Racism in America: `The struggle will define us'.
Author: Dadisman, MaryAnn
Works Cited Dadisman, MaryAnn. “Racism in America: `The Struggle Will Define Us’.” Human Rights, vol. 19, no. 4, Fall 1992, p. 15. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9312281438&site=ehost-live.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
- Authors:
- Dadisman, MaryAnn
- Source:
- Human Rights. Fall92, Vol. 19 Issue 4, p15-15. 4/5p.
- Document Type:
- Article
- Subject Terms:
-
*FORUMS (Discussion & debate)
*RACISM
*RACE discrimination -- United States
*RACE relations
*CIVIL rights -- United States - Geographic Terms:
- UNITED States
- Abstract:
- This article provides information on an Individual Rights & Responsibilities-sponsored forum at the 1992 Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, which addressed the issue of racism in the U.S. and the role of law. Panelists included Derrick Bell, visiting professor at New York University School of Law, legal correspondent Star Jones of NBC television news, John Godbold, justice with the 14th Circuit Court of Appeals, Elaine Jones, deputy director and counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Paul Igasaki, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, and Cruz Reynoso, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. With regard to the role of the court in ensuring civil rights, Thelton Henderson, moderator of the forum, noted that for many years the judicial system has been viewed as a friend of the movement. Godbold said the 1991 act will change the civil rights forum from the courts to the legislature and that may be a change for the better.
TEXT:
Thelton Henderson, moderator of an IR&R-sponsored forum at this year's Annual Meeting in San Francisco, offered to address "the unthinkable" during the Presidential Showcase program "Can We Talk? Race and the Role of Law."
"Is racial equality possible?" asked the chief justice for the U.S. Circuit Court of the Northern District of California.
On hand to-comment ,were panelists Derrick Bell, visiting professor at New York University School of Law; legal correspondent Star Jones of NBC television news; John God-bold, justice with the 14th Circuit Court of Appeals; Elaine Jones, deputy director/counsel of the NAACP; Paul Igasaki, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus; and Cruz Reynoso, a law professor at UCLA.
Marking the imminent release of Bell's book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Henderson opened the discussion by noting the book's premise that racism is a permanent component of American life.
"I hope I'm wrong," answered the outspoken Bell, who left Harvard in a dispute over tenure for minorities and women, "but I believe racism is a critical and important component in keeping America alive.
"Even poor whites gain self-esteem by looking at black faces at the bottom of the well," he said, and concluded that "racism works too well" to go away any time soon.
While the panel agreed that the law has done much to erase blatant racism--"At least now my own government's not doing it," noted Reynoso--most of the speakers felt that insidious forms of discrimination are just as effective.
"There are a whole hunch of white people who just don't like black people," said Star Jones. "That will never change. You either learn to live with it or you die from it."
However, Star Jones points out that racism will never go away. People will always have the hatred in their hearts, and “you either learn to live with it or you die from it.”
As for the court's role in ensuring civil rights, Henderson noted that for many years the-judicial system has been viewed as a "friend" of the movement. It is a role, however, that Godbold says has undergone a fundamental change with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
"The courts faced up to the challenge of civil rights," said Godbold, "but the courtroom is a very poor place to desegregate schools or manage a mental institution."
Godbold said the 1991 act will change the civil rights forum from the courts to the legislature and "that may be a change for the better. Congress is more reachable, more responsive to the democratic process," the judge said. "The legislature knows how to listen. The courts are precedent-bound; Congress is not."
With this, Congress is more available and reachable. They can be more responsive to this issue, and act on it more efficiently. “The courts are precedent-bound; Congress is not.”
Godbold added that he was disheartened at the pessimism in Bell's remarks. Bell countered that his intent was not to cause despair, but "the enemy is difficult enough without facing in the wrong direction during battle," he said. "We must realize that racism is an important component in the stability of society; we must face the real problem and then strategize."
In a controversial passage from his book, Bell suggested the answer is to license discrimination. "When justice is in their own self-interest, then we will have justice."
Bell talks about licensing discrimination. Bell would have the people who intend to discriminate buy a license that’s would show their personal opinion in any public or business setting. The money from the licensing would go directly to civil rights funds, and their would be tickets or penalties who discriminate without a license.
Bell would have those who intend to discriminate buy a license that would be prominently displayed in the place of business. Proceeds from the licensing would go to a civil rights fund and there would be RICO-type penalties for those who discriminated without a license.
"Many would view getting a license as simply the cost of doing business," countered Elaine Jones. "What would you do with your equality fund if discrimination was sanctioned?"
However, another panelist noted that something similar is already the law in New Jersey, where a statute allows suburbs that discriminate to pay off on the housing they are unwilling to set aside for minorities.
A statute allows suburbs that discriminate to pay off housing that the people are unwilling to set aside for minorities.
"The reality is that there's self-deception in every society," said Reynoso. "Now most Americans accept the notion that equality is a good thing."
Igasaki urged the panel to consider the Buddhist tradition that says it's the journey, not the goal, that is important. "The fight against racism is important in itself," he said.
"Focusing on racism is facing up to what's real," noted Bell. "The question is: What should our effort be? Our struggle will define us."
I think if Bell’s idea was put into place, there would be much backlash. I think it would be hard to police discrimination, and to create laws surrounding ideas and speech. This somewhat takes away the 1st Amendment right, and I feel like it can be seen as unconstitutional even though it would be used for good.
~~~~~~~~
By MaryAnn Dadisman
Copyright of Human Rights is the property of American Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments