...hence the little vacation I've been forced to take from providing the kind of clever, insightful political commentary this site is known for. I only have a few seconds free right now – not a lot of time, really – so I thought I'd just pop in to write this about Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win: suck it, Republicans.
Thank you.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Conservatives and the Duke Rape Case
I can’t wait to hear the applause from those on the right for the federal lawsuit filed today by the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. Conservatives don’t normally concern themselves with issues of criminal justice – aside from advocating for an increase in prisons and lengthier jail terms – but this is precisely the sort of case that draws a conservative crowd. This kind of injustice is mainly ignored, tolerated or even embraced by the right – at least, of course, until it affects young, affluent white men.
In fact, conservative outrage over the Duke case wasn’t based solely on the fact that the Duke Three were unjustly implicated – but that they nearly went to jail for crimes committed against a black woman. It’s why conservatives were lining up to defend them long before the case was due to go to trial, and before there was any hint that the rape allegations might be false. Although I’m sure the year the students spent as suspects, aware of their own innocence, was an incredibly difficult and painful period for all three defendants and their families, the outcry from right wingers on their behalf is a painful reminder of just who’s rights are most valued in this country.
Consider this: According to the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to freeing wrongfully convicted prisoners based on DNA evidence, more than 200 people in 31 states have been exonerated since 1989 (145 since 2000). Fifteen of those inmates served time on death row, meaning they nearlydied were killed for crimes they didn’t commit. Overwhelmingly, these prisoners are African American (125), poor and uneducated. Unlike the Duke lacrosse players, they did not have access to competent, lengthy defense. On average, the length of time already served by exonerees when they are freed is 12 years. One year of intense scrutiny spent at home with the support of family and friends – although difficult – is preferable to 12 years in prison, by any estimate.
I don’t mean to demean or downplay what these three young men have experienced. Our criminal justice system is horribly flawed, and too often, suspects are guilty until proven innocent. But I’m struck by the apathy the right has for these issues when they involve the most marginalized members of our society. The utter lack of interest conservatives give to those cases is proof that they are willing to stand by idly, without complaint, as the lives of poor people of color are quite literally thrown away by the prison system.
If their general silence on these issues speaks volumes, their vociferous defense of the three accused in this case says even more.
The message? That they will not allow young white men to be treated like people of color.
In fact, conservative outrage over the Duke case wasn’t based solely on the fact that the Duke Three were unjustly implicated – but that they nearly went to jail for crimes committed against a black woman. It’s why conservatives were lining up to defend them long before the case was due to go to trial, and before there was any hint that the rape allegations might be false. Although I’m sure the year the students spent as suspects, aware of their own innocence, was an incredibly difficult and painful period for all three defendants and their families, the outcry from right wingers on their behalf is a painful reminder of just who’s rights are most valued in this country.
Consider this: According to the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to freeing wrongfully convicted prisoners based on DNA evidence, more than 200 people in 31 states have been exonerated since 1989 (145 since 2000). Fifteen of those inmates served time on death row, meaning they nearly
I don’t mean to demean or downplay what these three young men have experienced. Our criminal justice system is horribly flawed, and too often, suspects are guilty until proven innocent. But I’m struck by the apathy the right has for these issues when they involve the most marginalized members of our society. The utter lack of interest conservatives give to those cases is proof that they are willing to stand by idly, without complaint, as the lives of poor people of color are quite literally thrown away by the prison system.
If their general silence on these issues speaks volumes, their vociferous defense of the three accused in this case says even more.
The message? That they will not allow young white men to be treated like people of color.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Anita Hill is an American Hero
I’ve been thinking about Anita Hill an awful lot lately, what with Clarence Thomas releasing his memoirs and the Isiah Thomas-Anucha Browne Sanders case making the papers every day. This morning, there was yet another reason: The New York Times ran an op-ed Hill penned refuting the baseless attacks Thomas (re)launched against her in his book. I'm sure it's a tiresome case of déjà vu for Hill, having to (re)defend herself, 17 years later. And all for telling the truth.
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I believe Anita Hill. I always have, even as a teenager in 1991. But I have trouble these days believing the media’s take on the controversy. Then and now, most coverage of the hearings has focused solely on race (Thomas’s) and sex (Hill’s), but the subtext of those grueling televised interviews was far more complex. I can't help but think that Thomas’s use of white racism – the “high tech lynching” he decried – although savvy (not to mention convenient and ironic, considering his admonishments to the black community for using race as a “crutch”), was only partly responsible for his victorious ascension to the high court. Were the “simple” issues of race and sex not further buttressed (and complicated) by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s (and America’s) (mis)conceptions about black female pathology and libidinous sexuality, the outcome might have been very different. Put plainly, if Anita Hill, who passed a lie detector test, were a white woman, the presumptively neutral coverage would have been more critical of Thomas, the public outcry likely deafening. As Hill herself once pointed out, were she "blonde haired and blue eyed," it's unlikely that segregationist (and, interestingly, miscegenationist) Senator Strom Thurmond would've so willingly accepted Thomas's version of events. While it's true that women of every race who choose to speak up about sexual harassment often suffer slanderous name calling from the usual suspects, I wonder if, were Hill white, so many people would've found (now reformed right winger and Media Matters founder) David Brock's quip that Hill was "a bit nutty and a bit slutty" so unquestioningly believable. Hill's haughty prudery – as perceived by many on the right – contrasted with who she should have been, particularly as a young African American woman. In a culture that allows Don Imus to label 18-year-old black college students "hos," John DePetro to state that white people only visit Harlem for prostitutes and Neal Boortz to say that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's hairstyle makes her look like a "ghetto slut," it's unsurprising that Hill's time before the (all male, all white) Senate Judiciary Committee felt mainly as if she, not Thomas, were on trial – for naively expecting to be treated with respect.
I feel a tremendous amount of empathy, sympathy and admiration for Anita Hill. Seventeen years after watching the Hill-Thomas hearings on television, as an adult African American woman, I now fully understand what I only grasped then, but which Hill knew all too well – that race and sex matter in ways that can be, and often are, life defining. I've experienced sexism, racism and sexual harassment in their most overt and subtle forms, but I don't know that I'd have the bravery to suffer attempts at character and credibility assassination to prove it to an entire nation.
It's ironic that as Anita Hill is again forced to protect her reputation against Thomas's mudslinging, Anucha Browne Sanders (it's worth noting that I believe her as well) has been able to convince a jury of Isiah Thomas's guilt. It's inarguable that Browne Sanders was, directly or indirectly, inspired and aided by Hill's pioneering (to use an overused term) conviction and courage. It's just disheartening to know that Hill has to again participate so visibly in a battle she and others have already fought so many times over.
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I believe Anita Hill. I always have, even as a teenager in 1991. But I have trouble these days believing the media’s take on the controversy. Then and now, most coverage of the hearings has focused solely on race (Thomas’s) and sex (Hill’s), but the subtext of those grueling televised interviews was far more complex. I can't help but think that Thomas’s use of white racism – the “high tech lynching” he decried – although savvy (not to mention convenient and ironic, considering his admonishments to the black community for using race as a “crutch”), was only partly responsible for his victorious ascension to the high court. Were the “simple” issues of race and sex not further buttressed (and complicated) by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s (and America’s) (mis)conceptions about black female pathology and libidinous sexuality, the outcome might have been very different. Put plainly, if Anita Hill, who passed a lie detector test, were a white woman, the presumptively neutral coverage would have been more critical of Thomas, the public outcry likely deafening. As Hill herself once pointed out, were she "blonde haired and blue eyed," it's unlikely that segregationist (and, interestingly, miscegenationist) Senator Strom Thurmond would've so willingly accepted Thomas's version of events. While it's true that women of every race who choose to speak up about sexual harassment often suffer slanderous name calling from the usual suspects, I wonder if, were Hill white, so many people would've found (now reformed right winger and Media Matters founder) David Brock's quip that Hill was "a bit nutty and a bit slutty" so unquestioningly believable. Hill's haughty prudery – as perceived by many on the right – contrasted with who she should have been, particularly as a young African American woman. In a culture that allows Don Imus to label 18-year-old black college students "hos," John DePetro to state that white people only visit Harlem for prostitutes and Neal Boortz to say that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's hairstyle makes her look like a "ghetto slut," it's unsurprising that Hill's time before the (all male, all white) Senate Judiciary Committee felt mainly as if she, not Thomas, were on trial – for naively expecting to be treated with respect.
I feel a tremendous amount of empathy, sympathy and admiration for Anita Hill. Seventeen years after watching the Hill-Thomas hearings on television, as an adult African American woman, I now fully understand what I only grasped then, but which Hill knew all too well – that race and sex matter in ways that can be, and often are, life defining. I've experienced sexism, racism and sexual harassment in their most overt and subtle forms, but I don't know that I'd have the bravery to suffer attempts at character and credibility assassination to prove it to an entire nation.
It's ironic that as Anita Hill is again forced to protect her reputation against Thomas's mudslinging, Anucha Browne Sanders (it's worth noting that I believe her as well) has been able to convince a jury of Isiah Thomas's guilt. It's inarguable that Browne Sanders was, directly or indirectly, inspired and aided by Hill's pioneering (to use an overused term) conviction and courage. It's just disheartening to know that Hill has to again participate so visibly in a battle she and others have already fought so many times over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)