many folks have written or called to offer their prayers. many thanks to you all.
this has been a difficult time for many of us at yale. the murder of annie le is a tragedy that, for us, has no national dimensions. it is personal and it is tragic and it has many of us looking over our shoulders in new ways (the old ways providing the template). the intrusive posture of the media has not helped. they want a story. we want to grieve, understand our confusion, allow our anger its proper space, acknowledge our fear, find a way to be supportive of and/or caring for two families who have been decimated by violence. because le's body was not found for 8 days in a space that was not cool. this means that it had so deteriorated that the only way they could id her was through dna testing. imagine what it is like to tell a mother that it's best that you not see your child because she no longer looks human. imagine what it is like to tell a family that you will have to say your final goodbyes through memories alone.
true, we live in a country where violent, senseless killing goes on each day. for me, this is not about the way in which the status of yale and its elite student body has made this a national case. media can do what they want and have done so. no, this is about violence against women, senseless murder, and the fact that any of us could be victims of such violence--including men. but if, as i suspect is the case, it proves to be that this was a crime of alleged passion, it once again brings to every woman and man full face the way in which women who say "no!" are not listened to and at times silenced permanently. in short, we are seen if not treated as property that can be used or discarded by violent whim.
i am used to going through my days on low level alert--scanning my surroundings because being a professor at an elite institution does not trump my blackness or my femaleness or my sexual orientation. but my alert mechanism has dialed itself up a notch or two. and i am not alone on this campus in this regard. secretaries and administrative assistants (who are overwhelmingly women) across the campus are having hushed and not so hushed conversations about their safety. some are afraid because they work in offices where the traffic patterns are episodic and the building can be relatively quiet for long stretches. there are counseling services available to all of us and some are using them. but it will take time for the trauma to subside for many of us and for us to be able to go on. but it's doubtful we will forget.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
running versus governing
I have been thinking a good bit about the difference between running a campaign for office and governing once in office. The two do not automatically mesh and each takes its own particular set of skills as far as I've been able to determine. You may be thinking I am referring to the challenges Barack Obama faces these days--but current politicians are part of a much longer troublesome dilemma for me.
For as long as I have been able to decipher politics (some time in the 70s), I've noticed how many folks run for office on one set of principles and then when office, another set of principles show up and tries to run things. It's not quite Jekyll and Hyde, but it is eerily close. What has caused me to be circumspect about politicians is that the set of values surrounding governing that seem to predominate often has the word "re-election" ranging around in the background like a demanding, moaning sylph. I'm not convinced that this state of affairs is what the founding fathers (and silent mothers) had in mind when crafting our governmental structures. They assumed, I think, several things that are lacking today: an educated and alert citizenship, valuing genuine debate over rhetoric, carefully considering options (viable or not), and a willingness to subsume personal agendas for the greater good. Yes, some of this sounds like utopian pipe dreams, but this is exactly my point. These are values that are meant to draw us out of complacency and self interest. When we fail to strive for them, we begin to sound the death knells for democracy.
Those spouting the cheery hokum that we are living in a post-racial America have gun-toting friends that think the right to bear arms means being able to intimidate a sitting president (now exactly which other president did the secret service and police allow this to happen?) and these folks are being cheer-led by fearmongerers. Meanwhile, politicians use toteboards for votes to decide pressing national issues such as health care reform, the economy, education, energy, and international relations. Ultimately, we need to look at the person in the mirror. We are the ones who elect these folks and we are the ones who must hold them accountable. We must begin to demand better from our elected officials by educating ourselves about the dynamics of the issues that are effecting us--not by relying on the talking points developed by special interest groups that conveniently reflect narrow agendas being shopped as the common good or the rely on draw polls taken that seem to talk to a rather select group of folks rather than look long and large into the general population.
Perhaps this is where our religious communities can be helpful. They can become, where they are not, the go to place to get solid information and informed debate that help us get the education we need rather than rely on bloviated rhetoric and arrogant self righteous pronouncements that are all heat but no fire. It is hard work to craft such spaces, but we must. This is one of the ways we yoke citizenship and faith to maintain and grow a robust democracy.
For as long as I have been able to decipher politics (some time in the 70s), I've noticed how many folks run for office on one set of principles and then when office, another set of principles show up and tries to run things. It's not quite Jekyll and Hyde, but it is eerily close. What has caused me to be circumspect about politicians is that the set of values surrounding governing that seem to predominate often has the word "re-election" ranging around in the background like a demanding, moaning sylph. I'm not convinced that this state of affairs is what the founding fathers (and silent mothers) had in mind when crafting our governmental structures. They assumed, I think, several things that are lacking today: an educated and alert citizenship, valuing genuine debate over rhetoric, carefully considering options (viable or not), and a willingness to subsume personal agendas for the greater good. Yes, some of this sounds like utopian pipe dreams, but this is exactly my point. These are values that are meant to draw us out of complacency and self interest. When we fail to strive for them, we begin to sound the death knells for democracy.
Those spouting the cheery hokum that we are living in a post-racial America have gun-toting friends that think the right to bear arms means being able to intimidate a sitting president (now exactly which other president did the secret service and police allow this to happen?) and these folks are being cheer-led by fearmongerers. Meanwhile, politicians use toteboards for votes to decide pressing national issues such as health care reform, the economy, education, energy, and international relations. Ultimately, we need to look at the person in the mirror. We are the ones who elect these folks and we are the ones who must hold them accountable. We must begin to demand better from our elected officials by educating ourselves about the dynamics of the issues that are effecting us--not by relying on the talking points developed by special interest groups that conveniently reflect narrow agendas being shopped as the common good or the rely on draw polls taken that seem to talk to a rather select group of folks rather than look long and large into the general population.
Perhaps this is where our religious communities can be helpful. They can become, where they are not, the go to place to get solid information and informed debate that help us get the education we need rather than rely on bloviated rhetoric and arrogant self righteous pronouncements that are all heat but no fire. It is hard work to craft such spaces, but we must. This is one of the ways we yoke citizenship and faith to maintain and grow a robust democracy.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
health care "debate"
The health care debate rages and for many of us who watched the previous one under the Clinton administration, there are eerie and deadly similarities. Once again, special interest groups who have a stake in keeping an often pathetic health care system in the United States underweight and underfed are using fear, innuendo, and outright lies to derail any reform. Frankly, I am bitterly disappointed that the Obama administration has taken the single payer option off the table in the name of political expediency. However there may be enough there remaining that if we had a responsible debate about it, we just might craft something that decreases the rolls of those who have limited or no access to quality health care and those trying to find or maintain their health on inadequate care.
The single payer system features a centralized payment for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers and facilities. Some argue that is a way deliver near-universal or universal health care at a controllable cost. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. The outcry against this tends to be that it is socialist (still an effective fright word) and point to the flaws in health care delivery in Britian, Canada, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and other countries who have some version of single payer plans as "proof" that the United States should never adopt a single payer system.
Last week, I watched mainstream news reports about the mobile clinic has been organized by Remote Area Medical (RMA) in Inglewood, CA. RMA provides free medical, vision, and dental care for uninsured, underinsured, unemployed, under-employed persons in remote areas around the world. Although they traditionally have focused on the rural poor, they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The LA clinic is running from August 11-18 as thousands are coming to receive free medical care that they would not have received otherwise. Folks had their blood pressure checked, eye tests, mammograms, immunizations for children, dental care, acupuncture, and saw kidney specialists. What more "proof" do we need that what we have now in the U.S. is highly suspect and not representative of a democracy.
Our health care system is flawed and far too many of us are among the uninsured (roughly 46 million) and the numbers have continued to rise since 2000. We must stop wasting time on townhall meetings were the talking points of those shouting the loudest against reform were issued by those who have the greatest interest in stopping reform. We can be and must be better than this as a nation and begin to embrace the notion of "we the people" once again rather than "me and mine."
The single payer system features a centralized payment for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers and facilities. Some argue that is a way deliver near-universal or universal health care at a controllable cost. The administrator of the fund could be the government but it could also be a publicly owned agency regulated by law. The outcry against this tends to be that it is socialist (still an effective fright word) and point to the flaws in health care delivery in Britian, Canada, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and other countries who have some version of single payer plans as "proof" that the United States should never adopt a single payer system.
