Arizona School Withdraws Request for Artist to Lighten Faces on Mural

A Prescott, Arizona school has occupied the center of a controversy for nearly a week. The school commissioned an artist to paint a mural with an environmental theme using pictures of students who attended the school. A Latino child is among the most prominently displayed figures in the mural.

During the painting of the mural, passersby hurled racial epithets at the artist. Steve Blair, a member of the city council, criticized the mural during his radio show, invoking the jaded "I'm not a racist, but. . . " and the "I have black friends" lines in the same breath:

"I am not a racist individual, but I will tell you depicting a black guy in the middle of that mural, based upon who's president of the United States today and based upon the history of this community when I grew up, we had four black families - who I have been very good friends with for years - to depict the biggest picture on that building as a black person, I would have to ask the question, 'Why?'"

On Wednesday, Blair again emphasized that "I'm not a racist by any stretch of the imagination, but whenever people start talking about diversity, it's a word I can't stand."

Blair questions whether the mural is representative of Prescott, noting, "The focus doesn't need to be on what's different; the focus doesn't need to be on the minority all the time."

Blair said he has received a number of calls from long-time Prescott residents who ask, "Who authorized that graffiti on the wall?" He added: "What these people don't like is somebody forcing diversity down their throats."

Apparently, the mere presence of a Latino child is unsettling to some people in the community. Although the child is an actual student at the school, his presence in the mural means that the artist is "forcing diversity down the[] throats" of whites in Prescott.

Furthermore, the nonracist Blair describes the Latino child as black and somehow manages to connect him with President Obama (who happens to be black). Equality is so beautiful!

The school also received complaints, which led officials to ask the artist to "lighten" the faces of children depicted in the mural. School officials denied any racist intent and said that they were not responding to angry callers.

After a national uproar, however, school officials have now switched their position and have withdrawn the request to have the mural altered to depict lighter children. The school principal said he made a mistake; the superintendent also said that the request to lighten the students' faces was wrong.

Meanwhile, Blair has lost his radio show. And he is still complaining about the mural:

"It looked like a guy, in my opinion, a black guy, brown guy holding a stick, and flowers and stuff, what was it supposed to mean?

Perhaps he'll blame some "black guy, brown guy" for the loss of his radio show.

Why Rand Paul's "Defense" Is Flawed

Faced with growing controversy over his position on civil rights, Paul Rand has stated that he would not seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rand created a stir when he stated that he believed that the federal government should not prohibit discrimination by private companies. By stating that he would not seek to repeal the legislation, Rand hopes to defend his reputation and his senate campaign.

Rand's defenders have added another dimension to his defense, which Rand touches upon subtly. Rand's defenders stress that he is not a "racist." Also, Rand, in his own defense, says that he opposes racial discrimination, which is another way of saying "I'm not a racist." Neither of these defenses helps Rand, however.

Most of Rand's critics never even said or implied that he would seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Honestly, I have not seen any argument that even implies he would seek to repeal the legislation. Also, during the scattered interviews during which Rand stated his opposition to regulation of private companies, the interviewers did not contend that he wanted to repeal the civil rights statute. Instead, they asked him whether he would have voted for the law. Rand's view of civil rights is troubling whether or not he has the courage to advocate repeal of the legislation.

Rand's position on civil rights is disturbing because it indicates that he probably would not prefer strong enforcement of civil rights laws against private companies and that he definitely would not favor extending these laws to other groups, such as gays and lesbians. Agreeing that the law should remain in place does not mean that he also wants the federal government to prosecute vigorously civil rights violations.

Paul's effort to say he is not a racist is also irrelevant. Regardless of Paul's personal views about persons of color, his ideas about the role of government in the creation of a just society are extreme and dangerous. Personally, I do not care whether Paul is a bigot or not. How he votes on important issues like civil rights matters much more.

Paul has given the country a look at his views on these important issues. Criticizing him is a highly appropriate response.

Conversative Blog Claims Video Debunks Stories of Bigotry Among Tea Party Movement

As passionate as the Tea Party folks are about politics, I think they should just embrace whatever biases move them. Their defenders, however, are trying to debunk stories, confirmed by multiple sources, of several racist and homophobic incidents involving Tea Party protesters who converged upon Washington, DC last week.

The Dana Show blog has posted 23 seconds of video that purportedly prove that no Tea Party participant hurled any epithets towards members of Congress. The video proves no such thing.

First, the footage is too short to capture everything that occurred during last week's protests. Also, and most importantly, because there were so many people chanting during this particular clip, audio could only capture clearly what the broader group was chanting (sounds like "kill the bill"). This does not disprove the reports that individuals in this boisterous group made racist and homophobic comments. Instead, it shows that with respect to one person's video recording, the louder shouting drowned out individual commentary. Individuals on the ground almost certainly heard more than the video captured.

I have not seen many conservatives agree that this audio disproves the allegations of bias. Perhaps they are not persuaded either.

Finally, The Dana Show went on and on about how persons making these allegations intend to discredit arguments against healthcare reform and the Tea Party movement generally. I disagree. People can have legitimate arguments on some issues while subscribing to racism and homophobia. Racism and homophobia, however, are deplorable and worthy of our attention -- just as much as government spending. The Tea Party movement is not exempt from scrutiny or criticism.

Here is the video footage:

Daily Kos Reader: Progressive Criticism of Obama's Nobel Prize = Racism!

This is this ultimate GIVE ME A BREAK thread. I was skimming through Daily Kos and discovered this whopper in a diary written by "pvlb":

Apparently, among "progressives" unless the African American President of the United States of America does not satisfy the very exacting specifications of each individual's idea of what should be done, he is a sell-out do-nothing.

There's no conclusive way of determining what's at the root of that, but as I thought about it, I did come to an excruciating, embarrassing, and sad end to my contemplation.

As my mental wanderings led me down path after path in trying to find an explanation, I came to dead end after dead end. Only one seemed to provide any possibility of an explanation. Regretfully, I concluded that even among progressives, this is a racial thing. Even for them, President Obama has got to do more, do it better and in less time than anyone else on the planet, in order to prove that he is 'worthy' of the presidency, or our support or the Nobel Peace Prize . . . .

Normally, when I am discover such flawed reasoning, I fall into "teaching mode" and try to approach the proponent with diplomacy. But plvb's argument does not warrant such sympathetic treatment.

Committee Could Have Made a Better Choice
Pvlb's analysis is extraordinarily misguided (but gaining traction on Daily Kos). First, President Obama did not award himself the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore, criticism of the award, at least from my perspective, is directed towards the prize committee -- not Obama.

Also, there are more deserving people the committee could have selected -- like Representative Barbara Lee, whose actual work embodies an actual commitment to peace. Lee is the only member of Congress who had the courage to oppose the war in Afghanistan in 2001. She has also introduced a measure to deny funding increases for Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama, by contrast, describes the war in Afghanistan as a "just war," and he is currently considering a second troop surge.

Obama's position on Afghanistan does not represent a strong commitment to peace. It certainly does not represent a greater commitment to peace than the advocacy of others -- like Lee. Lee, by the way, is a very progressive -- far more than Obama -- black woman. My argument that Lee is a better candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama should neutralize plvb's immensely ridiculous claim that progressive criticism of the prize decision (or of Obama's policies) results from racism. Pvlb is so stuck inside of his/her own "contemplation" and "mental wanderings," however, that I am not sure whether he/she will notice this very basic fact.

In addition to escalating the war in Afghanistan, Obama has maintained many of Bush's antiterrorism practices -- like rendition, military tribunals, indefinite detention, and the denial of habeas to certain detainees. When liberals criticized Bush for engaging in these practices, they were not racist. When the few liberals who believe in logical consistency criticize Obama for embracing these same practices, they are still not racist. Furthermore, these policies are inconsistent with the pursuit of peace among nations and people.

Indiscriminate and Unnecessary Use of Race Is Harmful to Racial Discourse
Undoubtedly, some of Obama's critics are racists. But the simplistic and kneejerk equating of criticism of his policies with racism needs to end. This line of analysis began during the Democratic primaries. Committed racial progressives like Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters were called self-loathing "racists" for supporting Hillary Clinton over Obama. But after he secured the nomination, Obama used the Clintons ("two racists") on the campaign trail, and he chose Hillary as Secretary of State after he was elected.

Ironically, Obama receives vigorous race-based advocacy, but he strives to avoid racial discourse himself. The first and only racial criticism he made as president ended comically with him having a brew with Joe the Cop.

Although Obama runs away from racial issues, many of his most ardent defenders continue to wield "race" as a knife aimed indiscriminately at progressives and conservatives alike. This is an absolutely bankrupt and ultimately unhelpful approach to race relations.

Update: A response to Michael Moore's criticism of Obama's progressive critics: To Michael Moore: Absolutely Not!

Rick Warren versus Don Imus: Obama's Inconsistent Positions

Obama has pushed back liberal critics who believe he made a mistake inviting Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration. Warren has provoked anger among liberals, especially GLBT advocates, because he has opposed gay rights measures and has likened same-sex marriage to statutory rape, incest and polygamy. Warren also compared abortion to the Holocaust.

Despite the outcry over Warren, Obama defends his decision on the grounds of diversity. He argues that including Warren is consistent with his belief in creating space for all views:

I've . . . said . . . that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. . . .[W]e're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere . . . where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.

During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about. That's part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated.

As a presidential contender, however, Obama took a very different position after "shock jock" Don Imus made racist and sexist statements regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. Liberal activism, public anger and fear among advertisors led MSNBC and CBS radio to drop Imus, who crudely described the basketball players as "nappy-headed hos."

Obama's position on Imus differs substantially from his current statements regarding Warren, which advocate the tolerance of "noisy and opinionated" voices. Rather than treating Imus as someone with whom liberals should "disagree without being disagreeable," Obama instead insisted that broadcasters give him the boot:

I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus . . . but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.

Ironically, Obama appeared on the Imus show twice before the controversy happened, but he vowed never to return.

Obama also had strong words condemning the content of Imus' statement. Although he expressed an appreciation for freedom of speech, Obama argued that:

[Imus] didn't just cross the line . . . . He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting.

And instead of choosing to focus on commonalities rather than differences, Obama asserted that: "As a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids."

My noisy and opinionated analysis: I do not think I am stretching things here by arguing that GLBT people are probably as offended by Warren's comments, which compare their relationships to pedophilia, incest and polygamy as black women were offended by the Imus "nappy-headed hoes" slur. Furthermore, the linkage of gays and lesbians with pedophilia is one of the most pernicious and degrading of all homophobic slurs and is as serious a problem for young GLBT people as racist and sexist slurs are for children of color. Nevertheless, while Obama became the first candidate to call for the firing of Imus, he has not only invited Warren to participate in his inauguration, but has defended the choice against liberal criticism as an act of nobility.

What could explain Obama's different approaches? I imagine it has a lot to do with these two statuses: "presidential candidate" versus "presidential-elect." In order to win the Democratic primaries, Obama had to appeal to a liberal base dominated by women and black voters. But as president, his audience is much broader and far more moderate-to-conservative. I have not seen any polling data on this issue, but I assume that most of the public agrees with Obama.

It also helps him that the GLBT community is a much smaller demographic than blacks and women, that the public, including most Democrats, opposes same sex marriage, and that none of the mainstream media will likely give much airplay to his inconsistent positions. In other words, he has shifted positions because he can do so without hurting himself politically (Christal Phillips said this a long time ago). If anything, he could possibly gain a few supporters by "dissing" gays.

For the record: I never cared whether Imus lost his job, but I thought that progressives should have directed their activism to structural issues rather than choosing to respond passionately to every idiotic "racist du jour" (see Beating Up Imus and Other Idiots: How “We” Construct Racism). The same arguments could apply in this context, but Warren, unlike Imus, has the ear of the president-elect. I think the stakes are somewhat different. Nonetheless, I have not advocated that Obama rescind Warren's invitation to appear at the inauguration. Instead, I have analyzed the legitimacy of GLBT anger and the broader politics at play in the controversy.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table

Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone

New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath

Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?

Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry