The official end of an era

by Prometheus 6
December 18, 2004 - 10:10pm.
on Race and Identity

A Cry for Leadership on Civil Rights
By Mary Frances Berry
Saturday, December 18, 2004; Page A27

In 1980, when I was appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by President Jimmy Carter, the glass of equal opportunity was half full. Today it's teeming with new and intractable challenges that keep it half empty.

In the early days of my tenure, the unemployment rate for blacks was twice that of whites, and the black youth jobless rates -- teetering at 60 percent -- compelled Carter to start a youth unemployment initiative. There was much talk of how awful urban K-12 education was. The uneasiness surrounding the Supreme Court's Bakke ruling on higher education was balanced by the more hopeful Weber decision leaving in place affirmative action in employment.

Fear persisted about the clock being turned back by creeping prejudice and erosion of the reforms of recent decades. But blacks were becoming admirals and generals, and they were visible in the service academies. An African American middle class was becoming reality.

By the time President Ronald Reagan took office, however, there was an atmosphere in this country in which civil rights could be branded as a special interest. I joined the chorus that declared resolutely that civil rights were in fact in the national interest. The battles intensified at the commission, punctuated by fights, firings and court-ordered reinstatements.

With Reagan and the supposedly kinder, gentler Bush I administration came an assault on "racial quotas," as well as cuts in the budget for civil rights enforcement. Some insisted that sex and race discrimination -- if they even existed -- had nothing to do with the economic plight of women or racial minorities. Comparable worth was regarded by such people as a loony idea. But voices persisted, perhaps in the background, to insist otherwise.

By the time President Bill Clinton took office, affirmative action was almost on its deathbed -- labeled "reverse discrimination" against white men. Clinton threw in a lifeboat called "mend it, don't end it." Meanwhile, family and medical leave were coupled with an end to welfare as we know it, giving disadvantaged women dead-end jobs that trapped them and their children in poverty. The black unemployment rate went down in the economic boom.

Highlighting the major problem of health care disparities, Clinton talked the talk about ending invidious discrimination in every area of American life. Racial profiling against blacks and Latinos was in the national spotlight. African American incarceration rates soared, making the United States the world leader in imprisonment. Thanks largely to the "war on drugs" and draconian sentencing, more young black men were enrolled in the prison system than in institutions of higher education.

Enter the years of Bush II with a wave of voting rights complaints that led us to the Florida election battle of 2000. Despite the detractors, our recommendations on the civil rights commission contributed to the national debate on election reform. The Help America Vote Act -- a good try in its conception but lacking sorely in implementation -- attempted to deal with the problem.

During President Bush's first term, we witnessed a retreat on environmental justice, accelerated racial profiling of the traditional targets and expanded targeting of other people of color who "look Arab." And in the post-Sept. 11 world, civil liberties and freedoms were compressed in a chilling quest for national security. A new surge in unemployment among black youth and high Latino dropout rates have gotten only passing attention. At the same time, opposition to affirmative action, and nominations of judges with a stunted vision of equal opportunity, have fostered loud and heated controversies as the administration draws its battle lines.

Today's half-full glass has led to new conversations never considered two decades ago: New Americans bring before us the realities of life for Latinos, Asian Americans, Arab Americans and the attending issues of immigration rights and English as a second language in our public schools. Diversity is evident in appointments to positions never before held by women, blacks or other people of color. So too is the certainty that there is no policy victory in merely putting diverse faces in high places.

Today the nation is crying out for presidential leadership on intractable issues of race, opportunity and rights. A watchdog is still needed: that is the job the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has done.

The president can either squander or seize the moment. His stiff resolve to quiet critics and defeat those he believes may pose a threat to his notion of liberty and justice -- both here and abroad -- can only distance us from the values he has pledged to protect.

The writer, outgoing chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dwshelf on December 19, 2004 - 3:28am.

When we've come to a time when an 75 year old American great grandmother traveling to see her grandchildren is as suspect a terrorist as a 30 year old male with a Saudi Arabian passport, that's not progress.

That's nuts.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on December 19, 2004 - 5:32am.

Neither is it progress to consider something less likely than being struck by lightning more important than things that happen every day. That we do is the reason said gradma is treated so shamefully.

But what has that got to do with the editorial?

Submitted by dwshelf on December 19, 2004 - 5:59am.

We might agree, p6, on the basic anslysis here.

911 will never reoccur. Not because we've enhanced security. Not because we've hit Al Qaida. But because we learned not to surrender the cockpit to a hijacker. The weakness exploited was that contemporary reaction to a hijacking was to be passive. That won't happen again. Passengers are willing to die protecting the cockpit these days.

That said, the editorial writer seems to believe that observing the Arabic, age, and sex status of a person is not useful in detecting risk. That's nuts. It's not a coincidence that all 19 hijackers were young Arab males. There's a sound reason to give such people a second or third look.

Such second and third looks would have disrupted 911.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on December 19, 2004 - 11:48am.

That said, the editorial writer seems to believe that observing the Arabic, age, and sex status of a person is not useful in detecting risk. That's nuts.

Prof. Berry is pointing out the extremism in the administration's response and suggesting it is rooted in American knee-jerk racism. She is not discussing Bush's war-like error whatever it is.

Submitted by dwshelf on December 20, 2004 - 5:25pm.

Prof. Berry is pointing out the extremism in the administration's response and suggesting it is rooted in American knee-jerk racism.

There's no doubt she's expressing displeasure with Bush Jr.

But her opening anti-Bush line had to do with profiling hijackers. It's bad argument on two counts.

First, current Bush administration policy forbids such profiling. She's made a false claim about Bush in an effort to make Bush look bad. It does seem plausible that, rather than being overtly malicious, she's expressing what her flawed model of Bush would do rather than what Bush is actually doing.

Second, I'll not defend all uses of profiling, but to refuse to profile hijackers is flat nuts, because it works. So we should be profiling, but due to political correctness concerns we are not.

What we need in American is for reason to overcome emotion.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on December 20, 2004 - 8:55pm.

The point is, we ARE profiling though we claim we are not.

What we need in American is for reason to overcome emotion.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that evolutionary spurt. Not to mention that all the reason in the world can't correct bad data.