Monika Evstatieva, here...

How is everybody today? We are trying to bring you this week some unexpected stories that you might have not heard of. Usually in the month of August, media outlets are struggling with the lack of news events, but we wanted to prove the rest wrong. So, today we put together a conversation about a topic you do not hear often. I will have my fellow producer Jasmine Garsd tell you more. She put this great story together. So, take it away Jaz...

This morning's program focused on the rise of gangs in Native American communities. No matter what cultural group you belong to, the stories told by our guests, Christopher Grant, Natay Carroll and Harlan McKosato ring a bell. It's about youths who find themselves in tough economic situations, sandwiched between traditional values and the get-rich-quick-and-at-any-cost values. I personally see this a lot in the young Latino community. I've worked with at risk-youth and noticed a common story - strong values coming from parents and grandparents, but a reality of economic hardship, lack of opportunity, and capitalist excess being dangled in front of your eyes daily.

The violence in Native American communities is particularly insidious, because these are communities that have been forced into the darkest corners of popular consciousness. These communities are often not featured in mainstream conversations about poverty and violence, except as footnote or an afterthought.

When you think gang violence and poverty, I bet you usually think about minorities and inner cities. For better or worse, rap, hip hop and more recently reggaeton have made the urban conditions of minorities known to everyone. Some might even say commoditized, packaged and sold at your local shopping mall - you can enjoy the thrill street life from the comfort of your suburban couch!

But rural poverty does not have that PR. When you think welfare, unemployment, and gangs, I bet rural doesn't come to mind. And I'll bet, this is the first time many of you know about the problem of gangs on Native American reservations.

Thank you, Jasmine.

The conversation is truly interesting, so check it out and tell us what you think.

Blog to you soon.

Teshima Walker here.

Raise your hands high if you think President Barack Obama is glad his meeting with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, and Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley is over.

Yeah, I'm throwing my hands up, too.

But, I've learned a few things about myself. I haven't invited anyone outside of my race/ethnicity into my home. What's up with that? I'm not going to lie. I don't think about it. I've gone to other folks homes. I had a wonderful time. I always bring something to drink or some flowers. But, I've never said to Luis, the planning editor for Tell Me More. He's Cuban. "Hey Luis, you, the wife and kids want to come by for some catfish, mustard greens and cornbread?"

I grew up on the south side of Chicago in a segregated community. My parents kept my sister and I very close to them. We didn't have friends coming by our apartment to hang out and no sleep-overs. In other words, I didn't develop an urge or inclination to entertain others. But, I never turn down an invitation to go into someone's home, sit, eat, drink and talk.

Who else is wasting an opportunity to invite good people into their homes. And, Baby, I've learned that before you can have difficult conversations about race, class, gender, you know the hard topics - you've got to like the person you're talking to ... alot.

Anyway, I went to my Facebook page and said the following to my people: "President Obama isn't the only one opening his house up for a conversation about race and reconciliation today. Or, is he? When is the last time you had someone of another race or culture in your home? Did you talk about race? Was it awkward? How awkward was it? What kind of beer did you serve?"

The comments were interesting, funny and some made me scratch my head and say - what in the world? Here's what I've learned:

Continue reading "Let's Talk Race At Your Place ... " >

You may have noticed or heard -- because we are repeating it ad nauseum -- that we (as in the collective NPR we) have redesigned the NPR Web site, the "new" NPR.org.

I've been checking it out, and I came across an opinion piece that I've been thinking a lot about.

It's by Harold Pollack and it ran in partnership The New Republic (NPR also runs pieces from the National Review, among others).

Pollack says that however appalled one might be about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and all that it implies, now is not the time to spend a lot of time worrying and talking about it.

He explains why.

I understand the logic. The argument is that President Obama now needs every member of his possibly fragile coalition to pass health care reform, and there are already signs that lower income less educated whites (who didn't vote for him anyway) are balking.

And although lower income people are far more likely to lack health care, some polls show that these voters are starting to be concerned that the chief beneficiaries of reform will be ... not them. But it will be ... guess who?

So, as Pollack argues, opening up race opens up the kind of race-based conflict that so often obscures the real class issues underneath the surface, and thus dooms the kind of coalition needed to overcome the entrenched special interests, which are organized very much around the status quo on health care.

This could easily be true.

And yet, when is it going to be time?

Continue reading "When Will It Be The 'Right' Time? " >

Lee Hill, here ...

So how's this for a happy hour?:

The nation's preeminent scholar on race and a decorated white police officer. Not so bad, right? But what if the cop recently arrested the black scholar, and the scholar, in turn, accused the cop of racial profiling?

Now, those two may need more than a good beer to get along.

And, the two men will be hosted by the first black leader of the free world, President Obama -- the same President who, when asked to share thoughts about his professor-friend's brush with the law characterized the cop's behavior as stupid (before a national prime time audience of millions ... minor detail, of course).

And so tomorrow evening, at around 6-ish, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Cambridge police officer Sgt. James Crowley and President Barack Obama will sit down for probably the most awkward -- but hopefully reconciliatory -- happy hour-cleansing-inspirational event to ever take place in the White House. And maybe to ever take place anywhere.

Obama's a pro at these types of things, right? Really, how hard could it be?

For instance, an easy ice breaker: why not sports?

Gates, Crowley, how about those Red Sox? (Oh, but they lost to Oakland, Mr. President).

Regroup.

Seen any good TV lately?

(The President prays Professor Gates won't mention CNN's "Black In America 2" ... Or, maybe that's a good place to start.)

At any rate, I can't help but wonder what will -- and what can -- come of tomorrow's brotherly chat. Gates and Obama have walked back their earlier strong statements about the arrest. Crowley has said on occasion he has no intention of apologizing.

So that leaves ...

1.) Drink brewskis and sing karaoke to MJ's classic "We Are the World?"

2.) Drink beer floats. (Ice cream makes everything better.)

3.) Take First Lady Michelle Obama's advice and give fist bumps all around.

Seriously, what do you think will come of it?

What I'd give to be in the next room!

I do hope they at least work buffalo wings onto the menu.

It'd be a shame for them to leave hungry.

You know a story is a third rail when you wind up talking about it at a six-year-old's birthday party.

That happened this weekend at a party for my children's friends and we wound up talking about the L'affair Gates. You, of course, know this is about Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., being arrested in his house last week, the charges were later dropped (like in nanoseconds). But the story has sparked much commentary, in no small part, because the President chose to weigh in and then tried to tip-toe back out.

Of course, this is Washington, D.C., and many of us here are connected to the story in some way. Some of us know Professor Gates, or we went to Harvard, or work in or follow government, we are all interested in what Obama is up to (some of my friends do diversity work and, thankfully, it's a mixed crowd ... yada yada yada). Plus, it is kind of catnip ...

Who among us has not had some encounter with the police -- whether as a teenager hanging out at the mall, or a 7-Eleven ... getting pulled over for a traffic stop, dare I say it, having a wee bit much to drink (not me, of course, just reporting)?

But what continues to surprise is what an emotional story this is. I know to some people it's a "distraction," a waste of time from talking about more important legislative priorities, like health care. But one person's distraction is another person's vital issue. I think one of the things that has made this conversation so compelling and, frankly, painful to me is the sense that many Americans are utterly ignorant about and indifferent to how painful this is to black and brown people, especially to boys and men -- decent men, law abiding men, well behaved children. Innocent. If you ask any of the men of color you know if they have had some negative encounter with the police or other law enforcement that made them feel needlessly humiliated, I bet the answer will be yes.

Why does it have to be that way? I believe it does not. The other thing that bothers me is the sense that some people seem to have that this is our only choice. I don't believe it is, and, in part, I don't believe it is because I have so many law enforcement officers in my own family who I know go out there, or have gone out there, everyday trying to do right by all people. And I just refuse to believe that we cannot figure out how to do better by all of our citizens.

I remember how, after Sept. 11, when I was one of those people who still had to travel because of my job. What a difference attitude made among law enforcement at the airports. You remember those were very tense times. And I distinctly remember a (white) officer in the Atlanta airport whose courtesy and calm literally brought the temperature down several degrees.

I say all that to say, I hope something good will come of all this hoo-ha about Gates et al. I don't know that it will. I just hope so.

iStock

 

Lee Hill, here ...

First, if you haven't already, check out fellow NPR producer Enrique Rivera's commentary from today's program. The piece is a follow up to our coverage of the recent arrest of prominent Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who says he was racially profiled by police in Cambridge, Mass.

I wasn't there when Professor Gates was arrested at his home after police thought he fit the description of what was believed to be two black males suspected of trying to burglarize his own house, but I have read the conflicting accounts -- the police report and Gates' own statement of what happened. (Gates says he produced proper identification proving the home as his place of residence; the police report (pdf) by Sgt. James Crowley says Gates was arrested for "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior" and was, therefore, hauled off in handcuffs. The charges were recently dropped.)

While my interpretation of what really happened and who's telling the full story might not carry the weight of an eye-witness account, I can tell you that -- emotionally speaking -- I have been where Professor Gates says he is now, and was on that day ... more than once (and have blogged about it).

But what I cannot adequately explain is how emasculating, in particular, and dehumanizing, in general, to feel utterly helpless when you think those authorized to enforce the law are using that same power to desecrate the very thing which they have been entrusted to uphold.

And even more upsetting is when the realization that one's own socioeconomic class ranking -- as a journalist, or an ivy league scholar; as a physician or ... perhaps a fellow police officer -- is the only thing that carries the power of vindication in that moment.

And sometimes that doesn't even work.

But, then again, it shouldn't matter.

So, Lee, what exactly is racial profiling?

I see it, informed by my own experience, as being perceived -- consciously or subconsciously -- by those in authority as inherently criminal, or innately incapable of good (born to be and do wrong or less), all based on one's skin tone.

Now, wouldn't that make you emotional?

A bicyclist passes by the home of Harvard Scholar Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, Mass. Gates was arrested last week while trying to force open the locked front door of his home near Harvard University. Following public outcries of racism and widespread media attention, the city announced Tuesday its plan to dismiss charges against Gates. AP

 

You just came home from an overseas trip. You're tired, probably jet lagged. You get to your front door. It won't open. It looks as if it's been tampered with. Uh oh. Have you been burglarized? Is something missing?

The TV? The stereo? The computer?

Or is the door just stuck?

So you let yourself in the back door, turn off the alarm, and do a quick look around. Your driver brings in the luggage while you call the repair guy to ask him to look at the door. ... And what do you see?

A police officer standing in your door.

And what's this?! He is asking you who you are. He wants to know if you can prove this is your house. He thinks you burglarized your own house.

You are a police officer. You get a 911 call about two black men, and the caller says, "I see them trying to force the door."

You show up. You see a man. He's on the phone. You demand ID. He produces it but then demands yours, too, and you think he's becoming kind of agitated and a bit loud.

So, how do you respond to this? How does this end?

I am guessing your answer depends on a number of variables, and, yes -- like it or not -- race is probably one of them. Your race, the officer's race, his or her attitude toward you, and, frankly, each of your past experiences are all factors.

Yes, it's another of those stories.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., one of this country's best known scholars, was arrested at his home last week in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He had just returned from China.

And here's a excerpt from Gates' full statement, made through his attorney and colleague Charles Ogletree, whom we spoke with earlier in the day:

Continue reading "Racial Profiling Goes High Profile" >

We talked about a lot of important things today. I feel strongly that we needed to have the Behind Closed Doors conversation about the sexual abuse of young boys, but I am going to focus on the story a lot of people are talking about: the case involving the Valley Club in Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania that rescinded its contract with a Philadelphia daycare center after one visit.

A representative of the swim club said the club is "very diverse" and that the kids were kicked out because the center brought too many children, and there were not enough lifeguards to safely watch them all. But several of the kids overheard what they considered racist remarks directed at them. This has triggered a storm of controversy, and there are many and varied opinions about whether the club was within its rights or not and how this could have been handled better.

Here's Valley Swim Club President John Duesler, who recently addressed reporters with an apology (courtesy of nbcphiladelphia.com):

But what most impressed me are all the notes I received from people sharing their memories of being poorly treated at pools and beaches.

Here's an email I received from a friend when she heard about the story. There's some tough language (the N-word), so be warned:

She writes:

When I was 12, I went to a summer enrichment program at a new junior high school where my friend's father was principal. I went on a weekend trip to an youth hostel at Blue Lake, MI. That Saturday morning, I was in a canoe with the (white) woman caretaker when the white man from next door came over screaming at her. He said that he and his wife came up there every weekend from Pontiac to get away from the niggers. He screamed about niggers this, and niggers that. He said he was going to burn the place down. I have never forgotten this.

Here's another incident:

Continue reading "The Color Of Water" >

Lee Hill, here ...

Today we did a story on the Bonnie Sweeten case. She is a white woman from Pennsylvania who falsely accused two black males of kidnapping her and her daughter. In reality, she and her daughter had fled to Disney World, even as a serious investigation was underway. This is the latest case of a racial hoax, and criminologist Katheryn Russell-Brown told Michel on the program today that these cases are more prevalent than we may think. But how do these type of false allegations affect the communities they target? Tell Me More Producer Arwa Gunja decided to find out. Take it away, Arwa.

Thanks, Lee. Arwa Gunja, here ...

I caught up with Albert Butler this morning. He's the host of Al B in the Afternoon, a talk show that airs on WURD-AM in Philadelphia. His show is based about thirty minutes from where Bonnie Sweeten lives, and Albert's listeners are mostly African-American. So when the truth broke about Bonnie Sweeten's allegations, I decided to ask Albert how his listeners were responding to racial hoax. Take a listen:

And here are more thoughts from Albert:

Philadelphia radio host Al Butler. Courtesy of Al Butler

White women have been falsely accusing black men of crimes since Africans were first forcibly brought to these shores. So it was no surprise to my radio audience or me when the latest incident involving Bonnie Sweeten came to light.

It was also no surprise when the mainstream media jumped all over the "two black men in a Cadillac" story (even though the facts were hazy from the start). Once the truth was discovered, hearing Bonnie Sweeten described as "not well" and "troubled" was definitely no surprise. Either was it a surprise that whatever crime that she would be accused of, there would be no accounting for the harm done to any black men or other men of color that were in the area of the "crime." Little is ever said about the damage that is done when an APB for non-existent black suspects is broadcast and how black men (and those close to them) in the area have to endure "you fit the description" stops -- the actual description never matters because we all, always "fit" the description.

For days, my lines were lit up with callers frustrated with the history of false allegations and America's complicity, media coverage and a lack real accountability for the for people who would fabricate such fables. Many lamented that these types of incidents can still happen in this day in age, with President Obama in the White House. Others were more cynical: one caller said, "I am gonna die in the same world my father died in, and he died in the same one his father lived in ... Nothing ever changes."

I tend to be an optimist. I see change everyday and have seen significant change. But when you see the news flash, hear the media coverage, feel the reaction of an entire country, and read the simple charge of filing a false police report as punishment for another assault on a beleaguered community ... well, it's not a surprise.

Thanks, Arwa. And thanks, Al, for your insight.

Jennifer Ludden, here ... I'm sitting in for Michel Martin.

I used to be based in West Africa for NPR, and one of themes that's stayed with me is the disconnect between Africans and African-Americans.

I did a story once on the "slave castles" in Ghana -- that's what they call them. They are the seaside jails where Africans were held before their (African) captors put them onto ships for Britain and America. The locals told me how amazed they were when black Americans would tour a site and be moved to tears -- and how the visitors didn't appreciate that ambivalent reaction one bit.

One castle director said Ghanaians are taught about slavery through an economic prism, as part of the 18th and 19th century "triangle trade" across the Atlantic. He said Ghanaians' view of blacks in America came mostly through the media -- they saw rich movie and music stars, and had little understanding of the daily racism many African Americans endure -- and so, they just didn't get why these Americans felt so bad about these slave castles.

This is why I was intrigued when I read about the creation of the Black Immigration Network, a coalition of activists that seeks to encourage African Americans to support black immigration. Our conversation today centered on the hotly contested issue of the economic impact of immigration, and you could back and forth for hours about that. But as the black immigrant community in this country grows (census figures show it's increased rapidly since 1990) there are bound to be all kinds of awkward encounters ... and more attempts at understanding.

Our society lumps these disparate groups together for the color of their skin, but they have very different views on so many things.

-- Jennifer Ludden

iStock

 

Lee Hill, here ...

Former U.S. Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales and legal scholars Charles Ogletree and Lani Guinier. If you heard today's broadcast, then you heard these voices share their opinions -- and do so quite openly -- on choosing the next Supreme Court nominee, who will replace Justice David Souter after his planned retirement in June.

(By the way, I never thought I'd hear Gonzales, Ogletree and Guinier in the same conversation. Did that strike anyone else as really quite ... something?)

The group, following a one-on-one chat with Gonzales and Michel Martin, talked about whether President Obama should consider the diversity of the high court -- or perhaps the lack thereof -- when nominating the next Supreme Court justice.

What do you think?

Does it matter if the justices do not necessarily look like the rest of the country? Or, is it more important that the court be ideologically diverse (which is not always synonymous with ethnic diversity)? Or, should certain achievements alone -- the prestige of one's academic portfolio, affiliations, past appointments, etc. -- suffice as qualifiers for appointment to the highest court in the land?

And, regarding the latter portion of today's program, take a listen to our discussion on historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). We sat down with Sidney Ribeau. He's the new the president of Howard University (well, almost new ... he just finished his first academic year as the school's leader).

Today's other big question: do black colleges still fulfill a vital need in society? If so, can they -- performance-wise -- hold their own, so to speak, in the current educational environment? (Full disclosure: I am an HBCU graduate, of Howard.)

Tough questions, I know. But that's why we're here, right?

Lee Hill, here ...

So, today, The New York Post, offered a peculiar apology for the now infamous cartoon that ran in the "Page Six" section of its newspaper on Wednesday.

A quick recap of the drama: A caricature attempts to marry themes of both the recent police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut with scrutiny surrounding President Obama's newly signed economic stimulus bill. In the cartoon, a chimpanzee appears to be shot dead by police who then make reference to the stimulus bill.

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," says the officer as the gunsmoke clears.

There's a big argument that the chimp was meant to depict Obama, the "real-life" captain behind the economic recovery package.

All in the name of parody.

(Click here to see the actual cartoon. We also touched on this in today's conversation on racial dialogue in the U.S., and in the Barbershop.)

Among the many reasons this just didn't sit well with a broad range of critics who rebuked the paper for running the cartoon, is the fact that -- and it has to be said -- there was a time in this country when referencing an African-American as a monkey was an iconic racial slur.

So, add the race factor (and the Rev. Al Sharpton) to all the criticism by the general population over the cartoon for, at the very least, being insensitive ... and what do you get?

A resounding, "have you lost your mind?" directed at Rupert Murdoch's newspaper.

That being said, here's the apology that ran in today's The New York Post:

Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.

Question: To whom is the apology directed, and exactly who is it not intended for? Does it mean that whoever is a part of that group -- in other words, "the opportunists" -- has no legitimate right to be upset or offended by the cartoon?

It's left some wondering ...

And even if one might have a history of "differences" with an institution, and/or if vengeance is sweet justice to an individual who, for whatever reason, may not hold the newspaper in the highest respect, is it absolute cause for that person to be stripped of his or her right to be fundamentally ... offended, and thus not in the "target apology group"?

I've been thinking about this, and am curious to know your thoughts ...

Do you think the above is ... an apology, even if it has conditions?

Or, should the The New York Post be cut some slack for even acknowledging there is an outcry (which they really are not obligated to do)?

Happy Friday.

In 1926, Carter G. Woodson (1875-1950) chose February to honor the accomplishments of African-Americans, a time originally themed as "Negro History Week." Woodson is commonly credited as the "father of Black history."ton Archive/Getty Images

This is Teshima Walker, supervising senior producer for "Tell Me More."

February is Black History Month and TMM is observing the month with the new series "Tell Me More About Black History."

Here's a funny story about the title of the series: During one of our lengthy editorial meetings, I asked how the show plans to acknowledge Black History Month.

The host, Michel Martin, says, "I don't care what we do, but can we please expand the conversation beyond Harriet Tubman and the 'peanut guy' (George Washington Carver).

Wow!

I thought of just the right person to help further our dialog about the contributions of black people to North America -- Kai Wright.

Wright is the editor of an amazing new book titled The African American Experience: Black History and Culture Through Speeches, Letters, Editorials, Poems, Songs and Stories. In the coming weeks, he will move us through six centuries of black history and culture (16th through 21st Centuries).

It's not enough time, we know, but please enjoy the selections chosen by Wright for "Tell Me More about Black History."

For yesterday's first installment, we brought you a historic first-person narrative of the slave Olaudah Equiano.

Next time, Wright talks about a statement from a town hall meeting of freed blacks who lived in New York and Philadelphia. He'll tell how they tackled issues of colonization and a very early "back-to-Africa movement." Plus, we'll have two letters from the Civil War era. One such writing is from a white doctor who traveled with Northern troops to refugee camps; he recounts what he sees. The other letter is from a black Union soldier still enslaved who writes to his daughter as his army troop advances to war.

Also to be included in the series, (one of my favorites) a tale of the defiant and legendary blues songstress Bessie Smith.

We'll have at least two additional contributions from Kai Wright to our Web site, too.

Your Turn

We also want to know what you're learning during Black History Month. Is there someone we should know more about?

Are you hosting a celebration? Will you invite us?

We love a good party and, better, food.

Keep listening and blog it out!

It's Halloween, so I'll be dashing out of here as soon as possible. My daughter already informed me that she expects today to be "the BEST day of the YEAR!"

"Why?," I asked.

She looked at me as if I were insane or just severely limited.

"Because we get CANDY," she replied.

Well, we'll see about that.

In the meantime, here is a Halloween picture from frequent TMM guest Jolene Ivey:

Jolene Ivey

 

On a more serious note, I can just imagine that many of you will be offended by our inetrview with high-profile white supremacist (and he doesn't like the term, as you will hear) David Duke.

We felt in the wake of the recent arrest of these two white supremacists in an alleged plot to kill Sen. Barack Obama and others, as well as all the racist chatter surrounding the Obama presidency, it fit the mandate of the program to talk to someone who holds those views, and not just talk about them. Duke, as you will hear, claims to eschew violence as a means to his ends and also claims to only advocate "white civil rights," and not "white supremacy."

Well, you be the judge. We asked him what it would mean to this country to have its first black President.

Have a good Halloween everyone.

Jasmine Garsd has something to say so I'm going to step aside....

This presidential race has centered more on the identity of Americans -- race, gender, age and religion -- than any other race most of us can remember. Perhaps the most important question that arises from this phenomenon, and a question that will certainly continue no matter who wins in November, is whether this election will unify America or divide it further? Are Americans finally daring to cross traditional voting schemes? Or, are they scared of the unknown? Are we running to our comfortable old alliances, cementing ourselves more than ever in voting according to our religious, ethnic and gender identity?

Our program has focused extensively on voters who dare to defy what vote is expected of them. On Friday we spoke with James T. Harris, an African-American radio host (who is voting for Senator John McCain) and John Martin, founder of Republicans for Obama. What strikes me as telling about their decision is the reaction they have received from their communities; incredibly hostile.

On Sunday, when former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell announced his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama, reactions were also mixed. Although Powell explained his reasoning for the endorsement very insightfully on NBC's Meet the Press, there are plenty of voices out there saying his decision is based on race.

This does not do justice to the deep thought process Powell outlined on Sunday. Yet Powell's endorsement -- and the suspicious reaction it has produced in some quarters -- is emblematic of the theme of these elections. Are we being pushed to challenge our traditional values? Or are we being squeezed more than ever into our traditional voting roles?

What do you think?

Lorrie Grant here ....

So if you listened to our program today you took in a number of rich goodies. The lead segment discussed how small-business owners have to be nimble in this awkward economy; the last segment was a light and enlightening conversation about Latino luminaries.

But most striking -- to me anyway -- was the relatively short segment in the middle about the impending execution of a Georgia man. His name is Troy Davis. Whether he really killed an off-duty police officer in Savannah, Ga. 19 years ago is not certain. Several witnesses have recanted their testimony, but neither the state's pardons board nor high court is willing to concede. And just yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the case "the hand."

So I listened to our guest, Virginia Sloan, founder and president of the Constitution Project, in search of some rationale for not hearing the full case. I just wanted to know there was kernel of fairness in the justice system. "The system has to accomodate claims of innocense," she told host Michel Martin.

While I sympathize with the family of the victim, Mark McPhail, I couldn't help but wonder how much Davis' race is factor in all of this. He's African-American. McPhail was white. And we know how that goes. The Death Penalty Information Center lays out the data. But in short, the number of persons executed since 1976 when the defendant was black and the victim white: 228; but when the defendant was white and the victim black: 15.

Davis' case has won international support. Some are just flat out opposed to the death penalty and others just yearn for real justice -- let the chips fall where they may.

Your thoughts?

Do you ever find yourself regretting something you've said minutes after the words left your mouth? That's the position I find myself in about yesterday's commentary criticizing the McCain campaign for the way it is addressing the whole question about whether Barack Obama's relationship -- such as it is -- with former Weather Underground member (now university professor) William Ayers should be part of the presidential campaign.

You can listen here if you missed it.

It's not just that after I recorded and posted the commentary John McCain had this exchange with a supporter who insisted that Obama "scared" her because "he's an Arab."

McCain, as you can see, immediately disputed this falsehood and the woman's characterization, saying that Obama is "a decent man." Now, let's not parse words but we do have to ask whether someone should have to be defended against being an "Arab" any more than one should have to be defended against being considered black or Jewish.

This reminds me of Gentlemen's Agreement, the famous film from the 1940's. You remember it? Uber-WASP Gregory Peck goes undercover and portays himself as Jewish to write a report on anti-Semitism, and when his son is teased about it -- actually harassed about it; his so called friends call him a dirty Jew -- Peck's erstwhile (and soon to be ex) girlfriend does not challenge the slur but only that it applied to the boy! ("Why, you're no more Jewish than I am!")

But I take the point that McCain was trying to figure out how to respond in the heat of the moment, and that gets me to my point. I don't take back anything I said -- only the way I said it. I had the same snarky know-it-all tone I can't stand when I hear it from other people, and I regret that.

Now, here's why I don't take back what I said.

Continue reading "On Second Thought ..." >

Lorrie Grant here ...

So Tell Me More is observing Columbus Day today. But we've still been busy, working hard to bring you relevant programming. And, boy, did we come up with a good one for you -- if we say so ourselves!

You've gotta check out our conversations with Wilma Mankiller and Ted Koppel. They offer two very different takes on matters of race.

The Mankiller interview shed light on Native Americans' sentiments about someone discovering a land already occupied and then overtaking those occupants in cruel ways.

Be sure and tell us what you think. Did America commit genocide?

The Koppel discussion previewed his documentary on race in America. He took a look at the last recorded lynching in the United States -- in 1981! You can see the whole thing tonight on Discovery Channel.

We're interested in your thoughts about this too. Has this country really progressed in terms of race (there is after all an African-American nominee for president on a major party ticket -- a first)? What do you make of a lynching as recent as 1981?

There's also this gem: What not to say to Latino co-workers. It's a discussion with Luke Visconti , co-founder of DiversityInc., and Daniel Guadelupe, a lawyer and partner at the New Jersey firm of Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus.

Remember, we want to know what you think.

And you should have known that there was just too much going on on the political front for host Michel Martin to hold back. Can I just tell you that the nasty tone of the presidential race seems to have plucked a nerve.

That's it for now. Have a wonderful Columbus Day -- after you've listened to the program...

Is race back in the race for president? Or more to the point, race baiting --especially by the McCain campaign?

This is the question we took up for much of the program, both in our political segment and Barbershop.

The New York Times says yes. Give this editorial it a read when you can steal minute; but here's the operative quote:

"Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember. They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent's record -- into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia."

Campbell Brown, anchor of CNN's Campbell Brown: Election Center, says yes and no. Check out her commentary for more.

So what did our contributors have to say? You'll have to listen to today's program to find out, but suffice it to say that you will find a range of well-reasoned opinions on this program.

We'd like to know what you think too.

Monday's a holiday -- but I'll still have something to say (no break here) -- so enjoy the long weekend. And speaking of the weekend...

If you attend a church or another house of worship are you interested in your faith leader's political advice? From the pulpit? Some mainly conservative ministers felt they want to give it but the IRS says, not so fast. Hear our discussion about that as well, and let us know what you think.

Rhode Island Council for the Humanities

The Tell Me More crew is pulling up stakes and heading back to DC from our brief sojourn in Providence, Rhode Island where there was great food, great weather -- the leaves have not turned as much as we had thought they would by now but it's really fall up here.

As I said, we were here to participate in the Freedom Festival, a commemoration of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. Having marked the commemorative date on our program earlier this year I remain struck by the distance between what scholars "know" about slavery and its effect on this country, and what the public believes or has been taught.

At one point James Campbell, professor of history at Stanford University, told us about a book review he had written in which he pointed out that in the 18th century, two-thirds of all people who made transatlantic crossings were Africans. He was challenged on this by the editor who just did not believe it. He pointed out how pervasive slavery's root was in the economy -- all 13 colonies had slaves at the outset (although slavery was abolished in the north first, it existed). Yet when these issues are often brought to the public's attention, the reaction is anger, denial and resentment.

So I'd like to ask you: Are you open to the idea that slavery's effect on the economy and society is more widespread than most people have been taught? Are there ways in which you see the legacy of slavery today? And perhaps most important, how can this society best move forward? More education? More talk? Or, here's a thought, less?

And speaking of talk, we will be listening to and watching the presidential debate tonight, the second of a series of three. We are eager to get your impressions. What questions would you like to ask?

Let us know what you think.

Two flags wave at the 2008 Arab Heritage Celebration at Tibbetts Brook Park in Yonkers, NY.

kptyson

Lee Hill, here ...

Yesterday, we marked seven years since Sept. 11, when nearly 3,000 lost their lives to a catastrophe that gripped that nation. It's amazing how one Tuesday morning forever changed the way many of us see the world ... and how the world sees many of us.

On yesterday's program, we introduced you to a new book by Moustafa Bayoumi called How Does it Feel to Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America. Bayoumi explained the book's effort to spotlight the experiences of seven young Arab-Americans who had a tough time navigating life in a post-Sept. 11 United States, where complicated public perceptions of the attacks gave birth to new brands of stereotypes, fueling widespread discrimination.

Yasmin (we're using her first name only here for sensitive reasons related to the subject matter), is one of the seven young people whose stories Moustafa Bayoumi tells in his book. After recording the TMM conversation you heard yesterday with Bayoumi, Yasmin later talked with us (and now, with you), specifically, about hurdles she faced as an Arab-American youth. She shares wisdom gained from her adversity and, all in all, how it felt to 'be a problem.'

Here's the TMM Web Extra:

The experience of Omar, a young man of blended Latino and Arab heritage, is another one the seven stories written about in Bayoumi's new book. In another TMM Web Extra conversation, Omar tells Michel Martin how his life somehow shifted gears after interning at the New York bureau of Al-Jazeera television, a popular Arabic language news network.

Listen for yourself:

If you're Arab-American and can identify with Yasmin or Omar's experiences, or if you're of another ethnic background, and see parallels that can be drawn alongside other forms of discrimination in our nation's not-too-distant past, you're free to blog your thoughts and experiences below ...

Statues in Stonetown, Zanzibar mark the center of the slave trade in East Africa.

iStock

... How does that make you feel?

I ask because, 140 years after the end of slavery, the House of Representatives yesterday apologized to black Americans for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow" -- Jim Crow, being the system of legally enforced segregation and second class citizenship that many people (not all African American) believe still carries important social consequences to this day.

This is not the first apology rendered by the nation's legislative leaders. Previously, Congress apologized for imprisoning Japanese Americans and immigrants during World War II, and the Senate apologized for atrocities committed against Native Americans and for failing to do anything about the century-long lynching campaign against African Americans. Several states, including Virginia and New Jersey, have previously expressed regret for slavery. Many African Americans wonder why, given that history, it has taken so long for the nation to atone for what some consider America's original sin.

But, of course many say, so what?

Why now? Who cares?

Or, what does this have to do with me?

So, we want to know what you think.

Long overdue?

Let sleeping dogs lie?

Is the apology an empty gesture, or a powerful symbol of reconciliation?

Listen to what the bill's sponsor, Rep. Steve Cohen, has to say about it. And, if it means anything, Cohen is a Democrat, he is white and he represents a Memphis-based district.

... And then tell us more about what you think.

(I also want to refer you to Tuesday's conversation with Katrina Browne and Juanita Brown. Their documentary, Traces of the Trade, documents Katrina's family's involvement with the slave trade. It turns out they were major slavers, and the film shows what she decided to do about it.)

And, hear about one of America's enduring symbols of slavery, "Uncle Tom." He might not be the guy you think he is.

iStock

Happy Bastille Day!

And what that has to do with us? Not a darn thing, except I'll take any excuse for a party. Champagne, anyone?

Onto today's business, which is not the happiest. (You might want that glass of bubbly, I don't know.)

The American Medical Association (AMA) is offering apologies for its legacy of aiding and abetting racism in the medical profession. I want to point out the Washington Post piece, which broke the story last week. It details exactly why the AMA's history of excluding African American physicians matters, or did matter.

African Americans within the medical community were often denied hospital privileges, or access to continuing education, so they had a hard time being trained on the latest techniques. They were also denied scholarships because, often, the AMA would not give any support to doctors trained at black hospitals. And on, and on ...

Is this ancient history?

No.

Dr. Carl Bell, one of Chicago's (and frankly the country's) most prominent physicians, experienced many of these things in the late 1960's and early 70's. Bell was one of our guests on today's program, along with AMA immediate past president Dr. Ronald Davis, who wrote the apology.

Our question to you: Do you care? Does this matter?

Does this make clear the organization's "current moral orientation," as Davis put it, or is it just a way to relieve past guilt.

... Too little, too late (or some other point of view we haven't thought of)? No need to open old wounds? Do public apologies matter?

And, today's conversation about undocumented immigrant undergrads ... Here is where I hope we can have a deeper discussion because, frankly, I don't think we got all the way there in the interview, for which I take full responsibility. I'll just say it: it was interesting to hear the existentialist, as well as the practical dilemmas of undocumented college undergrads, but I still feel there are social equity issues that were not fully explored.

Is this a sins-of-the-fathers question, like the apologies for past racism? Are we asking children who were brought here by their parents without papers to pay for their parents' decision by denying them access to higher education, for which they would otherwise be qualified?

Are we encouraging more people to break the law? Are we flouting the law? ... Or, is this common sense, suggesting that if people are here in the U.S., they should be as well trained as possible?

Mariana Zamboni, one of our guests in today's discussion, had these thoughts after the interview (posted with her permission):

... I left feeling unaccomplished, especially when I had to answer the question Ms. Martin asked Professor Wong and I about social equity and granting undocumented immigrants privileges/rights above those waiting in line. Although I support the importance of complying to the law and understand that undocumented immigrants broke the law by entering the country without proper documentation or overstaying their visa, reality is that when migration determines if you live or die, waiting in line for 10 years is not feasible. The factors that lead many immigrants to leave their countries is rarely addressed. The war and poverty led many Guatemalans to migrate many illegally, like my family. What is rarely discussed is the involvement of the U.S. government in training and financing the war in Guatemala. So, we are here because they were there. U.S. foreign policy has had a huge impact on the economic development and social conditions of many Latin American countries, and as a result [there is] pushing and pulling to immigrate to the United States. But, it was difficult for me to express this sentiment on the air because I come from a country that if you speak up against the government you are killed. And, although I don't think I will lose my life, I felt very scared to share my opinion because I am not a naturalized U.S. citizen yet, therefore, I was afraid to speak up. So, through this email, I hope my voice can be fully heard.

What's the right frame for having this discussion? Should we revisit? ... And with whom?

Also regarding today's program, if you have time, I'd love for you to read Ha Jin's story in its entirety. You don't need to be a fan of his work to devour the details of his first summer in America -- although, I think it will convert you, as well as the other three essays (one was so heartbreaking, I had a hard time getting through it ... if you have young kids yourself, I bet you can guess which one).

And, TMM's CHEAPSKATE week. What about taking a vacation (horrors!) at home?

I confess my family did not grow up going on vacations, so I don't find this so startling as a concept. But, what I do wonder is: if taking a "staycation," how do you keep your office from bugging you when they know you're at home?

Lee Hill, NPR

Hi everyone, Cheryl Corley, here. Still keeping the chair warm for Michel Martin.

I typically work in Chicago. But while I'm here filling in for Michel, I decided over the weekend to become a tourist and went on a walking tour of the U Street area in Washington. I came across a fascinating find -- the African-American Civil War Museum and the African-American Civil War Memorial, which will celebrate its 10th anniversary next month.

At the memorial, there's a statue of colored troops surrounded by walls bearing the names of the more than 209,000 soldiers of African descent that served in the Civil War. The Assistant Director of the Museum, Hari Jones, told all of us on the tour so many rich nuggets of information. Tell Me More had to have him on the show, especially since Juneteenth was so near.

Of course, Juneteenth is traditionally known as the day slaves in Texas found out about the Emancipation Proclamation. Jones says there's much more to the story, so take a listen. I'm sure you'll learn something you didn't know.

Then, take a look at our audio slideshow. Tell Me More webmaster Lee Hill took some beautiful photos of the memorial and the museum.

Of course, African-Americans have participated in every major U.S. war. The recent flap between film directors Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood over Eastwood's World War II films sparked some controversy, though, when Lee criticized Eastwood for not including blacks in his films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Lee is making his own film, Miracle at St. Anna, about an African-American military unit.

But we decided to go straight to the source. Former Marine Sergeant Thomas McPhatter has his own riveting story to tell of his days in the military when he found himself heading toward the beach on Iwo Jima in February of 1945.

War horrors often cause problems for veterans returning home. Our Wisdom Watch guest, Judge Robert Russell, told us about the court system he's set up to deal solely with veterans.

All that on the show today. Plus, a feisty argument over an effort to stave off some of the ever rising foreclosures in the country.

Talk to you tomorrow,

-- Cheryl Corley

iStock

People, people, people. Thanks so much for weighing in on my commentary yesterday. I appreciate the kudos, and the occasional brickbat.

But some of you folks just make me go, huh?

Let's go back to Michel's Rules for Racial Dialogue ...

RULE 1: When black people mention race, it does NOT mean they are calling all white people racist, or some white people racist ... or even any particular person racist. (Now, some people are racist. Can we all just admit that?) But the point is that race sometimes has implications and effects that are unconscious, or unintentional, but which are, nevertheless, deeply rooted and ongoing. And those effects have consequences for some people that they might need or want to talk about.

Think of it this way: breast cancer attacks people of different races at different rates, and the mortality rates are different. Does it mean that cancer is racist? Does it mean that all blacks who get cancer are victims of racism? More to the point, it's a question and it's a problem. So one wants to ask, what's going on to cause these different outcomes?

The fact that folks might wish to consider race as an issue does not mean they are drawing a conclusion, but often, rather, raising a question. Do we have to get so defensive?

... Which speaks to the next rule.

RULE 2: White people belong to a race, too, which means that white people should be included in conversations about race. They are allowed to notice things. They have a right to their perceptions, and their perceptions are relevant.

I know it's a source of irritation, and perhaps pain, to many minorities that for most whites in this country "the race conversation" feels optional, and minorities don't feel they have that "luxury." But, that's another issue. It is what it is. You can't become what you can't abide, which is someone who is deaf to other people's reality.

RULE 3: A fact is a fact, and an opinion is an opinion. Know the difference, and own your own stuff. This means if something's your opinion, you're entitled to it. But not your own facts.

RULE 4: Sometimes we don't know what we don't know, which means there are aspects of other people's life experience that we are not always going to understand.

Let's do each other the honor of asking and the favor of listening.

RULE 5: Civility always works. Need I say more?

Speaking of facts, there's an intriguing piece in The Washington Post that caught my eye. It offers an explanation of why blacks and whites so often see race issues differently. It suggests that whites tend to have a much rosier picture of the circumstances of blacks than blacks do, but when whites are presented with more information their point of view changes. It also cites research showing that whites and blacks tend to use different yardsticks to measure racial equality, but when they are asked to use the same yardstick they arrive at similar conclusions.

So, that's what I have to say, thanks for letting me know what you have to say.

Continue reading "Michel's Rules for Racial Dialogue" >

Lynn Neary, here, filling in for Michel Martin...

Two thoughts converged today as I listened to the show.

Michel Martin's conversation on stereotypical images in advertising brought back my own childhood when we thought nothing of the Mammy that was Aunt Jemima, or the sexy little banana called Chiquita. They were as much a part of everyday life in America as bacon and eggs for breakfast or a barbeque on the Fourth of July. Michel expressed some surprise that one had never objected to these images in a significant way, and her guest said it was not until the civil rights movement that anyone protested these stereotypes. We do forget sometimes how much that movement changed our lives -- action was taken on everything from voting rights to segregated schools, to offensive advertising images.

And, now, here we are in the month that we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, shattering stereotypical images again. Because, whatever the outcome of this presidential election, one thing we will all walk away with is the awareness that a woman and a person of color can make a serious run at the White House. There really is no turning back the clock on that dynamic. It's almost as if we think of this election as a once in a lifetime event.

But it isn't.

It is a beginning. It took a long time to realize that stereotypes of any kind distort our understanding of people we don't know. And this is not a problem confined to the United States alone. As Duke Professor Paula McClain said, when speaking about her study on racial attitudes among Latinos in Durham, N. C., people bring their own hierarchies to this country.

Racism, whether homebred or imported, will take many life times to overcome. But, whether it be the phasing out of stereotypes in advertising or a presidential campaign that shows how much things really have changed, each step takes us one step closer to that dream Dr. King spoke of so eloquently.

- Lynn Neary

Tell Me More Intern, Tyrone Martin

Lee Hill, NPR

Well, I am going to dash off because I am going to take our winter/spring intern, Tyrone Martin, to lunch. No nepotism here. I don't think he's a relative.

... Are you, Tyrone?

Tyrone has a very interesting background. Well, here, let him tell it. Tyrone, introduce yourself to the people...

Thanks, Michel. I can remember as a child being intrigued by the world of journalism and mass media. At the time, I was fascinated with the idea of telling stories that might otherwise not be told ... stories that could help those without a voice in the world. The same still applies today. So, with that said, my name is Tyrone Martin, 'Ty' for short. And I am, as you may have guessed, the intern for Michel's show. I am a graduate of Florida Gulf Coast University and I also happen to be a Marine; I have accomplished a lot in a short amount time. Being chosen as the sole intern for Tell Me More with Michel Martin is a great honor for me, and I hope that this opportunity will help open doors for me as I continue my great American journey. Next time, I will tell you more. Keep listening to the show!

Thanks, Ty.

A couple of things...

Read the William Jelani Cobb piece we were talking about on today's program.

Also, we had Democratic Sen. John Kerry on the program. You might like this: his speech endorsing Sen. Barack Obama.

And, the drama continues with the whole Clinton-Obama race kafuffle. The two declared a "truce" last night. (Democratic leaders, clearly, told both camps to chill.)

But, here's my question: the whole thing was uncomfortable and unsettling for Democrats -- and I'm sure those who are worrying about Democrats taking the White House are worried that this becomes fodder for the Republican nominee in the fall (or, really, spring ... the way things are going) -- but isn't talking about race always unsettling? Is the rush to declare race and gender "off the table" shutting down something that needs to be talked through?

I'm thinking about this because there's been another race-gender conversation going on -- mainly on the blogs and on the radio -- responding to Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the NYT, suggesting that gender is a more "restricting" force in life than race. (Remember we had Steinem on last week to talk about it). Well, she says that her intention was not to minimize the importance of race, but rather to keep gender from being disappeared -- to link the two, not make a hierarchy. Some are not buying it.

Listen to a conversation she recently had with Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who has also been on the program.

Anyway, is this really "over" just because the candidates say it is? And, while listening to people argue over who loved Martin Luther King, Jr., more did get a little irritating, should race and gender really be off the take, even if it is an inconvenient conversation?

I'm just asking...

Profiling. Stop and Frisk. Driving while Black...

How are you reacting to this? Are you rolling your eyes and saying, "Oh, that again?" ...Or are you saying, "Yeah, that's right. What about that?"

I point it out because this is not simple arithmetic, as in one plus one equals two. It is just inescapable that where you stand on questions like this often depends on where you sit. One less-discussed result from the recent Pew Poll (pdf) on racial attitudes (conducted in association with NPR) is that Blacks have a very different view of law enforcement than whites do...

Pew Poll: Young people, regardless of race, have the least amount of confidence in local police. Only 16% of all blacks under the age of 30 consistently express trust in police on all three measures, compared with 26% of those blacks 65 years and older. While whites have significantly more confidence than blacks in local police, young whites are skeptical...

I am guessing this was probably less discussed (although we did talk about it) because the other results were so interesting ... but also because that perspective is so well known.

I am raising this because our lead story this morning is both new and not new. How many times have you heard a Black/African American or Latino man -- especially a young man -- complain of his treatment by the police? And, how many times have you heard the police say it didn't happen, or get over it? We have a story like that this morning ... a young reporter for the New York Post, Leonardo Blair, talks about how he was treated by the NYPD when he got home from work last week. He wrote about it in the Sunday paper.

Usually, the situations we hear about involve an interracial dynamic. But in the case we talked about this morning, everybody involved was black or Latino. So, we thought it a good idea to add another voice to the mix, and that would be Stanley Couch, a well-known writer and columnist who kind of gives no quarter to anybody. He raises the question of how to balance the real need to fight crime -- much of which is black-on-black or Latino-on-Latino -- with a need to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Also, we have the additional benefit of hearing a perspective from the New York City deputy police commissioner for public information. Hear his take on the interaction between Blair and the two police officers.

And later, on a happier note (it's the holiday season), ways to do some GOOD. We'll have a variety of perspectives this week. We start in New York and then travel south. There's a program called DonorsChoose, where you can decide how your money gets spent on projects for school kids around the country. In other words, it's an version of our Ordinary Oprahs. We'll have more for you over the week.

Merry, merry and Happy Hanukah, which begins tonight. Send me some gelt if you have any left over ... the good kind.

Hello everyone, it's Cheryl Corley. I'm in from the windy city of Chicago ... subbing for Michel for a few days, so its nice to be with you.

We had a couple of top notch financial gurus on to talk about a fascinating study that has some pretty startling information about middle class black Americans. The report from the Pew Charitable Trusts says that nearly 2 out of 3 black children of middle class African-Americans earn much less than their parents. Our guests, Angela Glover Blackwell of Policy Link and Alfred Edmond, the editor-in-chief of Black Enterprise have interesting thoughts on why and what can be done about it -- including thoughts about marriage and financial literacy. Their primary message though is it's not how much you make, but what you do with that money. We'll be talking much more about this tomorrow.

Today we took some time to remember the life of Rev. John H. Cross. He was the pastor of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, which is famous for the 1963 bombing which left four young black girls dead and several people injured. We also heard from current civil rights activists who marched on the Justice Department in Washington last week.

Have you had an "odd-couple" friend -- somebody you never thought you'd be close with? Howard Parnell joined us to talk about the pen-pal relationship between his grandmother and a Viriginia prisoner. We also had to talk about the holidays -- Thanksgiving is just a few days away. So, if you're dreading any upcoming holiday function or gathering, sociologist Bertice Berry had some hilarious advice for all of us. Take a listen and let's talk more tomorrow.

-Cheryl

So, this is where we're sad we don't have a call-in show because with as many voices as we've been able to get on the program to talk about the new survey (pdf) about racial attitudes -- Pew conducted the poll in "association" with NPR, (whatever that means ... was there a party? Were snacks served and, if so, where was my invite?) -- we want to hear even MORE.

What do YOU think? So much to chew over, so much to think about. I want to know what you think, no matter what race you are.

The idea that blacks have divergent values based on class ... Is this really a new thought? Is it driven by circumstance? The survey showed that the black people most likely to say that blacks no longer share values across class lines were blacks with less income and education; those most likely to say that black folks have many common values were educated and upper income, up 70% of the same well-educated black people say they see values "diverging" between black poor and middle-class people. That's different from a response to a 1986 poll in which blacks said differences over values were, as NPR's Juan Williams put it in an op ed in the Washington Post, "diffusing the common black experience."

So, is it really so different now, or are we just more likely to admit it? Or, 20 years ago, were our experiences so driven by external circumstances that it made no difference WHAT your values were or are. (You may remember the line Malcolm X used to use. He talked about it in his autobiography, "what do white folks call a black man with a Ph.D? A N****".)

Poll: Do Whites and Blacks Have Favorable Views of Each Other?

I am also fascinated by the inter-group experience and perceptions of it. The survey asked respondents how they rate each racial group. Everybody dug their own group -- Hispanics most of all! Fifty-one percent rated their group VERY favorably (compared to 21% and 25% of whites and blacks who viewed their own group VERY favorably)! But there was a BIG difference in the share of each group that views its own group UNFAVORABLE. Just one percent of whites surveyed said they had an unfavorable opinion of whites, while 10% of black say they have an unfavorable view of blacks. Interesting point that goes to our commentary by Frank Wu yesterday (Click here if you haven't heard it).

EVERY group reported a favorable view of Asians.

Poll: How Would Rodney King's Question Be Answered, Fifteen Years Later?

And then there was the (as the surveyors put it) "Can't We Get Along?" question. I love pollsters and the dry way they put things. Here's what they actually said:

Continue reading "'Can't We All Get Along?'" >

Thanks, Michel ... Lee, here.

What a show today! Would you believe that yesterday afternoon, we had a completely different program planned for you -- different subjects, different guests? It's the nature the business ... I love it.

So, Imus is planning his return to the airwaves. Phil Boyce of WABC Radio in New York says the shock jock has paid his dues to society, redeemed himself and is now ready to be heard again on a fresh new microphone. Do you agree?

Regardless, of your ethnicity, what do you think? Or, do you even think about Imus at all? In other words, does it even matter?

Or, maybe you're among those who argue that if Imus is not your cup of tea, you should turn the radio dial elsewhere and tune him out. Others say that the broadcasting of his voice anywhere is a threat to respect and civility everywhere...

Where do you come out?

Finally, faith and free speech. The Rev. Hershael York was one of our guests today in response to a recent decision by a federal jury that a Kansas-based religious group pay more than $10 million to the father of a fallen Marine after they picketed outside his son's funeral ... against homosexuality. The group claims that soldiers dying in Iraq should be interpreted as God's wrath exercised against homosexual tolerance in America.

Rev. York had additional thoughts and wanted us to share them with you...

Continue reading "Don Imus ... and Faith" >

A few years ago when I was covering a national political convention for a television network, one of the anchors pulled me aside to tell me that he had observed that I had "only" interviewed black people. "Try to grow," he said, or something like that. I was furious. By that time in my career, I had interviewed actors, golf pros, gang members, heads of state, world famous symphony conductors and victims of every conceivable disaster. In essence, I had been talking to white people -- and all other kinds of people -- my entire professional life about all kinds of things.

My job as floor correspondent was to seek out the most interesting people I could find -- plus, there weren't that many black people at that convention! What the anchor said to me simply could not be true, I thought.

As the sportscasters say, let's go to the videotape. I looked at what had been on the air. The anchor had gone to me exactly once for an on-camera exchange with a convention delegate, and indeed, the person I interviewed was African-American. But the reason I selected that delegate had nothing to do with her race -- it was because she was from a swing state. Even more interesting, the correspondent who followed me -- a white person -- had also interviewed an African-American, also for reasons that had nothing to do with her race. The perception was that both interviews were mine.

Race affects perception; I might even say distorts it. I don't know why it does -- I just know that it does. Black people and white people often disagree about what words like "integrated" or "diverse" mean. If a previously segregated country club decides to admit one black member is it "integrated"? If a previously all-black college or university has a small white or Latino student population, is it "diverse"? Clearly, some minority cultural figures have universal appeal. But to achieve that appeal, is there a limit to how much reference can be made to that person's heritage?

Many people claim they "don't notice" race. Overseas, it can be said, African-Americans often report that they are more likely to be viewed as American than as black. And if that's the case it's because their "American-ness" -- the power that comes with their passport and their resources -- proves far more relevant to their travel experience than their race. But in this country, when people say they "don't notice" race, often what they're really saying is that racial issues don't interest them, don't affect them (at least not negatively) or they just don't want to talk about those issues. That may be fine for them, but what if other people's lives are affected by race? What if those affected do want to talk about it?

I'm bringing this up because I am responding again to some of the listener posts about this new program we are developing. As I have previously noted, the vast majority of the responses have been extremely constructive and supportive, even when people haven't liked everything we've sent out. Some have questioned whether the perspective of the show, so far, is too heavily weighted toward African-Americans -- a fair point, worth discussion.

But there is another group of respondents that I feel I must address. You will not have seen all of these posts because some of them are abusive, which violates the terms of this online community. Still, I need to talk about their logic. I want to challenge it.

Essentially, they are saying that because this program clearly highlights voices of persons of color, that this program has no right to exist. Some seem to think if a program is not catering to them, it is discriminating against them. Others are just not interested in either our topics or our approach. But it isn't enough that they can choose not to listen to us. They seem to believe that whatever does not interest them should not be discussed on the air. By anybody.

Now think about that.

If we lived in a world where there was only one radio program you could listen to, and that program had to meet all your needs for news and information, then I could see where you might say, "You know, I don't really care if you feel it's important to make your holiday celebrations reflect your culture." But we are not in that world.

We are in a world of hundreds of channels and hundreds of listening opportunities in news and talk, on satellite, Web, radio and podcasts. Do you really want to tell me there's no room for another program where people can talk about distinct challenges and interests that relate to their culture and heritage? Is there really no room to discuss issues from a perspective other than that of the majority?

For some people, maybe not. Last spring, when I was sitting in for Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation, the news that week had been super serious and I wanted to do a couple of minutes of lighter fare. So I invited one of the nation's top fashion and business writers on the program to talk about what was considered "hot" in spring fashion. I got I don't know how many calls or e-mails complaining that the segment was stupid. (I note that the Washington Post's Robin Givhan, fashion writer extraordinaire, won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism not a week later -- but I digress.)

I wondered why these people had such a sense of entitlement? I would never dream of calling up and chastising Neal for talking about baseball, which is, like fashion, both a diversion and a huge business. If he and millions of other people are passionate about it, why can't he talk about it? And if he can talk about baseball, why can't I talk about shoes?

I draw the same analogy to race, which is, after all, just another relationship. We are all here together, sometimes happily, sometimes uncomfortably. In any relationship, interests and priorities will differ. Sometimes it's funny (spring fashion vs. baseball). Sometimes the differences are quite profound requiring serious and ongoing discussion. In all partnerships where there is any equality at all, the time will come when a partner will put up his or her hand and say, "Honey, we need to talk." Sometimes the other partner doesn't want to hear it. But that doesn't mean the issue has gone away -- far from it. People of good will find a way to talk. The great thing about this experience is that I have discovered just how many of you are people of good will, who only want to be shown a way into the conversation. We are committed to doing just that. And the great thing about us is if you're not ready for it, you can turn us off and come back later and you won't have to sleep on the couch!

In this space we're going to talk. I hope you join us. And don't forget that this week I am in Los Angeles. I'm sitting in for Farai Chideya at News & Notes on Friday. Wish me luck. Sitting in someone else's anchor chair is like driving somebody else's car -- you don't want to leave any crumbs, and you sure don't want to crash.