California Journal of Politics and Policy

The California Journal of Politics and Policy (CJPP), a new electronic journal, centers on “California state and local government, electoral politics, and policy, in relation to national and international developments.”

The first two issues consider Proposition 8 (the constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage), Proposition 13 (the far-reaching constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds majority for all state budgets and limits property taxes), the “Bradley Effect” (the hypothesis that white voters lie about their preferred candidate on account of racism), and more.

Two book reviews published in CJPP stand out as important for readers of New Racial Studies.

Janelle Wong reviews Racial and Ethnic Politics in California, an edited volume from Sandra Bass and Bruce E. Cain.  She highlights the volume’s pathbreaking research, including an important analysis of Latino voters in California:

“Ricardo Ramirez and Luis Fraga present an outstanding analysis of Latino political incorporation. The phenomenal growth of Latino communities in the state is arguably
the most important demographic trend affecting politics in contemporary California. They point out that this growth is a product of births in the state, not immigration. Over the course of the next two presidential election cycles, Latinos will become the majority ethnic and racial group in the state. And although voter turnout lags substantially behind population share, Ramirez and Fraga observe that Latinos account for the vast majority of those newly registered to vote since 1990. They ask what this growth means for California politics, particularly in terms of shifts in political influence, representational equality, and policy outcomes. The answers to these questions are not only important to scholars of Latino politics, but central to our understanding of the future of California politics as well.”

Wong also highlights essays on coalition building in California amongst ethnic and racial minority groups, and she looks favorably upon the emphasis on regional collectivities across the most populous state.  Read the full review for more.

John Hanley reviews la Couleur du pouvoir, a book from Frédérick Douzet set for publication in English as The Color of Power.  Douzet’s book analyzes the ways that Oakland’s racial diversity affect city and Bay Area politics and policy.  Hanley shows that Douzet’s nuanced historical narrative about Oakland captures dynamics applicable to many diverse metropolitan areas worldwide:

The fight for the representation of these new groups [Asian-Americans and Latinos] in the 1993 redistricting of the Oakland City Council is the turning point in Douzet’s story. Redistricting, for all of its consequence in American politics, rarely makes good drama for those not immediately involved, but Douzet’s treatment of this episode draws the reader’s interest all the way through (and even to a quick Google search for what a few of the more colorful characters have been up to since). However peculiar to Oakland the twists and turns of this saga, it is nearly impossible not to find parallels in this dispute to the conduct of local government nationwide: cringe-inducing community activists, mobilization of ethnic-based groups, doubts about the ability of the redistricters to abide by judicial decisions—none out of place in the operations of local  governments across the country. By the time the dust settles, both Asian Americans and Latinos are strengthened by the creation of districts in which their groups formed a plurality and where a white/Asian/Latino coalition would translate into an electoral majority. In a way, fate had played a cruel joke on the black community: their political influence, held back for decades, ran aground due to a federal law intended to help blacks and which, had it been around in the 1940s, might have led to significant assistance to the black community during those crucial decades.

Hanley provides some detailed history of contemporary Oakland, and thereby he discusses the unique social position of African Americans.   Hanley looks favorably on Douzet’s trenchant uncovering of a common challenge for both United States and France: effectively integrating racial and ethnic minority groups.  Read the full review for more.

What’s the matter with Black Barbie

By Judy Berman

[From Salon.com’s Broadsheet.  So much about race, especially stereotypes, is often learned at a young age. I’m always surprised when I hear kids speak in racialized terms.  Maybe I shouldn’t be. –Ed.]

From blogs to mainstream news sites to parenting message boards, debate is raging over a new trio of African-American Barbie dolls. Ever since Mattel released Grace, Kara and Trichelle, at the end of September, everyone seems to have an opinion on whether the dolls are a step forward, fall short of accurately representing real black women or simply continue to perpetuate the same unrealistic beauty ideals as the original Barbies.

So, why is this conversation happening now? After all, black Barbie dolls have been around for decades. What’s the difference? Well, in the past, most African-American Barbies have been nothing more than white Barbies — complete with skinny noses, dainty lips and long, silky, straight hair — dyed a few shades darker. The new dolls, designed by Stacy McBride-Irby and inspired by her own young daughter, are (finally!) meant to reflect what black women actually look like.

But not everyone agrees that they do. The dolls’ lips are fuller, and their noses wider, yet many critics aren’t happy with the hair. Although one of the new Barbies has curly, shoulder-length locks, another has impossibly shiny, delicately wavy, light brown hair, and the third doll has the same long, straight mane as her predecessors. As one CNN commenter, who was generally supportive of the dolls, put it, “the hair is still a step backwards, since most of our hair is not straight and light brown." One woman interviewed for an Associated Press article thought the dolls would be more realistic with “a little short afro, or shorter braids.”  On the Black Voices message board, where many seemed to support the new Barbies, one writer said, “I would love to see a variety in the hairstyles of the dolls — some permed, some natural.” But, she wondered, “Would the naturals sell?” The Telegraph notes that the line includes a particularly questionable accessory: A “hairstyling set that allows girls to straighten their dolls’ hair completely has alarmed observers, who say it will fuel the ‘beauty issues’ that many black girls have.” According to Sheri Parks, an associate professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, "Black mothers who want their girls to love their natural hair have an uphill battle and these dolls could make it harder."

Others point out that the dolls may be just as damaging to girls’ body image as original Barbies. As Joy Behar so eloquently put it on “The View,” “Black or white, they’re still anorexic with breast implants.” Another Black Voices commenter advised those who didn’t like the dolls to find more educational toys for their children: “Instead of buying dolls for their daughters, but [sic] them circuit board kits or scientific kits that teach them about science and technology so they can get a head start on the rest of the kids.” One mom quoted in the Sacramento Bee agrees that Barbies are simply to be avoided, especially for her multiracial daughter. “It’s harder to find dolls that she can totally identify with because she is black, white and Filipino,” Allison Crumley told the paper. “I don’t think toy companies are realistic. They need to diversify, especially for multiracial kids. There are so many different cultural blends. Maybe they are just overwhelmed with the possibilities.”

Yet many parents — of all races — are thrilled about the dolls. And there are certainly aspects to celebrate: Although one of the dolls is characterized solely as a cheerleader, the others are impressively career-oriented. While Trichelle favors art and journalism, Kara is fond of math and music. (Remember, this is coming from Mattel, the company that, in the ‘90s, offered a talking Barbie who said “math class is tough.”) Each doll also has a designated “little sister” to emphasize the importance of being a role model. So, as much as I agree with the criticisms and hope they will be taken into consideration for the next generation of black Barbies, I can’t deny that the new dolls are miles ahead of their predecessors. Considering that Mattel’s other big idea for this season is to rebrand Barbie as a “Fashionista," it’s hard to find too much fault with a set of dolls that has some depth.

Six years after Brazilian universities

Diversity in Academe

THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

October 11, 2009

By Marion Lloyd

Six years after Brazilian universities began embracing affirmative action, higher education in Brazil is no longer the domain of a mostly white elite.

Since 2003 more than 1,300 institutions of higher education have adopted quotas for Afro-Brazilians and graduates of public high schools. The government has also created 10 public universities and dozens of new campuses in poor areas in an effort to expand access to higher education for the underprivileged.

But the debate over the quota system—racial quotas in particular—continues to inflame passions in a country that has long considered itself a racial democracy.

Brazil was the last country in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery, in 1888. Today the descendants of slaves officially make up nearly half of the country’s 190 million people, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the government census bureau. Proponents of quotas for Afro-Brazilians argue that only Nigeria has a larger black population. But centuries of racial intermixing, which was initially encouraged by Portuguese colonizers seeking to whiten the population, have made it famously hard to classify Brazilians by race.

Take the case of Alan and Alex Texeira, identical male twins who applied for admission to the federal University of Brasilia in 2007 under the racial quotas. After analyzing photos of the brothers—a required step for accessing the university’s quota system—separate “race boards” determined that one was black and one was white.

Opponents of the racial quotas argue that poverty, not race, is the main obstacle to getting a university education in Brazil. The country’s more than 130 public universities are free, and competition at most of them, particularly the 55 federal universities, is brutal. Private universities enroll about 80 percent of the 4.5 million students in the higher-education system. But in a nation where per capita income is just $7,350 a year, and the distribution of wealth is among the world’s most unequal, most families cannot afford to send their children to private universities.

“You’re not discriminated against because you’re black, but because you’re poor,” argues Flávio Bolsonaro, a state legislator in Rio de Janeiro. He filed a legal challenge after the State University of Rio de Janeiro adopted the country’s first quota for higher education, in 2003. In June a state tribunal upheld Mr. Bolsonaro’s claim that the measures violated Brazil’s Constitution, which outlaws all forms of discrimination, and ordered the university to halt its affirmative-action measures.

