ReportWire

Tag: Black students

  • Controlling the Scores 

    Standardized testing has long been framed as a neutral measure of achievement. Yet, its origins in white supremacy reveal that it was designed to privilege white, middle-class norms while excluding others. For Black students in under-resourced schools, the consequences are especially severe. These assessments misrepresent their abilities, deny access to advanced programs, and contribute to cycles of exclusion and punishment that mirror the criminal justice system. Testing corporations and reform advocates wield hidden power by profiting from these systems and defining achievement without community input, and, most sharply, standardized testing exerts invisible power by shaping students’ beliefs about intelligence and worth, embedding deficit narratives in their consciousness. 

    Since the development of high-stakes standardized testing policies under the No Child Left Behind Act, federal agencies, testing corporations, and school administrators have gained disproportionate power over public education—using test scores to control curriculum, discipline, and school funding. This power structure not only reinforces racial hierarchies embedded in test design but also criminalizes academic failure, contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline by disproportionately excluding and punishing Black students in under-resourced schools.

    Policymakers and organizations that impose testing requirements wield the most visible form of power in standardized testing. Standardized tests were created to maintain racial hierarchies, as Strauss (2021) demonstrates by tracing their roots to white supremacist ideology. She illustrates how bias was ingrained in the basic framework of American education when standardized assessments were developed to support white, middle-class values. Through accountability laws like No Child Left Behind, which influence curriculum and school financing, policymakers continue to impose these biased instruments. This is a form of visible power: Black students are disproportionately harmed by institutions that require testing as a policy, criminalizing academic failure. Schools that are deemed to be “failing” are subject to staff turnover, closures, and heightened surveillance, which destabilizes communities and perpetuates inequality.

    Dunbar Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia, is a victim of school closure. As part of the district’s efforts to close a $100 million budget deficit, the area has been targeted for closure. Atlanta Public Schools has suggested closing Dunbar along with other schools that serve primarily Black students, despite a 33 percent rise in enrollment and considerable community resistance. Families argue that the closure would be devastating for the neighborhood, depriving it of a critical resource and putting kids into overcrowded schools farther away. This closure is justified by enrollment figures and accountability indicators, which are frequently linked to performance on standardized tests. This case demonstrates how policymakers use test scores and budgetary constraints to control which schools survive and which are sacrificed. These closures exacerbate the injustices already present in the school-to-prison pipeline for Black youth by reinforcing instability, dislocation, and exclusion.

    The companies that create, administer, and profit from standardized testing wield secret power that extends beyond legislators. Standardized tests, according to Taylor and Lee (1987), misrepresent the talents of African American students by neglecting language and cultural diversity. Testing companies like Pearson, Educational Testing Service (ETS), McGraw-Hill, and Houghton Mifflin define intelligence, favoring dominant communication standards while disregarding Black students’ cultural practices. This exposes hidden power. Exam sales and administration generate enormous profits for these firms. In addition, Pearson has won contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to administer college-readiness and state exams, dominating the U.S. testing market. Test fees, study materials, and scoring services are significant sources of income for ETS, the organization that creates and administers the SAT and GRE. Ninety-six percent of state-level tests are written by four companies: Harcourt Educational Measurement, CTB McGraw-Hill, Riverside Publishing, and NCS Pearson (PBS, 2001). Companies spent at least $20 million on lobbying to obtain contracts and favorable legislation, and the testing boom driven by Common Core and No Child Left Behind generated nearly $2 billion yearly business (PR Watch, 2015). 

    These influential individuals promote injustice and deficit narratives by misclassifying Black students and preventing them from enrolling in advanced programs. Black children’s exclusion from educational opportunities is not accidental; rather, it is profitable. Policymakers gain power by using test results to support reforms and closures, while corporations benefit from test sales, repair programs, and preparation materials. The school-to-prison pipeline also supports economic exploitation, as jails benefit from a regular influx of young people and political leaders consolidate power through “tough on crime” rhetoric. In this way, the psychological injury to pupils directly translates into material advantage for those in power. According to Mallett (2015), test results are used as a weapon to support harsh policies and school closings, which destabilize Black communities and schools. When taken together, these sources demonstrate how policy agendas and corporate profit combine to maintain inequality.

    The psychological and ideological impacts of standardized testing on Black students are the most harmful, invisible form of power. Taylor and Lee (1987) emphasize the psychological injury caused by linguistic bias, and USC Scribe (2022) links this harm to criminal prosecution and exclusion. The psychological toll is immense. Repeated exposure to low exam scores fosters anxiety, depression, and disengagement from school. Students frequently experience a sense of learned helplessness because they believe that, no matter how hard they work, a biased system will judge them as failures. Reduced motivation, increased dropout rates, and vulnerability to harsh punishment might result from this internalized inferiority. According to USC Scribe (2022), Black children who perform poorly on tests are frequently excluded, suspended, and eventually come into contact with the juvenile criminal system. In this sense, by instilling deficit narratives in Black children’s minds, standardized testing actively creates failure rather than merely measuring accomplishment. 

    Additionally, standardized testing promotes a competitive worldview that conceals structural injustices in addition to individual disengagement. Black students are informed that their shortcomings are personal rather than systemic, which upholds racial hierarchies and justifies exclusion. This ideological strength ensures the internalization of deficit narratives, shaping identity and long-term outcomes. Students’ conduct, academic engagement, and motivation to fight exclusion are all impacted when they start to perceive themselves as less capable. Black children are more likely to experience punitive discipline and eventually come into contact with the legal system as a result of the severe psychological and ideological toll. This illustrates the invisible power: when their talents are misrepresented, students internalize failure and shame, disengage from school, and accept exclusion as a given. Standardized testing is significant because it not only misrepresents talent but also molds identity and self-worth, instilling deficit narratives in children’s minds and perpetuating structural injustices. 

    Standardized testing interacts with severe discipline systems rather than existing in a vacuum. According to Mallett (2015), low test scores are often used as an excuse for zero-tolerance policies and school closures, which force teachers and children in underprivileged communities to relocate, as seen in Dunbar Elementary. Black kids are disproportionately affected by these “improvements” because they are more likely to attend underfunded schools and experience severe disciplinary actions. As a result, students are forced into surveillance and control systems, and intellectual struggle is criminalized. According to Mallett’s (2015) findings, the combination of punitive policies and standardized testing results in a real, tangible school-to-prison pipeline. Black kids are disproportionately drawn into juvenile justice systems due to institutional injustices that are perpetuated by testing and punishment rather than innate flaws.

    The USC Scribe article (2022) gives a vivid picture of how standardized testing leads to the school-to-prison pipeline for Black youth. It defines individuals in the court system and school officials as visible powerholders who uphold rules that link discipline to academic achievement. These policies disproportionately impact black children; test-related academic tracking increases the likelihood that they will be penalized, expelled, or reported to the police. Black kids are frequently depicted as disruptive or underachieving, which shapes public image and policy without responsibility. The hidden power in the racism assumptions ingrained in testing and discipline practices causes students to internalize these narratives; they become disengaged from school and come to terms with their eventual exclusion, which gives rise to invisible power.

    Standardized testing employs three different forms of power: visible, concealed, and invisible. Students internalize stories of failure when their talents are exaggerated, corporations profit from their widespread use, and policymakers compel inaccurate assessments through accountability regulations. These factors cooperate to sustain the school-to-prison pipeline by criminalizing intellectual struggle and upholding racial inequities. Instead of serving as a path to opportunity, education has evolved into a system of exclusion and punishment. Dunbar Elementary serves as a reminder of how these factors come together in actual communities, where financial constraints and accountability measures pose a threat to the closure of Black families’ roots. Overall, the broader implication is that, to affirm Black kids’ identities, transfer authority to communities, and prioritize justice over surveillance, deconstructing this system requires reconsidering evaluation. We can only start the process of ending the school-to-prison pipeline and establishing an educational system founded on justice and compassion by opposing the racism logic of standardized testing and the corporate profits that support it. Schools can become places of equity, compassion, and opportunity rather than exclusion and punishment when visible, hidden, and invisible power are addressed simultaneously.

    This article is one of a series of articles with the support provided by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to Word In Black, a collaborative of 10 Black-owned media outlets across the country.

    Kaelyn A. Dorsey

    Source link

  • School May Be the Only Doctor Some Black Kids Ever See

    For some kids, the school nurse is there to put a bandage on a skinned knee or check for a fever. But for a majority of Black students, too often, that nurse is the only healthcare provider they’ll see all year. If House Republicans get their way, though, even that might disappear.

    Indeed, Medicaid is the largest federal funding source for school-based health services. And with GOP lawmakers inching closer to passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the health safety net it provides students could be ripped away. 

    The budget bill, a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda, slashes at least $715 billion from Medicaid. That means school-based health services funded through Medicaid, such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, mental health counseling, and behavioral health care, could be greatly reduced or eliminated entirely. 

    “It would be unacceptable and unethical to take that away from our kids,” Lauren Reliford, policy director at the Children’s Defense Fund, tells Word In Black, “Cuts like these will be particularly harmful for children who live at the intersection of race, ethnicity, citizenship status, gender identity, and disabilities.”

    School Is the Only Place Some Kids Get Care

    According to the Economic Policy Institute, more than half of all Black children under age 19 rely on public health insurance like Medicaid. For some, this means coverage outside of school — doctor’s visits, prescriptions, and other care. But for many Black students in under-resourced schools, school is often the only place they can get health services at all.

    Black students are more likely than their white peers to be enrolled in school-based Medicaid programs. In 2023, 51.2% of Black children received healthcare through these school-based health centers (SBHCs), compared to just 23.8% of white children.

    SBHCs, which offer a range of services — including annual physicals, dental care, and mental health counseling receive federal Medicaid reimbursement to defray their operating costs. This is especially the case in low-income, majority-Black districtswhere students often qualify for public health insurance. 

    The Academic Benefits

    In a recent study published in the Research Journal of Adolescent Health,researchers noted that SBHCs “support children’s school function by addressing health concerns that might get in the way of students’ academic success without requiring them to leave campus and miss school.” Researchers also found that SBHCs are linked to improved GPAs and higher graduation rates.

    2023 study conducted by The Los Angeles Trust for Children’s Health and partners found that students who got healthcare at school gained 5.4 to 7 additional school days of attendance per year. And in New York City, a study of school-based health centers found a positive correlation between access to health centers and student performance in English Language Arts (ELA).

    If these services disappear, experts warn that Black students — who already face higher rates of school-based trauma and fewer support systems — risk being pushed further behind. 

    Meanwhile, districts are already bracing for the impact if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act becomes law. A March survey by the School Superintendents Association found that nearly 70% of district leaders anticipate having to cut school-based mental and behavioral health services if Medicaid is reduced or eliminated. 

    And for Black and Brown children, who are already often failed by the educational system, Reliford says taking away that care is not just negligent — it’s dangerous.

    “Every child deserves access to healthcare for their body and mind,” she says, “This is an intolerable scenario that the nation’s lawmakers must do everything in their power to avoid. We must demand better for them — and from those in power.”

    Quintessa Williams, Word in Black and Word In Black

    Source link

  • Northwestern roiled by criminal charges against two students who made parody copies of student paper

    Northwestern roiled by criminal charges against two students who made parody copies of student paper


    Divisions over the war in Gaza, questions about race as it relates to how the law is enforced, and what free speech means on campus are part of a controversy at Northwestern University and its student paper after two Black students were charged criminally for distributing a parody of the publication.

    Nearly 90 Northwestern students, professors and community members criticized the response to the incident late last week, calling it part of an effort to silence pro-Palestinian voices that disproportionately affect people of color.

    The two students were accused of distributing a parody of The Daily Northwestern and the consequences have many students and faculty calling it an overstep and a “symptom of the over-policing of Black students” on campus.

    The men, 20 and 22, were charged in December with theft of advertising services, a class A misdemeanor, according to Cook County court records. The records say they were released on the scene, but the charge is still pending.

    The men were the subject of the letter that identified them as Northwestern students who allegedly created an imitation front page of the campus newspaper that critiqued the university’s actions in connection to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in response to last year’s Hamas terror attacks.

    An attorney representing the men declined to comment. They are scheduled to appear in court again Feb. 29 in the Skokie branch court.

    Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx also declined to respond to messages seeking comment.

    “I think the approach to these two students was extremely aggressive and unnecessary,” said Mary Pattillo, professor of sociology and chair of the Department of Black Studies at Northwestern, who signed the letter. “This strikes me as very much in line with a country that has no other way to manage behavior other than criminalizing it.”

    On Oct. 25, students on campus could find a single-page flyer that looked similar to the popular student-run newspaper with the headline “Northwestern complicit in genocide of Palestinians” printed across its lower third.

    A court filing accuses the two men of attaching “an unauthorized replica of the Daily Northwestern Newspaper” to a previously distributed edition and placing copies in the newspaper stand.

    The charges say they did so “without a contractual agreement between the publisher and an advertiser.” Listed as the complainant is Stacia Campbell, general manager of Student Publishing Co.

    In a Monday statement, Student Publishing, parent company of The Daily Northwestern, said it reported the fake front page to campus police, which resulted in charges filed by the Cook County state’s attorney’s office.

    It noted that as a private entity, it does not have the ability to file or dismiss charges.

    “The content of the fake front page had no bearing on this decision,” the statement read.. “This is not an issue of speech or parody. A fake newspaper distributed on its own, apart from The Daily Northwestern, would cause no concern. But tampering with the distribution of a student  newspaper is impermissible conduct.”

    Evgeny Stolyarov, a second-year student of Middle East and North African studies, said when he first saw copies of the parody newspaper in his biology lecture hall on Oct. 25, he thought the move was “genius.”

    “I don’t think a single person who saw those thought it was the real ‘Daily Northwestern,’” Stolyarov said. “First of all, it was not called the ‘Daily Northwestern,’ but the ‘Northwestern Daily.’ The reaction wasn’t as big at the moment, and I don’t think anyone expected that it would be a Class A misdemeanor.”

    Stolyarov noted that the authentic newspaper’s print cycle is Mondays and Thursdays, and the parody was distributed on a Wednesday.

    “So no one was looking for the new copy and walked into this thinking, ‘Oh, I’ve been fooled!’” he said. “So to say that somehow this infringed on the rights of the journalists – who also released a statement saying that the charges should be dropped – I just think that all across the board, the arguments don’t add up.”

    In an editorial posted Feb. 5, The Daily Northwestern Editorial Board said they don’t support the criminal prosecution of the students responsible for the parody paper.

    “Our newspaper has always prided itself on its commitment to informing and supporting students, and we believe our publisher should play no part in perpetrating harm against the communities we aim to serve,” the editorial stated.

    “Our university and community — along with the American policing and justice system as a whole — has a long history of placing people of color in harm’s way. As a publication that strives to unearth these injustices through our reporting, we remain wholeheartedly opposed to any course of action that would entwine our publication with this harmful legacy.”

    Pattillo said, unfortunately, the approach taken doesn’t surprise her. The conflict has stirred controversy at elite universities across the country.

    “I think campuses are always forever challenged with how to approach the energies of their students,” she said. “In this moment where we might think about other approaches like restorative justice or, on a college campus, one might think of more dialogue – instead, this escalated to the criminal legal system.”

    Pattillo noted that this type of policing is what Black students organized against last year after the university announced it would use private security to remove them from campus buildings at night when Northwestern University Community Not Cops’ (NUCNC) protests to invest in Black students were met with pepper spray and arrests.

    “I think given that students of color are especially at the forefront of this particular social movement, and at the forefront of many social movements, it is the students who represent groups who experience oppression who rise up and protest,” Pattillo said.

    According to Pattillo, students of color facing a greater extent of the law is an issue seen on college campuses near and far.

    In November, a Palestinian American student at the University of Illinois at Chicago was handcuffed and arrested in a classroom and charged with criminal defacement for marking up property with messages supporting Palestine around campus.

    Though the charge was dismissed, students said the consequences were an overreach by the university.

    “We’ve had so many instances where UICPD has been aggressive to Muslim students for no reason,” said Celine Taki, a Syrian American junior at UIC, who was at a January rally calling for the firing of the campus police officers who carried out the arrest. “That girl was arrested just because she wrote Free Palestine on the wall. There’s been over 130 cases of vandalism on this campus, but only that one resulted in an arrest where she was detained.”

    According to the latest available UIC police records, the Palestinian American student is the only person to have been arrested for criminal defacement on campus.

    “On university campuses, it is always important to remember that we’re talking about 18- to 22-year-olds, sometimes 17- to 22-year-olds –  I think the most important approach is to think of the university as one large classroom and to treat all students as students and that this is their learning journey, and to approach them as learners and as teachers as well,” Pattillo added. “I do think that their activism is also instructive for their colleagues and for their faculty members and staff and administrators. That is the kind of approach that should be taken in these very, very tense and difficult moments.”

    Northwestern community members who penned the North by Northwestern letter are asking others to show support by adding their names to a Change.org petition demanding the charges be dropped.

    “The vast majority of the student body, whether it’s groups that are directly connected to Palestine or groups that have nothing to do with the movement, all agree that this will have a chilling effect on free speech,” said Stolyarov, who is a member of Jewish Wildcats for Ceasefire. “It’s nothing new that the university uses police brutality, especially against black students, so it was both shock and a sense that we’ve seen this before.”

    Ed Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union Illinois, said the charges feel like “a misuse of the statute” the pair was cited under.

    “These are college students that were engaging in a political protest, one might even describe it as a stunt to make a political point,” Yohnka said. “No one was meaningfully harmed as a result of this.”

    Yohnka noted that criminal charges could follow and potentially harm individuals for years and said the use of the statute in this instance raises concerns that criminal charges could be levied unequally based on the type of speech in question.

    “This is where the prosecutorial power that is going to be used feels a little off the mark in a use of taxpayer dollars,” he said.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Zareen Syed, Madeline Buckley

    Source link

  • Black Success, White Backlash

    Black Success, White Backlash

    For more than half a century, I have been studying the shifting relations between white and Black Americans. My first journal article, published in 1972, when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, was about Black political power in the industrial Midwest after the riots of the late 1960s. My own experience of race relations in America is even longer. I was born in the Mississippi Delta during World War II, in a cabin on what used to be a plantation, and then moved as a young boy to northern Indiana, where as a Black person in the early 1950s, I was constantly reminded of “my place,” and of the penalties for overstepping it. Seeing the image of Emmett Till’s dead body in Jet magazine in 1955 brought home vividly for my generation of Black kids that the consequences of failing to navigate carefully among white people could even be lethal.

    Explore the November 2023 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    For the past 16 years, I have been on the faculty of the sociology department at Yale, and in 2018 I was granted a Sterling Professorship, the highest academic rank the university bestows. I say this not to boast, but to illustrate that I have made my way from the bottom of American society to the top, from a sharecropper’s cabin to the pinnacle of the ivory tower. One might think that, as a decorated professor at an Ivy League university, I would have escaped the various indignities that being Black in traditionally white spaces exposes you to. And to be sure, I enjoy many of the privileges my white professional-class peers do. But the Black ghetto—a destitute and fearsome place in the popular imagination, though in reality it is home to legions of decent, hardworking families—remains so powerful that it attaches to all Black Americans, no matter where and how they live. Regardless of their wealth or professional status or years of law-abiding bourgeois decency, Black people simply cannot escape what I call the “iconic ghetto.”

    I know I haven’t. Some years ago, I spent two weeks in Wellfleet, Massachusetts, a pleasant Cape Cod town full of upper-middle-class white vacationers and working-class white year-rounders. On my daily jog one morning, a white man in a pickup truck stopped in the middle of the road, yelling and gesticulating. “Go home!” he shouted.

    Who was this man? Did he assume, because of my Black skin, that I was from the ghetto? Is that where he wanted me to “go home” to?

    This was not an isolated incident. When I jog through upscale white neighborhoods near my home in Connecticut, white people tense up—unless I wear my Yale or University of Pennsylvania sweatshirts. When my jogging outfit associates me with an Ivy League university, it identifies me as a certain kind of Black person: a less scary one who has passed inspection under the “white gaze.” Strangers with dark skin are suspect until they can prove their trustworthiness, which is hard to do in fleeting public interactions. For this reason, Black students attending universities near inner cities know to wear college apparel, in hopes of avoiding racial profiling by the police or others.

    I once accidentally ran a small social experiment about this. When I joined the Yale faculty in 2007, I bought about 20 university baseball caps to give to the young people at my family reunion that year. Later, my nieces and nephews reported to me that wearing the Yale insignia had transformed their casual interactions with white strangers: White people would now approach them to engage in friendly small talk.

    But sometimes these signifiers of professional status and educated-class propriety are not enough. This can be true even in the most rarefied spaces. When I was hired at Yale, the chair of the sociology department invited me for dinner at the Yale Club of New York City. Clad in a blue blazer, I got to the club early and decided to go up to the fourth-floor library to read The New York Times. When the elevator arrived, a crush of people was waiting to get on it, so I entered and moved to the back to make room for others. Everyone except me was white.

    As the car filled up, I politely asked a man of about 35, standing by the controls, to push the button for the library floor. He looked at me and—emboldened, I have to imagine, by drinks in the bar downstairs—said, “You can read?” The car fell silent. After a few tense moments, another man, seeking to defuse the tension, blurted, “I’ve never met a Yalie who couldn’t read.” All eyes turned to me. The car reached the fourth floor. I stepped off, held the door open, and turned back to the people in the elevator. “I’m not a Yalie,” I said. “I’m a new Yale professor.” And I went into the library to read the paper.

    I tell these stories—and I’ve told them before—not to fault any particular institution (I’ve treasured my time at Yale), but to illustrate my personal experience of a recurring cultural phenomenon: Throughout American history, every moment of significant Black advancement has been met by a white backlash. After the Civil War, under the aegis of Reconstruction, Black people for a time became professionals and congressmen. But when federal troops left the former Confederate states in 1877, white politicians in the South tried to reconstitute slavery with the long rule of Jim Crow. Even the Black people who migrated north to escape this new servitude found themselves relegated to shantytowns on the edges of cities, precursors to the modern Black ghetto.

    All of this reinforced what slavery had originally established: the Black body’s place at the bottom of the social order. This racist positioning became institutionalized in innumerable ways, and it persists today.

    I want to emphasize that across the decades, many white Americans have encouraged racial equality, albeit sometimes under duress. In response to the riots of the 1960s, the federal government—led by the former segregationist Lyndon B. Johnson—passed far-reaching legislation that finally extended the full rights of citizenship to Black people, while targeting segregation. These legislative reforms—and, especially, affirmative action, which was implemented via LBJ’s executive order in 1965—combined with years of economic expansion to produce a long period of what I call “racial incorporation,” which substantially elevated the income of many Black people and brought them into previously white spaces. Yes, a lot of affirmative-action efforts stopped at mere tokenism. Even so, many of these “tokens” managed to succeed, and the result is the largest Black middle class in American history.

    Over the past 50 years, according to a study by the Pew Research Center, the proportion of Black people who are low-income (less than $52,000 a year for a household of three) has fallen seven points, from 48 to 41 percent. The proportion who are middle-income ($52,000 to $156,000 a year) has risen by one point, to 47 percent. The proportion who are high-income (more than $156,000 a year) has risen the most dramatically, from 5 to 12 percent. Overall, Black poverty remains egregiously disproportionate to that of white and Asian Americans. But fewer Black Americans are poor than 50 years ago, and more than twice as many are rich. Substantial numbers now attend the best schools, pursue professions of their choosing, and occupy positions of power and prestige. Affirmative action worked.

    But that very success has inflamed the inevitable white backlash. Notably, the only racial group more likely to be low-income now than 50 years ago is whites—and the only group less likely to be low-income is Blacks.

    For some white people displaced from their jobs by globalization and deindustrialization, the successful Black person with a good job is the embodiment of what’s wrong with America. The spectacle of Black doctors, CEOs, and college professors “out of their place” creates an uncomfortable dissonance, which white people deal with by mentally relegating successful Black people to the ghetto. That Black man who drives a new Lexus and sends his children to private school—he must be a drug kingpin, right?

    In predominantly white professional spaces, this racial anxiety appears in subtler ways. Black people are all too familiar with a particular kind of interaction, in the guise of a casual watercooler conversation, the gist of which is a sort of interrogation: “Where did you come from?”; “How did you get here?”; and “Are you qualified to be here?” (The presumptive answer to the last question is clearly no; Black skin, evoking for white people the iconic ghetto, confers an automatic deficit of credibility.)

    Black newcomers must signal quickly and clearly that they belong. Sometimes this requires something as simple as showing a company ID that white people are not asked for. Other times, a more elaborate dance is required, a performance in which the worker must demonstrate their propriety, their distance from the ghetto. This can involve dressing more formally than the job requires, speaking in a self-consciously educated way, and evincing a placid demeanor, especially in moments of disagreement.

    As part of my ethnographic research, I once embedded in a major financial-services corporation in Philadelphia, where I spent six months observing and interviewing workers. One Black employee I spoke with, a senior vice president, said that people of color who wanted to climb the management ladder must wear the right “uniform” and work hard to perform respectability. “They’re never going to envision you as being a white male,” he told me, “but if you can dress the same and look a certain way and drive a conservative car and whatever else, they’ll say, ‘This guy has a similar attitude, similar values [to we white people]. He’s a team player.’ If you don’t dress with the uniform, obviously you’re on the wrong team.”

    This need to constantly perform respectability for white people is a psychological drain, leaving Black people spent and demoralized. They typically keep this demoralization hidden from their white co-workers because they feel that they need to show they are not whiners. Having to pay a “Black tax” as they move through white areas deepens this demoralization. This tax is levied on people of color in nice restaurants and other public places, or simply while driving, when the fear of a lethal encounter with the police must always be in mind. The existential danger this kind of encounter poses is what necessitates “The Talk” that Black parents—fearful every time their kids go out the door that they might not come back alive—give to their children. The psychological effects of all of this accumulate gradually, sapping the spirit and engendering cynicism.

    Even the most exalted members of the Black elite must live in two worlds. They understand the white elite’s mores and values, and embody them to a substantial extent—but they typically remain keenly conscious of their Blackness. They socialize with both white and Black people of their own professional standing, but also members of the Black middle and working classes with whom they feel more kinship, meeting them at the barbershop, in church, or at gatherings of long-standing friendship groups. The two worlds seldom overlap. This calls to mind W. E. B. Du Bois’ “double consciousness”—a term he used for the first time in this publication, in 1897—referring to the dual cultural mindsets that successful African Americans must simultaneously inhabit.

    For middle-class Black people, a certain fluidity—abetted by family connections—enables them to feel a connection with those at the lower reaches of society. But that connection comes with a risk of contagion; they fear that, meritocratic status notwithstanding, they may be dragged down by their association with the hood.

    When I worked at the University of Pennsylvania, some friends of mine and I mentored at-risk youth in West Philadelphia.

    One of these kids, Kevin Robinson, who goes by KAYR (pronounced “K.R.”), grew up with six siblings in a single-parent household on public assistance. Two of his sisters got pregnant as teenagers, and for a while the whole family was homeless. But he did well in high school and was accepted to Bowdoin College, where he was one of five African Americans in a class of 440. He was then accepted to Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, where he was one of 10 or so African Americans in an M.B.A. class of roughly 180. He got into the analyst-training program at Goldman Sachs, where his cohort of 300 had five African Americans. And from there he ended up at a hedge fund, where he was the lone Black employee.

    What’s striking about Robinson’s accomplishments is not just the steepness of his rise or the scantness of Black peers as he climbed, but the extent of cultural assimilation he felt he needed to achieve in order to fit in. He trimmed his Afro. He did a pre-college program before starting Bowdoin, where he had sushi for the first time and learned how to play tennis and golf. “Let me look at how these people live; let me see how they operate,” he recalls saying to himself. He decided to start reading The New Yorker and Time magazine, as they did, and to watch 60 Minutes. “I wanted people to see me more as their peer versus … someone from the hood. I wanted them to see me as, like, ‘Hey, look, he’s just another middle-class Black kid.’ ” When he was about to start at Goldman Sachs, a Latina woman who was mentoring him there told him not to wear a silver watch or prominent jewelry: “ ‘KAYR, go get a Timex with a black leather band. Keep it very simple … Fit in.’ ” My friends and I had given him similar advice earlier on.

    All of this worked; he thrived professionally. Yet even as he occupied elite precincts of wealth and achievement, he was continually getting pulled back to support family in the ghetto, where he felt the need to code-switch, speaking and eating the ways his family did so as not to insult them.

    The year he entered Bowdoin, one of his younger brothers was sent to prison for attempted murder, and a sister who had four children was shot in the face and died. Over the years he would pay for school supplies for his nieces and nephews, and for multiple family funerals—all while keeping his family background a secret from his professional colleagues. Even so, he would get subjected to the standard indignities—being asked to show ID when his white peers were not; enduring the (sometimes obliviously) racist comments from colleagues (“You don’t act like a regular Black”). He would report egregious offenses to HR but would usually just let things go, for fear that developing a reputation as a “race guy” would restrict his professional advancement.

    Robinson’s is a remarkable success story. He is 40 now; he owns a property-management company and is a multimillionaire. But his experience makes clear that no matter what professional or financial heights you ascend to, if you are Black, you can never escape the iconic ghetto, and sometimes not even the actual one.

    The most egregious intrusion of a Black person into white space was the election (and reelection) of Barack Obama as president. A Black man in the White House! For some white people, this was intolerable. Birthers, led by Donald Trump, said he was ineligible for the presidency, claiming falsely that he had been born in Kenya. The white backlash intensified; Republicans opposed Obama with more than the standard amount of partisan vigor. In 2013, at the beginning of Obama’s second term, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, which had protected the franchise for 50 years. Encouraged by this opening, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas moved forward with voter-suppression laws, setting a course that other states are now following. And this year, the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in college admissions. I want to tell a story that illustrates the social gains this puts at risk.

    Many years ago, when I was a professor at Penn, my father came to visit me. Walking around campus, we bumped into various colleagues and students of mine, most of them white, who greeted us warmly. He watched me interact with my secretary and other department administrators. Afterward, Dad and I went back to my house to drink beer and listen to Muddy Waters.

    “So you’re teaching at that white school?” he said.

    “Yeah.”

    “You work with white people. And you teach white students.”

    “Yeah, but they actually come in all colors,” I responded. I got his point, though.

    “Well, let me ask you one thing,” he said, furrowing his brow.

    “What’s that, Dad?”

    “Do they respect you?”

    After thinking about his question a bit, I said, “Well, some do. And some don’t. But you know, Dad, it is hard to tell which is which sometimes.”

    “Oh, I see,” he said.

    He didn’t disbelieve me; it was just that what he’d witnessed on campus was at odds with his experience of the typical Black-white interaction, where the subordinate status of the Black person was automatically assumed by the white one. Growing up in the South, my dad understood that white people simply did not respect Black people. Observing the respectful treatment I received from my students and colleagues, my father had a hard time believing his own eyes. Could race relations have changed so much, so fast?

    They had—in large part because of what affirmative action, and the general processes of racial incorporation and Black economic improvement, had wrought. In the 1960s, the only Black people at the financial-services firm I studied would have been janitors, night watchmen, elevator operators, or secretaries; 30 years later, affirmative action had helped populate the firm with Black executives. Each beneficiary of affirmative action, each member of the growing Black middle class, helped normalize the presence of Black people in professional and other historically white spaces. All of this diminished, in some incremental way, the power of the symbolic ghetto to hold back people of color.

    Too many people forget, if ever they knew it, what a profound cultural shift affirmative action effected. And they overlook affirmative action’s crucial role in forestalling social unrest.

    Some years ago, I was invited to the College of the Atlantic, a small school in Maine, to give the commencement address. As I stood at the sink in the men’s room before the event, checking the mirror to make sure all my academic regalia was properly arrayed, an older white man came up to me and said, with no preamble, “What do you think of affirmative action?”

    “I think it’s a form of reparations,” I said.

    “Well, I think they need to be educated first,” he said, and then walked out.

    I was so provoked by this that I scrambled back to my hotel room and rewrote my speech. I’d already been planning to talk about the benefits of affirmative action, but I sharpened and expanded my case, explaining that it not only had lifted many Black people out of the ghetto, but had been a weapon in the Cold War, when unaligned countries and former colonies were trying to decide which superpower to follow. Back then, Democrats and some Republicans were united in believing that affirmative action, by demonstrating the country’s commitment to racial justice and equality, helped project American greatness to the world.

    Beyond that, I said to this almost entirely white audience, affirmative action had helped keep the racial unrest of the ’60s from flaring up again. When the kin—the mothers, fathers, cousins, nephews, sons, daughters, baby mamas, uncles, aunts—of ghetto residents secure middle-class livelihoods, those ghetto relatives hear about it. This gives the young people who live there a modicum of hope that they might do the same. Hope takes the edge off distress and desperation; it lessens the incentives for people to loot and burn. What opponents of affirmative action fail to understand is that without a ladder of upward mobility for Black Americans, and a general sense that justice will prevail, a powerful nurturer of social concord gets lost.

    Yes, continuing to expand the Black professional and middle classes will lead to more instances of “the dance,” and the loaded interrogations, and the other awkward moments and indignities that people of color experience in white spaces. But the greater the number of affluent, successful Black people in such places, the faster this awkwardness will diminish, and the less power the recurrent waves of white reaction will have to set people of color back. I would like to believe that future generations of Black Americans will someday find themselves as pleasantly surprised as my dad once was by the new levels of racial respect and equality they discover.


    This article appears in the November 2023 print edition with the headline “Black Success, White Backlash.”

    Elijah Anderson

    Source link

  • The Val Demings Gamble

    The Val Demings Gamble

    On a hot D.C. Wednesday in the middle of July, an 11-foot statue honoring Mary McLeod Bethune—carved out of marble extracted from the same Tuscan quarry that Michelangelo used for his David—stood draped in a black cloak in the U.S. Capitol’s National Statuary Hall. A group of distinguished guests had gathered to honor Bethune, the prominent educator and civil-rights activist who founded a college for Black students in Daytona Beach, Florida, and later served as an adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. She is now the first Black American to have a state statue in the hall.

    The group, which included several members of Florida’s congressional delegation, smiled as cameras flashed. Two of those present, Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Val Demings, are opponents in the race for Rubio’s Senate seat—a race that could secure the Democrats’ control of the Senate. Together, they tugged at the sheet, revealing the white-marble figure clothed in academic regalia, holding a black rose—which, in life, Bethune viewed as a symbol of diversity.

    One by one, speakers approached a lectern in front of the statue to offer remarks. “I remember as a little girl listening to my mother and my father talk about a Black woman, a woman who looked like us, who started a college,” Demings told those who had gathered in the amphitheater. “As I listened to my parents tell the story, it seemed impossible. But Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune made what seemed impossible possible.”

    Demings hopes to conjure some of Bethune’s magic. The race has for some time been considered a long shot for the 65-year-old former Orlando police chief; to win she’ll need to make what seems impossible possible in a state where the voter rolls have flipped from a more-than-100,000-voter Democratic advantage in 2020 to a Republican lead of nearly the same size in less than two years. And for months the polls reflected that, showing Demings trailing Rubio; but in recent weeks, a new batch of polls has shown Demings pulling into an effective tie, or even a slight lead.

    If the race does break her way, the Democrats will have the convergence of two separate story lines to thank. The first is the story of Val Demings herself: a centrist Black woman with a background in law enforcement—just the profile the party has placed its bets on in recent years. It’s no coincidence, after all, that Demings joined then-Senator Kamala Harris and former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, who both worked as prosecutors before seeking elected office, on Joe Biden’s shortlist for his running mate two years ago.

    Political moderates could admire her centrism; people of color could identify with her race; women could identify with her gender. Demings has converted that appeal into a fundraising advantage, pulling in millions more in donations than Rubio so far this cycle, and spending more than twice as much as him on television ads.

    And if the national Democratic Party’s unpopularity had been weighing on her fortunes, the events of recent weeks may have buoyed them. In early August, Democrats in Congress passed a mammoth bill on climate change, health care, and taxes. Though the Inflation Reduction Act is by nature full of compromises, as my colleague Robinson Meyer notes, it “will touch every sector of the economy, subsidizing massive new investments in renewable and geothermal energy, as well as nuclear power and carbon capture and removal, and encouraging new clean-energy manufacturing industries to develop in the United States.” Demings has contrasted her own legislative record with that of Rubio, who has one of the worst attendance records in the Senate. With Congress showing that it can actually function, voters might be more receptive to that argument.

    Demings watches the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings in 2019. (Damon Winter/The New York Times/Redux)

    Demings likes to say she’s living the American dream. In 1957, when she was born, her family lived in a three-room shack in Mandarin, Florida—a rural part of Duval County, just south of Jacksonville. Her father worked as a janitor, and her mother was a housekeeper. A year later, they upgraded to a two-bedroom house, but the roof leaked and for several years it lacked working bathrooms.

    In the sixth grade, Demings helped integrate Loretta Elementary School, which she used to ride past to get to the Black elementary school 15 miles away. Shortly after enrolling, Demings was chosen to serve on the school patrol. She loved it. “You had to have good citizenship and good grades—and I was selected. I had my little orange belt, and I just fell in love,” she told me in July. “It was such an honor to be selected, because it was a big deal.”

    As soon as she was old enough to get a real job, she did: first washing dishes at a retirement home, and later working fast-food gigs. After high school, she went off to Florida State University to study criminology, with an eye toward becoming a lawyer. “My dad used to say, ‘You’re a pretty good talker. You need to make some money talking,’ and he thought being a lawyer was a pretty cool thing,” she said. But scraping her way through college meant she needed a job—not law school—after graduation. “I was broke broke,” she quipped. So she moved back to Jacksonville, where she became a social worker with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. But she soon grew disillusioned, doubting how much good she’d ever be able to do with so little power.

    “I had this 10-year-old boy on my caseload,” Demings said. “He started having some problems, exhibiting behavior that made him really a threat to himself.” She went to her supervisor to see if she could get a psychological evaluation for him, but was told it would be roughly three weeks before a referral could be made; the panel that made those decisions met only once a month.

    Demings was shocked. “This kid would be dead by then,” she recalled telling her boss. So she went around her supervisor to the juvenile judge—waiting outside his chambers until she was able to plead his case. To Demings’s relief, the judge granted an emergency order. She saw it as a small victory in a tough system, until it backfired: Demings was reprimanded by her supervisor for subverting their structure. She felt deflated by the experience, and began to think about what she wanted to do next.

    In 1983, Demings got word that the Orlando Police Department was recruiting at Edward Waters College, the historically Black college in Jacksonville, and she figured that she would go down to speak with someone. That ultimately led to a 27-year career at the department, where Demings worked her way through its ranks: patrol officer, juvenile-crime detective, community-relations officer, public-information officer, hostage negotiator, then supervisor of the patrol, investigations, and airport units. (Some aspects of her career were less deliberate: She always told herself that she’d never date a fellow officer—then she ended up marrying one.)

    As a police captain, she developed a reputation as a tough-on-crime enforcer on everything from traffic violations to violent infractions. “The message has to be clear for the violators: There are no deals,” she said in 2005 after a string of dangerous-driving incidents.

    But that approach, which continued after she was promoted to deputy chief, drew criticism from members of the Black community in the city. She was lambasted after an Orlando Sentinel story examined the department’s overuse of tasers and aggressive traffic stops and she told the paper that her officers were “kicking butt” in the historically Black neighborhood of Parramore. “If that [vehicle or pedestrian] stop results in something greater and leads to drugs or drug paraphernalia, I call that good police work,” she said at the time.

    Still, by late 2007, her policing record, and a succession of departures, led to her being selected as Orlando’s chief of police. She was the first woman and second Black person—after her husband, Jerry, who left that role in 2002 to become the county’s public-safety director—to lead the department.

    From the start, she took an aggressive approach to the job. “We will be courteous to law-abiding citizens but relentless in our efforts to disrupt violent criminals who have no respect for the police, citizens or their property,” she wrote in a New Year’s Day Orlando Sentinel op-ed in 2008. Later that year, Jerry won his race for county sheriff, making the duo the first Black husband and wife to serve as sheriff and chief of police in the same county at the same time.

    Demings often cites the fact that under her leadership, Orlando experienced a 40 percent drop in violent crime. But a string of excessive-force complaints—including a 2010 incident in which an officer broke an 84-year-old man’s neck by flipping him upside down—revealed some of the clear dangers of the aggressive policing tactics that were employed during her tenure. “Apparently it’s perfectly acceptable to break old men’s necks for no reason,” John Kurtz, the founder of the blog Orlando CopWatch, said at the time. Demings initially defended the officer’s actions in the incident, but eventually modified the department’s use of the technique that led to the octogenarian’s fractured vertebrae. In 2011, after 27 years with the department, Demings stepped down and set her sights on a new challenge.

    Elected office wasn’t something Demings had initially been interested in. But as she was about to retire, Mayor Buddy Dyer called her to let her know that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee thought she would be a good candidate to run for the House seat that represented Orlando. “I just burst out laughing,” she told me. “And the mayor’s like, ‘Chief, are you okay?’” She thought he must have been joking. “You know your police chief. I’m a little rough around the edges,” she recalls telling him. “And I don’t know if I’d make a good politician.” Still, she met with Representative Steve Israel, who was the committee chair at the time—and ultimately decided that running for Congress was a logical next step.

    She lost her first campaign and suspended another run for mayor two years later. But her defeats only raised her public profile. By 2016, court-ordered redistricting meant that the Tenth District was significantly more Democratic than it had been when she first ran for office—which meant that her biggest hurdle would be her primary opponent. She won 57 percent of the vote in a four-person primary—and received 15,000 more votes than her nearest competitor. She then won in the general election by nearly 100,000 votes.

    Thirty-three years after Demings had packed everything she owned in the trunk of her Oldsmobile Firenza and headed to Orlando for her new job with the police department, she would be taking her tough-on-crime bona fides to Washington.

    Across two terms, Demings has sponsored or co-sponsored dozens of bills that have become law—though a divided Congress means she does not have a signature piece of legislation to hang her hat on. But her most significant moment came when, in January 2020, she served as an impeachment manager during the first Senate trial of then-President Donald Trump. Though the Senate ultimately acquitted Trump—voting along party lines except for the sole defection of Senator Mitt Romney—Demings’s prominence continued to grow. She was profiled by The Washington Post, NPR, and other national outlets. “Was it worth it? Every day it has been worth it,” she said of the trial after its conclusion. “Just like when I was a law enforcement officer, when I saw someone breaking the law, I did not stop and think about, well, my goodness, what will the judge do? … I did my job to stop that threat and then go to court and plead my case.”

    After that, she landed on Biden’s shortlist for vice president—evidence of both her meteoric rise and the Democratic Party’s relentless search for its next phenom who can capture the national imagination the way Barack Obama did.

    Val Demings
    Demings makes phone calls to constituents from the Pinellas County Democratic headquarters in Florida. (Octavio Jones / Getty)

    “Florida, vota por la jefa de la policía, no por el politiquero,” Demings’s first Spanish-language ad, aired in June, said. Vote for the chief of police, not the politician. Demings is trying to define herself for voters she hopes will form her coalition—particularly the Latino voters who have been tilting Republican in recent years She’s on the defensive: The Rubio campaign has tried to pin the Democratic Party’s most left-wing sensibilities on her.

    In a campaign ad of his own, Rubio touts his endorsement from Florida’s Fraternal Order of Police and 55 sheriffs, and suggests that Demings supported the “Defund the Police” movement—or, at the very least, did not reject it fiercely enough. “Senator Rubio has not only tried not to defund the police; he’s defended the police,” Al Palacio, the Miami Dade public-schools Fraternal Order of Police president, says in the ad. “And we’re here to defend him.” Rubio’s campaign believes that this is a winning issue; an October 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that 47 percent of Americans want to see more spending on police, compared with 15 percent who would like to see budgets reduced.

    Demings dismissed the ad out of hand, responding with a brief statement: “I am the police. This is ridiculous.”

    Though Florida has not seen the same jumps in crime rates as some other parts of the country over the past two years, the race has focused on policing and crime issues. The irony is, were she running as a Republican, Demings would be seen as emblematic of the tough-on-crime policies some voters say they want.

    But because she’s running in a state that is turning redder and redder, Demings has to strike the right balance of being the police enforcer she’s always been while appearing open to reform, and being unrelentingly liberal on issues such as access to abortion while emphasizing her Christian faith so as not to isolate Catholic voters. And she has to highlight her identity—her family’s economic status growing up and, perhaps most important, her race—while not making it the central plank of her campaign. Over the past several years, Florida Republicans have passed laws that limit discussions of identity in classrooms and other public spaces—a bit of a contrast with the political campaign Demings has run, explaining to voters how being a Black woman has shaped her life and informed her policy preferences.

    That’s been a difficult sell: How do you convince voters that you’ll be a senator who can get stuff done if the Democrats can manage to keep their Senate majority, when the Democrats had—at least in the public’s view—gotten so little done? But with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the party’s chances look different now, and maybe, just maybe, Demings will be the beneficiary. If Demings pulls off an upset, it will be not solely because she’s a Black woman, but because the Democrats finally figured out how to rack up some wins in D.C. And what could be a greater crowd-pleaser than that?

    Adam Harris

    Source link