emotions of the Palestinians.”

 

I know what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian,” she said. “I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness.”

 

“There is pain on both sides,” Rice concluded. “This has gone on too long.”

When I read and thought about this quote, I did not feel comfortable with Secretary Rice’s statement concerning the Birmingham church bombing. Surely, what occurred with the Birmingham church bombing was horrible (understatement). But I feel that a witness to such inhumanity would have a mission to seek social justice (particularly for Blacks in the United States, given that it was a Black church that was bombed).

The problem with Secretary Rice’s statement is not that she used the imagery of the Birmingham church bombing with respect to the Palestinian struggle for a state of their own. Rather, it is the use of the horrible event in Birmingham to justify inaction. Her words did not put the parties on the road to peace nor to a final peace agreement.

As a result, her use of Birmingham is a gratuitous abuse of history as a mere talking point. Other writers have noticed this (here, here, and here).

I did some research on Secretary Rice’s use of the Birmingham story. Throughout, I noticed that her use of Birmingham was consistently questionable. In essence, the Birmingham experience did not serve as a spur for peace, but rather bellicosity (more human suffering, ironically with bombs).

In the Telegraph (a United Kingdom newspaper):

Miss Rice rarely plays on her upbringing in Birmingham, Alabama - a hotbed of racial strife in the Sixties, culminating in the fatal bombing of a black church. However, addressing the National Association of Black Journalists in Dallas, she used that personal history to issue a direct challenge to all those critical of the Bush administration’s ambitions in Iraq and beyond.

 

“Like many of you, I grew up around the home-grown terrorism of the 1960s. I remember the bombing of the church in Birmingham in 1963, because one of the little girls that died was a friend of mine,” she said.

 

Black Americans should stand by others seeking freedom today, she went on, and shun the “condescending” argument that some races or nations were not interested in or ready for Western freedoms.

 

“We’ve heard that argument before. And we, more than any, as a people, should be ready to reject it,” she said. “That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad and in the rest of the Middle East.”

Dr. Rice’s opening statement at her confirmation hearing:

Four years ago, Secretary Powell addressed this committee for the same purpose I do now. Then as now, it was the same week that America celebrates the life and legacy of Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. It is a time to reflect on the legacy of that great man, on the sacrifices he made, on the courage of the people he led, and on the progress our nation has made in the decades since. I am especially indebted to those who fought and sacrificed in the Civil Rights movement so that I could be here today.

 

For me, this is a time to remember other heroes as well. I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama — the old Birmingham of Bull Connor, church bombings, and voter intimidation — the Birmingham where Dr. King was thrown in jail for demonstrating without a permit. Yet there was another Birmingham, the city where my parents — John and Angelena Rice — and their friends built a thriving community in the midst of the most terrible segregation in the country. It would have been so easy for them to give in to despair, and to send that message of hopelessness to their children. But they refused to allow the limits and injustices of their time to limit our horizons. My friends and I were raised to believe that we could do or become anything — that the only limits to our aspirations came from within. We were taught not to listen to those who said to us, “No, you can’t.”

 

The story of Birmingham’s parents and teachers and children is a story of the triumph of universal values over adversity. And those values — a belief in democracy, and liberty, and the dignity of every life, and the rights of every individual — unite Americans of all backgrounds, all faiths, and all colors. They provide us a common cause in all times, a rallying point in difficult times, and a source of hope to men and women across the globe who cherish freedom and work to advance freedom’s cause. And in these extraordinary times, it is the duty of all of us — legislators, diplomats, civil servants, and citizens — to uphold and advance the values that are the core of the American identity, and that have lifted the lives of millions around the world.

 

One of history’s clearest lessons is that America is safer, and the world is more secure, whenever and wherever freedom prevails. It is neither an accident nor a coincidence that the greatest threats of the last century emerged from totalitarian movements. Fascism and Communism differed in many ways, but they shared an implacable hatred of freedom, a fanatical assurance that their way was the only way, and a supreme confidence that history was on their side.

This use of the terrible tragedy of discrimination against Blacks is deplorable. Readers should be aware of Secretary Rice’s tactic.