State officials have vowed to appeal the court ruling. “The quota program values the public-school education and makes reparations from a racial point of view,” Sérgio Cabral Filho, governor of Rio de Janeiro state, told reporters recently. “Contrary to what some say, it is not a racist program. Brazil has a duty to the blacks, and it’s about making reparations.”

Data from the 2000 census—conducted before the first quota policies were adopted—showed that just 2 percent of university graduates were black and 12 percent were pardo, a Brazilian catch-all term for those of mixed European, African, and American Indian descent. Nearly one in four Afro-Brazilians were illiterate, compared with one in 10 whites. Blacks and pardos also earned on average half the salary of whites, inequalities that have remained virtually unchanged for a century.

Still, many critics of the quota system argue that forcing Brazilians to identify themselves by race—a practice the critics say may be appropriate in the United States, but not in Brazil—incites racial tensions.

In 2007 opponents of affirmative action torched the dormitory rooms of visiting African students at the University of Brasilia and spray-painted racial epithets on the walls. The university, whose excellent reputation draws students from throughout Brazil to the nation’s capital, was the first federal university to adopt affirmative-action policies, in 2004.

Supporters of the measures argue that such incidents confirm the need to address deep-rooted racial discrimination after centuries of slavery.

“The quota policy is necessary in Brazil,” says Marília Costa Morosini, dean of the school of education at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, an elite private institution in the country’s predominantly white south. “It’s the only solution.”

Her university is among the more than 1,200 private universities, out of a total of about 2,800, participating in the federal government’s University Program for All, known by its Portuguese acronym ProUni, which extends tax credits to private institutions that adopt quotas of up to 20 percent for black students and public-school graduates. (Because of the poor quality of most of the country’s public high schools, proponents of affirmative action argue that graduates of those schools should be considered disadvantaged. In addition, public-school graduates usually cannot afford to take the yearlong preparatory courses for university admissions exams, further limiting their chances of gaining admission to highly competitive public universities.) The program benefits more than 130,000 students each year who could not otherwise afford to attend college, say government officials.

The policy is among a raft of measures put into effect by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a left-leaning former union leader who took office in 2003 vowing to combat racial prejudice. Lula, as he is popularly known, also set the ambitious goal of increasing college enrollment to 30 percent of high-school graduates by 2010, up from 20 percent at the start of his administration.

Legislation that would establish quotas for Afro-Brazilians and public-school graduates in the federal universities passed in the Chamber of Deputies last fall and is currently under debate in the Brazilian Senate.

“The fact is that, even with so much debate, an increasing number of universities are adopting affirmative [action] policies in their programs,” Maria Paula Dallari Bucci, federal secretary of higher education, wrote in an e-mail message to The Chronicle. Since 2003 at least 35 federal universities and 43 state-run universities have adopted quotas or bonus systems for disadvantaged applicants, according to a study by the Program for Race Policies in Brazilian Education, housed at the State University of Rio de Janeiro. (The federal government does not keep figures on the number of universities that have adopted affirmative-action measures.)

Students accepted under the ProUni program tended to do better than the regular applicants, Ms. Bucci says, “which demonstrates their appreciation for the opportunity afforded them.”

Still, even proponents of the measures argue that quotas for higher education alone are not sufficient to ensure that minority or low-income students succeed.

“Just bringing them in isn’t enough,” says Patricia Somers, an associate professor of higher education at the University of Texas at Austin, who has studied affirmative action in Brazil. “Many won’t graduate. And what happens to them after they graduate?”

Ms. Somers argues that the government should create quotas for faculty members as well, who are overwhelmingly white, and increase financial support and tutoring for students accepted under the quota system. She also says the government must address racial discrimination in the workplace.

Despite the challenges, however, Ms. Morosini, the education dean at the Pontifical University, says the quota system is gaining acceptance in Brazil. “There may be some legal setbacks,” she says. “But it’s just a question of time before affirmative action becomes the norm.”

// //

Lessons From The Najibullah Zazi Case

The saga of Najibullah Zazi, a Denver man charged with plotting to bomb the New York City subway, looks to be a major counterterrorism success for the Obama Administration.  If the accusations against Zazi (and two others) are true — specifically the allegations he was caught not only with notes on a plan of the subway system but also a vast quantity of bombmaking chemicals — this perhaps is the most deadly American terrorism plot since September 11, 2001.  We need to wait for all of the facts in the Zazi case, however, now is a good time to look at the state of the “War on Terror” eight years since it was declared by the George W. Bush Administration.

The “War on Terror” experienced a series of failures shortly after it was announced.  The “War on Terror” also played on and reinforced racialized stereotypes about Muslims, Arabs, Middle Easterners, and South Asians by singling them out for extra scrutiny.  Leaving aside the awful dehumanization of secret prison sites and the Bush torture policies — torture which apparently was used exclusively against Muslims, Arabs, Middle Easterners, and South Asians — the “War on Terror” also introduced sweeping dragnets against certain immigrants and visitors to the United States.  American immigration officials introduced the NSEERS system – a system designed specifically to discriminate against persons from Muslim majority countries (and North Korea).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the first major announcement of a “success” in the “War on Terrorism” turned out to be a trumped up scandal, and it exposed the worst aspects of the dehumanization set into motion by President Bush’s declaration that terrorism suspects would have almost no human rights.  In a special, emergency announcement from Moscow, televised live in the United States, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in Chicago to prevent him from exploding a radiological “dirty bomb” in a major American city.  Padilla was sent to a military brig, outside the civilian court system, when he was held incommunicado and mostly in solitary confinement for over three years.  He was probably tortured.  The “dirty bomb” charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, and most of the remaining conspiracy charges against him were dismissed by the court who chastised the prosecution for being “light on facts.”  Padilla underwent psychological testing to determine his fitness to stand trial, and he was observed to have a facial tic and other symptoms of mental damage due to his prolonged isolation and presumed torture.  He was tried and convicted in a civilian court in 2007 on criminal conspiracy charges. Padilla’s case illustrates the ways that the Bush Administration was able to use racialized justifications to legitimize stripping the basic human rights from an American citizen under the guise of preventing terrorism.

Similar cases exist, particularly those of Yaser Hamdi and James Yee.  Hamdi’s story is quite similar to Padilla’s, except Hamdi was an American citizen captured by the US military in Afghanistan, held in the same military brig, but he was never convicted of any crime.  James Yee, a captain in the American army, was accused of spying for terrorists, and held incommunicado in the same brig as Hamdi and Padilla.  Eventually, all charges against him were dropped and, fully exonerated, Yee was given an honorable discharge.

Unfortunately, trumped up terrorism cases haven’t stopped with the end of the Bush Administration.  In May of this year, there was a clearly bogus “terrorism” case in New York that quickly faded from the headlines, where a group of seemingly petty criminals was apparently entrapped by an FBI agent provocateur.  There has been a pattern of apparent FBI misconduct with the use of agents provocateur to frame people, even mentally challenged people, stating that they might participate in a terrorist act.

The Zazi case, so far, is quite different from these earlier cases.  There apparently is a significant amount of evidence against Zazi – evidence that was lacking in earlier “War on Terror” arrests.  Furthermore, Zazi has been charged in the regular justice system – he hasn’t been confined in a military prison as a so-called “unlawful enemy combatant.”

One of the early lessons of the still-pending Zazi case is that the struggle to prevent another terrorist attack is almost entirely a law enforcement issue, and it is rarely a military operation.  The arrest of Zazi – and indeed the arrests of Padilla and Hamdi — would almost certainly have occurred regardless of the American military invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Secondly, while Zazi was allegedly trained by al Qaeda, the success of several recent terror attacks in the United States should serve as a reminder that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist threat, and it probably isn’t even the biggest threat to the United States in 2009.  Earlier this year, America faced terrorism in the politically motivated assassination of Dr. George Tiller, and the politically motivated attack at the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, DC.

These recent attacks and the Zazi case show that it is important to remain vigilant against terrorism threats, no matter where they originate – including threats from extreme right-wing and openly racist organizations.  Indeed, the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil, other than the 9/11 attacks, was carried out by right-wing extremists.  However, the mere mention in an intelligence assessment produced by the Department of Homeland Security that warned about right-wing extremist organizations as a potential source of terrorism was met with derision by senior Republican elected officials.  Congressman John Boehner, the top-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, demanded an apology because the DHS report noted that veterans were often recruited by right wing fringe organizations.  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano gave that apology to veterans, but she did not emphasize the need to review all discriminatory programs still ongoing in her department.

Where are the elected officials calling for an apology for the NSEERS program?

Although Najibullah Zazi is an immigrant from Afghanistan, looking for threats exclusively or even mostly among Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, and South Asian immigrants will not defeat the terrorists.  Advocacy groups representing these communities joined together to urge vigilance in the wake of the Zazi case, even as they continue to protest NSEERS and other forms of discrimination still ongoing in the “War on Terror.”

America in 2028

Imagine, if you will, America in 2028.  By following the logic of Ross Douthat in his Op-Ed today, it’s easy to imagine that in just twenty years, the United States will no longer need to have a border with Canada.

America has made so much progress in this area, it’s not a hope, but an expectation that the border will cease to have any relevant meaning in 2028.  Since the enactment of NAFTA, more and more of America’s commerce is able to flow freely across the border.  And why not extend that policy to the movement of people across the border as well?  Canada has made tremendous strides in terms of economic growth.  Stopping terrorism was once a concern, but by 2028, we’ll have largely removed the need for border security.  Today many Americans still have difficulty accepting the idea of open borders, but in twenty years, that kind of ignorant thinking will be overshadowed by the changing nature of the world’s economy.

Now that you’ve wrapped your head around this patently ridiculous idea – that America’s international borders could vanish in less than one generation – go back and read Douthat’s article again.  Douthat, like a majority of Americans, believes quite strongly that race will vanish as a relevant social factor in just 20 years.  Indeed, many Americans would say they believe race is already irrelevant.

Sure, America is no longer the violent racist police state that it was before 1970.  Still, you need to have a large capacity for denial and self-delusion to believe that race has been vanishing since 1970.  Leaving aside the mountains of social science that indicate the persistence of race and racial discrimination, it’s easy to see for yourself how powerful race is in America.  Take a tour of some grade schools in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, or any major American city.  After that, visit the campuses of private schools in the suburbs.  Then, tell me with a straight face that when the students in these schools are adults, in 2028, that race won’t be a factor in their lives.

If the tour of American schools wasn’t enough to convince you, try driving down your street.  Chances are, you won’t see too many people who aren’t in the same racial group as yourself.  America is about as racially segregated today as it was in the 1950s.  Look around a neighborhood in a different part of town, and I’m guessing you’ll see that economic conditions are disturbingly correlated to the racial and ethnic makeup of the neighborhood.  Now that you’ve seen this, come back and explain to me how all of that won’t matter in 2028.  Be sure to explain how the process of getting a mortgage fits in to your answer.

Also, could you explain to me how we know that the border between the US and Canada won’t disappear in 2028?  Take the question seriously.  We know that the border will still exist because of the history of the United States and Canada – they’re durable nation-states.  The concept of Canada has been around since 1867 – that’s over 100 years.  The US has been around since 1776, over 200 years.  Those concepts – the idea of Canada and the idea of the United States, as bounded by their borders – couldn’t possibly just vanish in a quick 20 years!  Add the facts of the independent economic, political and cultural systems, and the creation of a combined US and Canada in 2028 is simply impossible to imagine, even if we devote every waking moment between now and then to making it a reality.

Now, I’m not trying to argue that the status of race in America is analogous to the relationship between the US and Canada (it’s not).  I’m just trying to point out that the reality of race – like the reality of the modern nation-state – is a powerful, meaningful, and durable reality.  Canada has been around since 1867.  White supremacy has been around since at least 1687.  White supremacy is still with us, and it will still be with us in 2028.

Social scientists have shown that today the average American white family has eight times the wealth of the average American black family.  Your life expectancy in America can be predicted by your racial group – because of racially different levels of access to health, and racially different exposures to toxic and dangerous environments.  Prisons hold one in nine young African American men.  Even the most optimistic projection would say that in twenty years, these facts will still be all too relevant.

Now, Douthat and his hero, Sandra Day O’Connor, would have you believe that even if we consider these realities, there will be no justification for affirmative action in 2028.  This is a different question, of course.  Not “will race matter in 2028?” but “will affirmative action be justifiable in 2028?”  If affirmative action really is just accepting the reality of racial discrimination, then acting in a manner consistent with that reality, then it will still be needed in 2028, just as it’s needed today.  There will still be a need to protect voting rights.  There will be a need to promote diversity in the workplace and in the schools.  There will be a need to regulate the banking industry to ensure that it doesn’t discriminate by race.  If this is “affirmative action,” then of course we’ll still need it in 2028.  We can have a debate over the ways that affirmative action should work, but we can’t have that debate unless everyone agrees that, yes, race does matter, and it will matter in the future.

When you ask just about any American about their hopes for race in the future, they’ll tell you they hope race won’t matter anymore.  It’s a noble goal.  It’s also about as realistic as hoping that money won’t matter any more.  Or hoping that we’ll be able to remove the border with Canada and Mexico.  We don’t need more denial about race.  If we want a better America in 2028, then what we need is to get real.