Last week, I watched mainstream news reports about the mobile clinic has been organized by Remote Area Medical (RMA) in Inglewood, CA. RMA provides free medical, vision, and dental care for uninsured, underinsured, unemployed, under-employed persons in remote areas around the world. Although they traditionally have focused on the rural poor, they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The LA clinic is running from August 11-18 as thousands are coming to receive free medical care that they would not have received otherwise. Folks had their blood pressure checked, eye tests, mammograms, immunizations for children, dental care, acupuncture, and saw kidney specialists. What more "proof" do we need that what we have now in the U.S. is highly suspect and not representative of a democracy.
Our health care system is flawed and far too many of us are among the uninsured (roughly 46 million) and the numbers have continued to rise since 2000. We must stop wasting time on townhall meetings were the talking points of those shouting the loudest against reform were issued by those who have the greatest interest in stopping reform. We can be and must be better than this as a nation and begin to embrace the notion of "we the people" once again rather than "me and mine."
Friday, August 7, 2009
a sotomayor celebration and a few riffs
In a country that prides itself on being a melting pot, the city on the hill, the land of the free and the home of the brave--a working democracy--it is both worth celebrating and a sobering moment that the Senate has confirmed our first Latinoa for the Supreme Court. On one side, the democrats focused on her biography of rising from Puerto Rican single mother parent beginnings to successful academic careers at two Ivy League institutions (yes, Yale is making a very big deal of this), her experience as a proscecutor and corporate lawyer, and 17 years as a district and appeals court judge. On the other, the major of republican senators described her as a judicial activists and criticized several speeches she made about foreign law and judicial diversity ("wise Latina judge") and her votes on cases involving Second Amendment rights, property rights, and a racial discrimination claim brought by White firefighters here in New Haven.
As I have followed this debate, it has struck me how ironic it is that liberal-leaning judges are labeled "activist" and conservative-leaning judges are labeled "fair." These are labels that are, to my mind, ridiculous. The law has always been a complex terrain for Black folk in the United States as well as other darker skinned peoples. Although a common strategy in Black political, social, and moral thought has been to appeal to the founding documents of this nation--the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Consitution--in an attempt to call this nation to live out it ideals of justice and liberty for all; far too many daily interactions with the law are problematic if not deadly and we experience a two steps forward, one step back reality when it comes to our civil rights in the legal arena.
I have found some of the rulings from all levels of the judiary that come from many "fair" conservative judges to be biased and siding with the tradition of White supremacy, heterosexism, and class elitism that is also a part of the founding history and enduring practices of this country. It would seem from this brief litmus test, that "fair" to one person or group who feels its interests and perspectives have been protected and legitimized can be deadly to those who still feel as though they are climbing the high side of misery. Those of you who are legal scholars can do a much better job than I can in describing this history as the work of critical race theory has shown.
For my part, I celebrate Judge Sotomayor's judicial record, her honesty about the ways in which all judges should be aware that their personal narratives are a part of what they must contend with and try not to let overwhelm judicial prudence, and her pride in and respect for her family (which one of us could not resonate with having your mama there with you at your confirmation hearings?). I wish her well as being "the first" is never easy although it can be exhilirating and important as we continue our shuffle toward a more perfect union and continue to cling to the hope that we can create a genuine democracy...the Lord willing and the creek don't rise.
As I have followed this debate, it has struck me how ironic it is that liberal-leaning judges are labeled "activist" and conservative-leaning judges are labeled "fair." These are labels that are, to my mind, ridiculous. The law has always been a complex terrain for Black folk in the United States as well as other darker skinned peoples. Although a common strategy in Black political, social, and moral thought has been to appeal to the founding documents of this nation--the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Consitution--in an attempt to call this nation to live out it ideals of justice and liberty for all; far too many daily interactions with the law are problematic if not deadly and we experience a two steps forward, one step back reality when it comes to our civil rights in the legal arena.
I have found some of the rulings from all levels of the judiary that come from many "fair" conservative judges to be biased and siding with the tradition of White supremacy, heterosexism, and class elitism that is also a part of the founding history and enduring practices of this country. It would seem from this brief litmus test, that "fair" to one person or group who feels its interests and perspectives have been protected and legitimized can be deadly to those who still feel as though they are climbing the high side of misery. Those of you who are legal scholars can do a much better job than I can in describing this history as the work of critical race theory has shown.
For my part, I celebrate Judge Sotomayor's judicial record, her honesty about the ways in which all judges should be aware that their personal narratives are a part of what they must contend with and try not to let overwhelm judicial prudence, and her pride in and respect for her family (which one of us could not resonate with having your mama there with you at your confirmation hearings?). I wish her well as being "the first" is never easy although it can be exhilirating and important as we continue our shuffle toward a more perfect union and continue to cling to the hope that we can create a genuine democracy...the Lord willing and the creek don't rise.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Some Observations on the Gates Incident
It seems as though the the story of Skip Gates' arrest outside of his home will continue to have legs for the present. Whether or not President Obama's beer with them will help bring the story around to a truly teachable moment remains to be seen. We have run the gamut from outrage to indifference to being jaded--within and without the Black communities of the U.S. and beyond.
Frankly, I wish I could say that I am totally surprised and caught off guard by the unfolding story. I am afraid that far too many folk believed that electing a Black man who went to great pains not to raise issues of race and ethnicity in his campaign meant that we had reached a new place in our national consciousness and actions. While the election of a Black man is no small matter, we never had the conversation on race that he called for around the Reverend Jeremiah Wright debacle (there are genuine elements of a high tech lynching there). Instead, most of us moved on and did not engage in the thick discourse required to get at any meaningful dialogue on race and racism in this country. We have celebrated in ways that fail to fully acknowledge the work we still have before us.
I am not interested in being held captive to our history as a nation, but I do believe that we need to use it as a teaching tool for how we can craft a better present and a more just future. What has disturbed me about all the reports and "experts" that have been drawn on to dissect, inadequately to my mind, the Gates Incident that no one has talked to or at least put on record where youth are with this. How are they reading the story and what insights might we gain from them? Until we turn this into an intergenerational conversation, we will fail to take full advantage of this latest opportunity to begin to deal with each other in ways that help us step into the richness of our diversity instead of continuing to see our diversity as some sort of wierd shame house.
This is not an easy story to tease through and I suspect that like most incidents where race may be a strong but unacknowledged factor, there are no clear heroes or victims. Until we can reach a point of genuine and deep dialogue, perhaps sharing a beer is the best we can hope for. However, my hope is that as we work with students, members of our religious communities, and other folks of good will that we will find a way to recognize that hard conversations are not only punishment for our sins, they are openings to spaces of grace and redemption.
Frankly, I wish I could say that I am totally surprised and caught off guard by the unfolding story. I am afraid that far too many folk believed that electing a Black man who went to great pains not to raise issues of race and ethnicity in his campaign meant that we had reached a new place in our national consciousness and actions. While the election of a Black man is no small matter, we never had the conversation on race that he called for around the Reverend Jeremiah Wright debacle (there are genuine elements of a high tech lynching there). Instead, most of us moved on and did not engage in the thick discourse required to get at any meaningful dialogue on race and racism in this country. We have celebrated in ways that fail to fully acknowledge the work we still have before us.
I am not interested in being held captive to our history as a nation, but I do believe that we need to use it as a teaching tool for how we can craft a better present and a more just future. What has disturbed me about all the reports and "experts" that have been drawn on to dissect, inadequately to my mind, the Gates Incident that no one has talked to or at least put on record where youth are with this. How are they reading the story and what insights might we gain from them? Until we turn this into an intergenerational conversation, we will fail to take full advantage of this latest opportunity to begin to deal with each other in ways that help us step into the richness of our diversity instead of continuing to see our diversity as some sort of wierd shame house.
This is not an easy story to tease through and I suspect that like most incidents where race may be a strong but unacknowledged factor, there are no clear heroes or victims. Until we can reach a point of genuine and deep dialogue, perhaps sharing a beer is the best we can hope for. However, my hope is that as we work with students, members of our religious communities, and other folks of good will that we will find a way to recognize that hard conversations are not only punishment for our sins, they are openings to spaces of grace and redemption.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
collegial scholarship
i spent an incredibly wonderful weekend last week with several colleagues as we began to shape a book project. what continues to resonate in me is the great spirit of collegiality as we exchanged potential essays and ideas over the course of the two days we spent together. there was much laughter and much piercing analysis as we worked through each other's work and pointed to the strengths and the places we wanted to see each other develop. it was a time of respect as well as challenge. it was, in the best sense, collegial scholarship.
many of us were and are being exposed to a completely other style of academic rigor. it is one in which one seeks to tear down another's work to prove how "smart" we are or how well we can use rhetoric and insight to embarrass and demean. this kind of last wo/man standing mentality is far from tackling each others' ideas with scholarly rigor. to my mind, it is a form of cowardice that hides our insecurities and blindspots. genuine academic rigor requires that we read a thinker's work with care, precision, and thoroughly.
i welcome the day when a womanist thinker's corpus is read in it's entirety by colleagues who think that reading a sound bite of her work is the same thing as mastering wittgenstein by reading absolutely everything by him and about him. exploring the deep levels of meaning of cannon's emancipatory praxis or riggs' mediating ethic cannot be understood by reading one article by them. these are dense concepts that require much more reflection than i see in work by folks like mcgrath and company.
this past weekend confirmed for me that genuine collegial work pushes us to think harder and deeper not only about our work but also the work that others create. it involves risk and a willingness to grow and explore new avenues of thought. it produces deep work--not niceness. the slash and burn mentality that passes for scholarship for far too many folk does little to help us think more deeply. it does, however, usher in a small and narrow scholarship that reifies disciplines but does little to give them new life or provide new insights.
many of us were and are being exposed to a completely other style of academic rigor. it is one in which one seeks to tear down another's work to prove how "smart" we are or how well we can use rhetoric and insight to embarrass and demean. this kind of last wo/man standing mentality is far from tackling each others' ideas with scholarly rigor. to my mind, it is a form of cowardice that hides our insecurities and blindspots. genuine academic rigor requires that we read a thinker's work with care, precision, and thoroughly.
i welcome the day when a womanist thinker's corpus is read in it's entirety by colleagues who think that reading a sound bite of her work is the same thing as mastering wittgenstein by reading absolutely everything by him and about him. exploring the deep levels of meaning of cannon's emancipatory praxis or riggs' mediating ethic cannot be understood by reading one article by them. these are dense concepts that require much more reflection than i see in work by folks like mcgrath and company.
this past weekend confirmed for me that genuine collegial work pushes us to think harder and deeper not only about our work but also the work that others create. it involves risk and a willingness to grow and explore new avenues of thought. it produces deep work--not niceness. the slash and burn mentality that passes for scholarship for far too many folk does little to help us think more deeply. it does, however, usher in a small and narrow scholarship that reifies disciplines but does little to give them new life or provide new insights.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
public intellectuals
i recently participated in tavis smiley's 10th anniversary state of the black union (sobu). each february, smiley assembles two large panels to discuss issues relating to black folks in the u.s. i believe there were 10-12 folks on my panel alone. most of us did not get to say much, so i had to make the most of my brief air time--a challenge for a seminary professor who is used to unpacking things slowly. it was a fascinating experience on a variety of levels as i saw some of the behind the scenes technical aspects of the broadcast (yes, i'm a bit of tech geek) and i also finally met folks whose work i respect and use like lani guinier, randall robinson, and julianne malveaux.
cspan still has the panels up at http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15942
however, it was a conversation i had a 2 fridays ago with one of the listeners to the broadcast that prompts my musings. she is a 70+ year old black woman who is a retired lawyer and lives in the atlanta area. when she finally reached me, she thanked me for my two sets of remarks on the panel (obama is not god and we should stop treating him that way and get to work helping him govern--this is what democracy is about--the active participation of citizens and the black church should stop preaching prosperity gospel and get back to the business of being prophetic and help black folks work together to face the contemporary challenges to and in black life today). she was, as many of us have experienced, a wise older woman who has seen much, done much, and has insightful analysis and critique about what's going on today. i enjoyed our conversation as she talked about organizing the women in her area and in her church to tackle the problems they face. in a message she left for me before we were able to talk, she said that "I'm having a meeting of women only at my house on Saturday evening to help
black folks stop believing that God works like the Pizza Hut delivery man." in short, she is a fired up mature black woman who speaks her mind with precision and then acts on her convictions.
one part of our conversation continues to resonate. she told me that she has watched the sobu each of the 10 years it has been on c-span. the broadcast is one of the most popular that cspan does and they devote 6 hours of programming to it each february. it reaches millions each year and there were 6,000 folk in the l.a. convention center this year where it is broadcast. my caller stated that in all her years of watching and appreciating what many folks had to say, i was the first person who took her phone call from all the panelists that she has tried to contact to thank them for their remarks. my first reaction, after being a bit stunned at this news, was to try to explain that after exposure like that, it's hard to sort out whose calls to take because all manner of folk call or write. she stopped me (are we surprised?) and reminded me in no uncertain terms that if any of us put ourselves out there in public spaces to speak our mind, we need to willing to listen to and respond to the reactions we evoke.
she has a point and i'm still chewing on it.
cspan still has the panels up at http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15942
however, it was a conversation i had a 2 fridays ago with one of the listeners to the broadcast that prompts my musings. she is a 70+ year old black woman who is a retired lawyer and lives in the atlanta area. when she finally reached me, she thanked me for my two sets of remarks on the panel (obama is not god and we should stop treating him that way and get to work helping him govern--this is what democracy is about--the active participation of citizens and the black church should stop preaching prosperity gospel and get back to the business of being prophetic and help black folks work together to face the contemporary challenges to and in black life today). she was, as many of us have experienced, a wise older woman who has seen much, done much, and has insightful analysis and critique about what's going on today. i enjoyed our conversation as she talked about organizing the women in her area and in her church to tackle the problems they face. in a message she left for me before we were able to talk, she said that "I'm having a meeting of women only at my house on Saturday evening to help
black folks stop believing that God works like the Pizza Hut delivery man." in short, she is a fired up mature black woman who speaks her mind with precision and then acts on her convictions.
one part of our conversation continues to resonate. she told me that she has watched the sobu each of the 10 years it has been on c-span. the broadcast is one of the most popular that cspan does and they devote 6 hours of programming to it each february. it reaches millions each year and there were 6,000 folk in the l.a. convention center this year where it is broadcast. my caller stated that in all her years of watching and appreciating what many folks had to say, i was the first person who took her phone call from all the panelists that she has tried to contact to thank them for their remarks. my first reaction, after being a bit stunned at this news, was to try to explain that after exposure like that, it's hard to sort out whose calls to take because all manner of folk call or write. she stopped me (are we surprised?) and reminded me in no uncertain terms that if any of us put ourselves out there in public spaces to speak our mind, we need to willing to listen to and respond to the reactions we evoke.
she has a point and i'm still chewing on it.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
opening musings
today, i'm thinking about the economy and impact that it is having on higher education. i am very lucky to be teaching and working at a school that has financial resources and will weather this recession. we are making cuts, to be sure, but they are not as draconian as some schools where fine religious studies departments like that at the university of florida are facing extinction. there are at least two trains running here--the first is that many of colleagues in higher education still do not understand that not just anyone can teach religion or research it well. the study of religion is as complex as any other discipline in the academy. thinking of it as derivative, secondary, afterthought is to fail to educate students well and we let our own ignorance pass as expertise rather than a blind spot that needs to be corrected. second, when folks with this lack of awareness become administrators, this turns deadly. administrators who have never had an engaged conversation with colleagues in religious studies, taken a religious studies class, or engaged in careful and thoughtful reflection on the ways in which the study of religion as an impact on how we order our political associations, cultural leanings, and social structures (to name just a few), are ill equipped to make careful decisions about how to make budget cuts. it is ironic that at the very time at which we need to be educating students about the religious worldviews of peoples, is the very time we see this education as expendable or able to be done by scholars in other disciplines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
