“As conservatives have succeeded at demonizing public servants — especially overworked and underpaid teachers — the economic crisis has forced state and local governments to lay off thousands of teachers, first responders, and social service workers. I hope to hear President Obama speak about restoring the public’s faith in the role of government as an integral part of the solution, starting with challenging Congress to pass Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream bill that would help create more than two million jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters, health care workers and education workers.”

Feminist trailblazers, Tiffany Dufu, L.Joy Williams, and Keli Goff also weighed in:

Tiffany Dufu, President of The White House Project:

“For a lasting solution, we need to create a pipeline of strong leaders. So I’d like to see the President allocate time, energy, and resources to train the next generation. President Obama built his 2008 campaign on grassroots organizing — now it’s time to harness the power of diverse groups of young women and men so that their innovations will help to bring us out of this recession into a thriving economy.”

Keli Goff, Contributing Editor for @theloop21:

“The Economic Cycle Research Institute has argued that at this point there’s very little that can be done to significantly move the needle on jobs before 2012. If that’s true, I think it would be really bold of the President to simply be upfront about it, and to position himself as the only grownup in the room. He could legitimately argue that he’ll leave it to Congress and the GOP presidential field to politicize the issue while saying that he’s going to shoot straight with us — no matter how much it hurts — and then focus on some of the other economic policy issues the fed has greater control of. While he’s at it, he can announce a tax credit for businesses that hire those from particularly disenfranchised groups, in addition to the tax credit he recently launched to spur greater hiring of veterans. Of course, neither scenario I laid out above will probably happen in this lifetime. But a girl can dream.”

L. Joy Williams, principal consultant at LJW Community Strategies, and co-host of “Blacking it Up!”

“Amidst the President’s speech, Americans need to hear the word ‘JOB.’ While arguably tax breaks and spending cuts are necessary elements in the overall plan to fix our economy, the 14 million Americans unemployed need to know how his plan will result in a job directly for them.”

“Women are still scarce on Sunday morning news shows,” wrote Erika Lovely for Politico, who cites soon-to-be-published research from American University’s Women & Politics Institute that found just under 14% of lawmaker guests on Sunday morning talk shows have been women. However, unlike NPR’s earlier piece this year called “Where Are the Women?” the Sunday show producers appear to have no intention of remedying the disparity. In fact, their reactionary responses remained defensive as they justified structural sexism.

It’s high time for Sunday morning news shows to take responsibility for their “men-in-suits mind-set” rather than blaming women who have been underrepresented and disregarded for decades. Still, producers continue to reject accountability for the lack of diversity, resorting to a laundry list of meaningless justifications, including our underrepresentation in Congress, time zone issues, and even diva-baiting Speaker Pelosi.

It’s disappointing to hear those sentiments echoed by Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz. It is contradictory for him to say “I’m not in the business of inviting female politicians on the air” but then support “a bigger pool of female columnists, bloggers and talk show hosts.” Perhaps Howard Kurtz did not mean to privilege female columnists while disenfranchising female politicians — but the impact may override the intent.

Enough with the excuses. The mindset that “there are no good women” is too common and too casually accepted. While we celebrate when a woman triumphs over sexism, last week’s primaries did not signal equal representation for women in Congress, any more than today’s piece in Politico represents a tide turning on Sunday morning. These stats are not new.

While it’s a positive step forward that media outlets recognize the gender disparity on Sunday morning, there are qualified women available, and producers need to book them. The Women’s Media Center represents hundreds of experts available on every issue from beltway politics to foreign policy to financial reform. The solution is clear.

There will always be those who make excuses and point to the one woman on the four person panel as progress. View the Women’s Media Center award-winning video highlighting the gender disparity still widely prevalent in media:

Filed under: Media Tagged: Gender Discrimination, Howard Kurtz, Media News, Sunday Morning Talk Shows, Sunday Morning Talk Shows Women, Women In Media, Women Underrepresented In Media ]]> http://jehmugreene.com/2010/07/14/enough-with-the-excuses-men-in-suits-mind-set-needs-to-go/feed/ 1 jehmu http://jehmugreene.com/2010/06/09/big-victories-for-women-candidates-bring-big-questions/ http://jehmugreene.com/2010/06/09/big-victories-for-women-candidates-bring-big-questions/#comments Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:31:53 +0000 Jehmu http://jehmugreene.wordpress.com/?p=15 Read More

Female candidates won big last night, reshaping the political landscape. But what does it really mean for women?

From Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, to Tea Party survivor Nikki Haley in South Carolina, and Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln’s surprise victory in Arkansas, today’s hot political topic is all about the rise of conservative women at the ballot box and their success in last night’s primaries. MSNBC celebrated the “Ladies Night” results, and today the women of America are left with a chance to reflect on how these races will affect our future.

Women currently hold a pathetically small fraction of elective offices — only 17% of seats in Congress. The good news is that a woman running for office is becoming more normalized (with the help of Women’s Campaign Forum, EMILY’s List, Emerge, Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy, Annie’s List, and others), but we still have a ways to go before it becomes “the norm.” But following a night where women comprised a mere 23% of winning candidates (47 of 204 winners), some of the media coverage is not in line with reality. As NPR notes in “A Super Tuesday for Women”, 1984 was the year of the woman — till they all lost in the general election.

While increasing the number of women in political leadership positions is good and necessary, the bottom line is that issues matter most. My feminist friends and colleagues will ultimately vote for what a candidate stands for, not their reproductive organs. Are these candidates representing the interests of young mothers, working women, and the growing number of senior women? If the result of “Ladies Night” is a new crop of women elects pushing a conservative agenda that would allow the government to interfere in medical and family planning decisions, refuse to reign in corporations, and even stop me from drinking a glass of wine when visiting Las Vegas — last night’s results do little to move me. We need more pro-equality leaders who aren’t afraid to stand up for our values. Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton, Jan Brewer is not Janet Napolitano, and last night’s winners still need to prove how they will represent the sentiment, values, and rights of women.

At the same time, while the policies and performance of all political figures should be subject to rigorous media critique, we cannot ignore that more women candidates ultimately still means more opportunities for sexist media coverage and political maneuverings. Sexism against any woman candidate adds an additional barrier for all women and girls who aspire to political leadership. I look forward to the day it will not be remarkable to have a woman running against another woman — for now, I cringe at the “cat fight” statements likely to come in the coverage of Senator Boxer vs. Fiorina. Last night, a guest on Chris Matthews’ show commented that it’s not easy to attack a woman. Not sure what planet he’s living on, but not only is it easy, it’s often accepted. No more. Sexism may sell, but we’re still not buying it.

The Women’s Media Center will continue to serve as a watchdog for sexist and biased attacks directed towards women candidates. In the midst of all the hype, some journalists and commentators are already using this opportunity to reach for their misogynist bag of comments.

We want to know: What have you seen or heard? Keep us on the loop as the midterm election season heats up.

Filed under: Politics Tagged: California Election, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Politics, Politics News, Primaries, Sexism, Women, Women Candidates, Women In Politics ]]>

“NPR listeners heard 2,502 male sources and 877 female sources on the shows we sampled,” Shepard writes. “In other words, only 26 percent of the 3,379 voices were female, while 74 percent were male.” The numbers worldwide are even more dire; the Global Media Monitoring Project’s latest preliminary report on international media found that just 19% of experts on news programs are women. This absence of female experts and commentators sends a silent but powerful message: women are less qualified than their male peers to provide information on the news. Beyond the inherent disrespect for our country’s female experts and the disconcerting example set for young women — not to mention the fact that women consistently attend college at higher rates than men — the country is robbed of diverse and comprehensive reporting it needs and deserves for a healthy democracy. The reality of issues cannot be reported accurately when half the population isn’t telling it.

I’ve heard the argument that, in the age of Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, and the swath of female hosts on NPR, women have already achieved parity in journalism. But the argument that fair media equals women hosting news shows while 74% of the crucial information used in reporting comes from men is a joke. While celebrating the achievements of our country’s greatest female hosts, we must fight for media justice that is richer, truer, and more democratic than counting the skirts on the evening news.

Shepard interviewed me about her findings; as I told her, it’s crucial to address the argument that women experts are somehow not available — or don’t exist — as justification for their absence in the media. Not only is this patently untrue, but organizations like Women’s Media Center work tirelessly to ensure that women experts are readily available for media on the issues of the day. Women’s Media Center is proud to run SheSource, a searchable database of hundreds of women experts in diverse fields. We send headlines to over 650 journalists three times a week highlighting experts who are particularly useful for top media stories, and make sure we remain available for media requests at all hours. SheSource undercuts the assertion that women experts don’t exist, or are difficult to find. They’re right here.

Our Progressive Women’s Voices media and leadership training program provides women experts in a range of fields with the skills needed to amplify their voices in today’s ruthless and lightning-quick media world. Having trained experts from Equality Now Director Taina Bien-Aime to Feministing‘s Jessica Valenti to Echoing Green Executive Director Cheryl Dorsey (named one of the top 20 leaders in the country by U.S. News & World Report), Progressive Women’s Voices provides real and sustainable support to women experts, ensuring that the public gets access to their knowledge and perspectives. (Calling all women who want your voices heard: we are accepting applications for the program this week. For more information on applying to Progressive Women’s Voices, click here.)

On the heels of a Newsweek article last month which aired the magazine’s own dirty laundry on continued inequality between female and male reporters and writers, Shepard’s report drives home what we at the Women’s Media Center and other advocacy organizations know to be true: gender inequality in media, even among the most respected news outlets, is very real. But it is not beyond us to correct.

Progressive media is frequently outspoken on issues of gender inequality, but too often but fails to address disparity in their own ranks. As full citizens of a democracy, women are entitled to an equal voice in the issues affecting their nation, their communities, and themselves. NPR and Newsweek have started stepping up to the plate. We’re asking: who’s got the courage to go next?

Earlier: On Thursday, March 18th ABC News announced that Christiane Amanpour will host This Week, the network’s premiere national political news show, airing in the plum Sunday morning slot. Sometimes second, sometimes third in the ratings against stalwart shows Meet The Press and Face The Nation, This Week was until recently hosted by George Stephanopoulos, who decamped for Good Morning America several months ago.

The announcement was thrilling to those of us who follow politics and media, and not just because Amanpour is a fresh voice who brings decades of field experience and vast international expertise. It was also exciting because the Sunday pundit hours, while some of the most influential in American media in terms of impact on policy and politics, remain highly segregated. A 2007 Media Matters survey found that one in four guests was female and that white guests outnumbered people of color by seven to one. The hosts, of course, were all white men. Until now.

In a perplexing and misguided column in today’s Washington Post, “ABC’s Choice of Amanpour for This Week Has Critics Inside The Network and Beyond” the prominent television critic Tom Shales inveighs against the choice of Amanpour to host the prestigious show. He describes the 27-year broadcast veteran as “widely considered to be deficient,” raises questions about her personal politics, refers to ABC insiders thinking of her as a “celebrity interloper” and ultimately declares:

From many angles, it was a bad choice – one which could create so much consternation that [ABC News President David] Westin will be forced to withdraw Amanpour’s name and come up with another ‘nominee’ for the job. That would hardly be a tragedy – considering how many others deserve it more than she does.

To support his assertion that Amanpour is “the opposite of the perfect candidate,” Shales cites two formidable critics: a Facebook group against Amanpour and a conservative media think tank’s blog who he quotes as saying she has “the standard liberal outlook on the world.” This is a bland critique from a marginal source – why is Shales including this stuff in his assessment of Amanpour? Rather than examine her actual journalistic credentials – beyond considering her Facebook detractors, of course – Shales focuses exclusively on Amanpour’s Iranian ethnicity, noting that she has “steadfastly rejected claims about her objectivity” while slyly raising the issue of her possible bias against Israel. Naturally, an Anglo-Iranian woman is ethnically incapable of reporting Middle Eastern stories objectively.

Despite his argument that a reporter’s history directly informs her objectivity, Shales has been known to swoon over George Stephanopoulos, saying of his November departure for Good Morning America, “it’s unpleasant, a potential squandering of talents which are ideally suited to ‘This Week’” “Ideally suited?” It seems that Stephanopoulos’s resume, which includes campaign manager and Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, doesn’t raise any objectivity flags for Shales.

Then again, his standards for the male candidates seem slightly more lax than those for Amanpour. After all, he can’t help but comment that either White House correspondent Jake Tapper or ‘Nightline’ co-anchor Terry Moran “would have made a better This Week anchor.” Really? Jake Tapper would have made a better anchor? He seems like a nice enough man, but compared to Amanpour he is a lightweight. In 1999, Tapper penned an unauthorized bio titled Body Slam: The Jesse Ventura Story, a book whose blurb on Amazon reads: “In every arena, Jesse Ventura puts a headlock on the competition–now he’s turning the country on its ear.” By that time, Amanpour had won 2 Peabody Awards – one in 1993, which stated “CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour represents the best of the profession” - and one in 1998 which stated “she reminds us of all that is good and great in television journalism.” In 2002, the same year Tapper did a story on Lynyrd Skynyrd for VH1, Amanpour won the Edward R. Murrow Award for Distinguished Achievement in Broadcasting, and had been a reporter for 60 Minutes for 6 years, and at CNN for 10 years.

Nothing against Tapper, but Shales’s assertion that he holds a candle to Amanpour – much less out-merits her journalistically – is just plain insulting to the informed public. Beyond her Iranian background and her gender, exactly what is Shales claiming against Amanpour?

It’s easy to make the argument that a journalist primarily known for international affairs is a counter-intuitive choice to host one of our country’s top national affairs shows. But ABC News President David Westin made the point that her perspective and experience are nothing but assets, and we agree. That’s why at the Women’s Media Center, we issued a statement supporting the choice of Amanpour and thanking ABC for taking an important first step in diversifying the voices heard on Sunday talk. But Shales’s beef with Amanpour steers clear of any reasonable concerns. There is no substance presented in his “body slam” of Amanpour – none of his inferred critiques hold up, mainly because he doesn’t bother to support them. So we have to ask, why does Shales go out of his way to characterize this much-lauded journalist as an insubstantial joke, “a bad choice” while supporting the talents and qualifications of Stephanopoulos and Tapper? Is one of America’s top TV critics damning a broadcast colleague because she’s not a man?

Amanda Hess at Washington City Paper took a turn explaining why Super Bowl ads are the way they are. Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon has a witty play-by-play of what she’s termed the Misogyny Bowl. Feministe takes Madison Avenue ad firms to task for forgetting it’s no longer the era of Mad Men.

And just because there will never be too much analysis of sexism, here’s the Women’s Media Center’s take:

$2.8 million – How much Focus on the Family paid CBS to attempt to pull the wool over America’s eyes. As expected, the benign ad featuring Tebow and his mom tried to hide Focus on the Family’s intolerant and divisive agenda. That the ad was allegedly ‘co-produced’ by CBS should be seen as a serious referendum on the status of women in the media.

5 henpecked, long suffering husbands. Before last night, I never really understood how horrible and unfair it must be to be a man. Having a job. Dressing oneself and taking out the recycling. Practicing basic human hygiene. A devastating existence made more trying by the presence of a demanding, overbearing woman. You might even have to carry her lip balm. The horror. Luckily for all the desperate men out there, Chrysler, Dove, and FLOTV produced spots on how to buy back your manhood. Buy a car. Buy some soap. Get a miniature TV. Never have to put down the toilet seat ever again.

$1200 – price of 4 Bridgestone hot rod tires. The official tire company of the NFL served up a particularly disturbing version of male devotion to their automobiles. In this ad, a faceless driver tosses his wife out of the car and into the clutches of a waiting evil villain rather than surrender his tires. Simple math: if the tires are worth $1200, how much is this wet, abandoned woman to whom he’s supposedly pledged his life worth? $1000? $800? Shameful.

2 older women sacked by big, bulky football players. In what kind of culture do we live when slamming an older women into the ground makes an appearance in not one but two commercials? Snickers rags on older people by comparing lagging players to Betty White and Abe Vigoda and then slamming them into the ground. The Focus on the Family ad tried a strange stab at humor when Tim Tebow sacked his own mother. Not funny, just unsettling.

20+ pasty office drones in their tighty whities. Even though it had the uncomfortable effect of forcing you to imagine your office mates naked, the careerbuilder.com ad was one of the few that managed to show skin without imposing sexual or homophobic tension. In fact, its’ representation of real people with real bodies was a refreshing departure from the white, All-American boys and girls from central casting.

1 woman in a bath tub. Megan Fox referenced the sexting craze from her bubble bath, wondering aloud what would happen if she sent a nude pic flying around the web. The sexism goes both ways here, as Motorola assumes men lose all self-control and common sense in the face of a suggestive picture.

26. The number of laps Danica Patrick led the year she placed third at the Indianapolis 500, becoming the first woman to ever place in the top three. That she is such a successful sportswoman in a field dominated by men makes it even more frustrating to see her reduced to the GoDaddy.com logo across her breasts year after year. Even though GoDaddy.com sponsors her race car, she’s never portrayed on the track. This year she’s trying to live her normal life – getting a massage and appearing on a talk show – but perky blonde women keep insisting on ripping their clothes off for her. Whether it’s some writer’s idea of a primetime lesbian fantasy or just more catnip to draw men to the soft porn commercials on their site, GoDaddy.com is once again one of the worst sexist ad offenders of the year.

1 Creepy Beaver – Attention Monster.com: Women aren’t born to be awarded as bikini-clad prizes to talented men OR semi-aquatic rodents. That is all.

30+ pantless dudes marching through a field. A continuation of the theme of the night: bemoaning existence as a male human being in a world of power hungry, castrating females. This ad brought to you by Dockers, the proud authors of the absurdly sexist and bizarre ‘Wear the Pants’ campaign that caused an outcry earlier this year. Add khaki pants to the list of things that will help men feel better about their penis size.

40 million – Estimated number of American women who tuned into the Super Bowl only to see themselves maligned, sexualized, objectified, and blamed for men’s problems big and small.

The Women’s Media Center and a coalition of organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice is calling on CBS and the NFL to pull Focus on the Family’s anti-choice propaganda ad. We do not have to see the ad to know Focus on the Family’s real agenda. While pretending its message is a “celebration of life,” their true intent is to have the government intrude in women’s reproductive health decisions. The subliminal messaging of the ad is also a thinly veiled effort to shame the one in three American women who have an abortion and a dangerous suggestion that choosing to carry a pregnancy to term — regardless of the risks — is the right decision for all women.

Would CBS and the NFL really have accepted a Super Bowl ad promoting reproductive health care from Planned Parenthood? History suggests not a chance. At best, CBS’s last-minute offer to air a counter ad by a reproductive rights organization was nothing more than a public relations gimmick. At worst, CBS’s executives purposely devised a revenue model that involves airing incendiary advocacy ads, thereby pressuring opponents to pay the network to respond. Any effort to increase ad sales by equating the serious attacks on reproductive rights to the same playing field as Coca Cola vs. Pepsi irresponsibly ignores the increasing vitriolic climate around reproductive health. The Women’s Media Center recognizes that engaging in a multi-million-dollar, 30-second ad war with Focus on the Family, an organization that promotes forced pregnancy, is a losing strategy and does little to advance a more meaningful dialogue about the difficult reproductive choices women make every day.

Women’s health is not a game, and abortion is only part of the reproductive health equation. Every year women turn to family planning clinics and their doctors for sound advice, mammograms, pap smears, breast exams, prenatal care, sexually transmitted infection testing, and preventative services like sex education and access to contraception. According to the Guttmacher Institute, half of all pregnancies in the United Stated are unintended. Women’s reproductive health should be fair, safe and covered and we stand up against organizations like Focus on the Family, which use medical misinformation, politics and 30-second ads to preach morality to women.

Our campaign to get the ad pulled is not a first amendment issue — the Women’s Media Center, NOW, Feminist Majority and others are not government entities attempting to regulate speech. As we exercise our first amendment right to protest, we are incorrectly labeled “would-be censors.” The FCC and media corporations make decisions every day about what can air over the networks without charges of censorship. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the ad was sponsored by the KKK. CBS’ decision to debut its new policy of accepting advocacy ads during the Super Bowl by climbing in bed with a right-wing, anti-woman, homophobic organization — and the NFL’s explicit endorsement — indicates a clear bias. That this unprecedented break from a longstanding tradition of relative political impartiality comes on the heels of a Supreme Court decision bestowing person-hood on corporations is a real threat to fair representation in the media.

CBS and the NFL gambled that women would allow this biased decision to go unchecked. A week into our campaign, over two hundred thousand emails have been sent to CBS, the NFL, and their advertisers protesting the airing of the ad. This campaign will continue through the Super Bowl as multiple organizations mount boycotts and protests.

Would-be perpetrators of sexism and bias in the media take note. We are watching, monitoring and will mount similar campaigns as necessary.

Filed under: Media Tagged: CBS, Media News, NFL, Reproductive Rights, Super Bowl Ads, Tim Tebow, Women's Media Center ]]> http://jehmugreene.com/2010/02/02/the-truth-about-cbs-c-hoice-b-ias-and-the-s-uper-bowl/feed/ 0 jehmu http://jehmugreene.com/2009/07/30/everything-professor-gates-and-sergeant-crowley-needed-to-know-i-learned-at-a-montessori-school/ http://jehmugreene.com/2009/07/30/everything-professor-gates-and-sergeant-crowley-needed-to-know-i-learned-at-a-montessori-school/#comments Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:59:29 +0000 Jehmu http://jehmugreene.wordpress.com/?p=33 Read More

The Director of Athena Montessori Academy is a close friend, and when needed I have been thrilled to serve as a substitute teacher for her adorable students. Throughout the day toddlers learn that yelling, screaming, and making threats are not socially acceptable ways of dealing with conflict. Problem solving, conflict resolution, and critical thinking are at the core of Montessori teachings. On the surface it may seem simplistic, but it actually takes courage to initiate conflict resolution and see it through. Cambridge Police Officer Jim Crowley, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, activists, bloggers, and commentators could all learn from the problem solving lessons designed for three year-olds. It cannot be denied that the world would be a better place if adults learned to communicate more intentionally, instead of reacting out of emotion.

A person’s ability to solve problems in the midst of a heated situation is directly related to the number of possible solutions he can think of in that moment. Both Sergeant Crowley, a leader and trainer on diversity issues for the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates, an esteemed educator at Harvard had more than enough intellectual resources to identify alternatives in a heated confrontation — both men chose not to use them. MLK, Mahatma Gandhi, Congressman John Lewis and many others have changed the world by understanding the words of Dorothy Thompson, “peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict.” Through their activism, these leaders found alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, and ultimately alternatives to violence. We have come a long way with race relations in America, but explosive and emotional reactions are beginning to set us back.

In current and future racial flare-ups, it is incumbent upon the next generation of civil rights activists to challenge each other. Can we think critically and change the conversation from focusing solely on winners and losers to one of greater understanding and progress? Or will we simply use blogs, Facebook, and Twitter to compete in a name-calling diss-fest? Blindly calling someone a racist is as destructive as screaming fire in a movie theatre. Cheerleading the damaged reputation of the Cambridge Police Department does nothing to help heal the wounds of racism. Highlighting Sergeant JIM CROWley’s name in a way that elicits comparisons to the contemptible de jure segregation of our nation’s past is absolutely ineffectual. All one has to do is spend five minutes perusing commentary about Gates’ arrest to find countless examples of useless commentary fueled by anger. The arrest has spurred an extremely charged exchange of views about race relations and police officers throughout the U.S. with only a small number of productive conversations about how to create a greater sense of community and co-responsibility, trust and mutual respect, and appreciation and acceptance of others. Without this dialogue — after the wrath dissipates — what are we left with? How can we learn, grow, and evolve coming out of this situation?

Name-calling, mandating immediate and punitive solutions, going on the attack, and ruining reputations are not effective tactics for progress. Rushing to judge comes with huge opportunity costs. Beyond being a teachable moment, Professor Gates’ arrest was a perfect opportunity to build bridges with unlikely allies. The unique opportunity for Gates’ supporters to engage with Libertarians and Conservatives — usually staunch protectors of the concept that “a man’s home is his castle” — was lost the moment the racism rallying cry was prioritized over the constitutional issues that arose from the arrest.

In the heat of a tense moment it can be challenging to think clearly, but if we are truly committed to improving race relations we must actively create opportunities to resolve conflicts when they arise. Before Gates-gate, the dismissal of a group of African American and Latino children from the Creative Steps Camp by the Valley Swim Club, a private pool in the suburbs of Philadelphia had people up in arms and activated. The allegations, if true, are more than alarming and hurtful — they are illegal. Unfortunately, in the midst of the outrage the daycare center and parents missed an opportunity to teach an important lesson about conflict resolution to the people most impacted by the situation — the children. When the swim club’s leadership offered to reinstate the contract and welcomed the children back, the daycare center and parents responded by announcing their intention to pursue legal action. Of course they have a right to sue, but thanks to the NAACP, Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Commission launched an investigation that was already underway. The olive branch extended by the swim club — if accepted — could have empowered the children and helped them develop critical communication and social skills through a conflict resolution process. Instead of a life-changing lesson, the adults made a decision to be litigious — a reaction that creates a new set of problems, puts both parties more on the defensive, and most likely strengthens the pre-existing negative convictions of the alleged perpetrators. After the conclusion of the lawsuit, how will race relations have gotten any better?

Racism stems from deep-seeded misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and assumptions, and there is no quick fix that will have us all holding hands and singing kumbaya. After a small, self-recognized stumble on the Gates incident, President Obama invited both Gates and Crowley to a happy hour at the White House. Clearly a resolution will not happen because of a few shared beers, but as David Axelrod said, “the president sees this as an opportunity to get dialogue going…” Tonight’s meeting is a necessary step to help resolve the conflict between Gates and Crowley, but more importantly the White House Happy Hour could serve as an important lesson for the nation about cooperation, communication, accountability, empathy, and affirmation — all must-haves for a conflict resolution process to be successful. When a conflict arises at a Montessori school, the children learn that they need a neutral place to go and talk it out. The children explain how they are feeling, listen to one another, and plan what will fix it. The last step is acknowledgment of conclusion in some way — kids usually shake hands and hug. Tonight that will be replaced by throwing back a few cold ones. Though we may never hear apologies, hopefully both men can say what the toddlers know to say when a conflict has been resolved, “We declare peace.”

A few days ago Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist. Can African Americans truly justify the uproar that resulted from his statement — with the full backing of moral authority — when there is a cacophony of voices shouting racism almost every time a black person feels wronged? A white person offending a black person, in and of it self is not the definition of racism. Sometimes bad behavior and bad judgment are just simply bad behavior and bad judgment.

It is a mistake to confuse a call for better problem solving with lack of understanding or denial that African Americans and other minority groups still face horrible injustices, inequality, and systemic racism. In order to reach our full potential as change-agents and combat racism more effectively — with the specific goal of eradicating it from institutions and hearts — we need a new way of responding. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement boycotted and marched and it changed the world. Our generation has an opportunity to contribute new tactics to help move us even further along. It starts with critical thinking and when possible, ends with conflict resolution. This new direction may not appease some people’s emotional need to immediately call out and punish potential offenders, but it will help us all become more productive and effective problem solvers. Ultimately, providing the opportunity for our nation to one day finally achieve that often talked about post racial-judged only by the content your character-can’t we just all get along-colorblind-society. That is still the goal, right?

Posted in Politics Tagged: Cambridge Police, Conflict Resolution, Disorderly Conduct, Henry Louis Gates, Jim Crowley, Politics News, President Obama, Race, Racism ]]>