The Racial Question in the Age of Obama
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 2 February 2010
by Philippe Bernard (link to original)
(France) on 2 February 2010
by Philippe Bernard (link to original)
Translated from
by Hodna Nuernberg.
Edited by Brigid Burt.
An Interview with Randall Kennedy, professor of Law at Harvard.
Randall Kennedy, 55, is one of the most respected analysts on racial issues in the United States. He is a professor and a lawyer in the Supreme Court. His work is at the crossroads of legal and racial issues. His major books, not translated into French, are “Race, Crime, and the Law” (Random House, 1998) and “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word” (Random House, 2003). On Wednesday, Jan. 27, he came to Lyon to present a work that will be published in the fall [tentatively] entitled “The Racial Question in the United States in the Age of Obama” at a conference organized by the Villa Gillet and Le Monde.
One year after the historic election of the first black man to the presidency of the United States, is the growing discontentment against him related to the color of his skin?
Without hesitation, yes. I don’t claim that anyone who criticizes Barack Obama is racist. But I am certain that the race question pervades even the slightest aspects of American life. Some whites do not recognize the legitimacy of a black man as the head of the United States. Others only pretend to accept it. Part of the opposition is clearly fueled by racial prejudices. One must remember that Obama only garnered 43 percent of white votes. If whites had been the only ones to vote, John McCain would be the president of the United States.
How does this racial hostility manifest itself?
Deep within the American Right, racial prejudices are used to rally anti-Obama sentiments. At certain tea party gatherings, cartoons are distributed that represent the president as a monkey, with captions that claim he is not American, (in other words, not white) and that say, “Go back to Africa!” The Right uses the racial issue to maximum effect in order to “blacken” Obama. Rush Limbaugh (the host of a very popular ultra-conservative radio show) loves to remind his audience that [Obama] is black. The purpose of which, for the president’s detractors, is to weaken his popular support by accusing him of being anti-white and in favor of blacks.
Do elected officials resort to the same means?
A few months ago, while Obama was defending his health care reform in Congress, Joe Wilson, a Republican representative, interrupted him by shouting: “You lie!” That was so shocking that most Republicans criticized Wilson and asked him to apologize. Would it be permissible to hurl such an accusation at a white president? My belief is that [Mr. Wilson] expressed his concept of white privilege and his discontent at seeing it challenged. It is not a coincidence that this South Carolinian representative fought to keep the Confederate flag flying over the State Building. Mr. Wilson was asked if his words had a racial connotation. He replied that they did not, but that is denial. The race question pervades his attitude.
How did the president himself respond to this question?
He replied negatively. My understanding is that because race is an issue that is so explosive and so charged in the United States, Obama steers clear of it. It would have been very detrimental for him to have replied yes. He would have been accused of demagoguery by playing the race card. That is why he refrains from addressing this issue.
Doesn’t he have a choice to react in another way?
No, if he said the truth he would pay dearly for it politically. This is the outcome we have: The President of the United States of America is a frighteningly powerful figure who cannot speak the truth when it comes to weighing in on the race issue in his country. He was elected at the expense of this repression.
Has this been the case since his election?
Consider the case of the black professor who was arrested at his home in Massachusetts. At first, Obama declared that the police had acted stupidly, without alluding to discrimination. That minuscule criticism caused him to be accused — falsely — of having challenged police practices as discriminatory. But because he was attacked in that way, he felt it was necessary to backpedal and to invite the professor and the police officer over to the White House to have a beer. For the same reason, you will never hear Obama speak about a subject as crucial as criminal justice. He thinks that he cannot do so because the political fallout would be too heavy, and it’s true.
Some blacks recently demonstrated in Washington to denounce “white power in black face.” Isn’t the black community itself, but for opposite reasons, abandoning Obama?
No, this ultra-minority protest is not significant. Blacks are ideologically very diverse. Some criticize Obama because they are conservative, while others, on the left, blame him for remaining insensitive to the unemployment rate among blacks, which is twice as high as that of whites. However, if Obama’s popularity approval rating has fallen among whites, that is absolutely not the case among blacks. They remain behind him and they will never publicly express any criticism.
Some go as far as to accuse him of being a “traitor to his race,” a notion to which you have devoted a book ("Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal," Pantheon Books, 2008).
Some blacks are disappointed by Obama’s silence on the race issue. They are not realistic. These are people so accustomed to being marginalized, so foreign to the idea that a black man could be elected, that they have no idea of the steps to overcome it. But the vast majority of blacks see things very differently. They know that three quarters of voters are white, and they are extremely patient with Obama. They understand that he would like to help more people in general and particularly blacks. But they understand that Obama is not a king. In order to change things, he must bring everyone together.
Barack Obama has always stated that his racial identity was secondary to his political policy. By adopting this posture, does he contribute to relativizing the importance of the race issue?
Partly yes, because of this major fact: A black American family now resides at the White House. Psychologically, this reality has a huge impact. It opens the field of possibilities without Obama having to say a single word about the issue of race. Millions of white American children live with the evidence that the president is a black man. This means to them that there may be black bosses, black generals and black surgeons. Similarly, black children watch the president with admiration. It broadened their horizons. But Obama cannot change things by snapping his fingers. He must have Congress pass laws. However, in our system it is much easier to stop plans than to achieve them.
Didn’t he achieve a historical milestone in race relations?
The current period is historical, but not comparable with the 1960s. A mass movement then totally delegitimized racism and changed the nature of race relations.
Will Obama be unable to improve living conditions for blacks?
The black middle class lives in a state of grace: Never have so many blacks been appointed to positions of responsibility. But I don’t believe that Obama can change the social status of poor blacks. For them, it would require much more than electing a president. It would take a social movement similar to those that moved Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Obama is liberal by instinct, but he is a prudent politician. Let’s not forget that he was elected by an exceptional set of circumstances — an economic crisis, an aging opponent, wars and an unpopular predecessor. A student asked me if the election was the result of an "aberration." That’s a good question.
Do you blame Obama for favoring social solutions over racial solutions?
Absolutely not: I would prefer that he tackle social problems. The racial issue has always limited the scope of social mobilization. Historically, because of racism, a large part of the white working class has subordinated its class interest to its racial preference. Unfortunately, it is still too often the case. The best thing to do is to help blacks without saying it with policies that benefit them. This is precisely the case of health care reform.
Did Obama usher in the emergence of a “post-racial America”?
Of course not! Why did people cry when Obama was elected? Didn’t the color of his skin count for anything? Of course it did! Why was that moment so wonderful? Because many people thought they would never see the day when whites would vote for a black man. If America were post-racial, you would have never seen that! Race remains central to the daily lives of Americans. Friendship, marriage, leisure and housing: Nothing escapes it.
The identity of African Americans is the product of a tragic story. What place do you give to individual freedom in the construction of identities?
I believe that individual liberty is extremely important in defining identity. I think people should not be locked into an identity and should have the freedom to choose. In my books, I use many words to describe blacks — black, Negro, African American, colored — and I am criticized for it. I remember that Martin Luther King used the word "Negro." Fluidity is especially necessary as African Americans have changed a great deal in twenty years due to immigration from the Caribbean and Africa. Obama’s own genealogy does not lead to the cotton fields of Mississippi! It belongs to the African diaspora. On my campus at Harvard, black students from the Caribbean or Africa are more numerous than those whose parents were born in the United States.
Isn’t that because they are more successful than the descendants of slaves?
I don’t know; there may be many reasons. Historically, immigrants are very enterprising people — they succeed through education. They are successful to the point that it raises the question of whether black immigrant students should or should not qualify for affirmative action. Should they be helped in the same way as the descendants of slaves? This debate continues to grow.
What is your answer?
If you think that affirmative action is justified by the need to repair slavery, it must be denied to people arriving today from Africa. However, if it's because you want campuses to include all parts of the population, then your answer will be the opposite.
How about you, what do you think?
I think affirmative action has two justifications. I argue for a broader notion, which would include people like Barack Obama. Children of immigrants should benefit from it, as should disadvantaged black children, women or the poor Appalachian whites! I want to be able to tell them: “Stop hurting yourselves to get revenge on us! I want to help you because you were left on the side of the road, even if you're white.” In our history, leaders have always asked white workers to belittle blacks. In doing so, the poor whites have degraded themselves. I say to them: "Let us be allies to create an open society where everyone can have an opportunity!"
Then, you are not arguing for a purely racial conception of "affirmative action."
My choice is for its expanded practice based on criteria other than race.
Your wish corresponds to the evolution of the contested decisions of the Supreme Court.
Yes, the Court agreed that race may be taken into consideration, but only in order to create greater diversity: sexual, social and geographical. We use euphemisms; we complicate things. Sometimes it is better not to make things too distinct; it upsets people. The main thing is to continue. This is what is going on with affirmative action.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of "affirmative action"?
The benefits clearly outweigh the disadvantages, but the latter exist. Some say that affirmative action has served to maintain the division between black and white workers. It also fueled resentment and may stigmatize. Even at Harvard, at the beginning of each year, I know that some of my students, white or black, wonder if I am a true Harvard professor or a professor who has been promoted beyond his capabilities because he is black.
In France, the understanding of equality is based on the refusal to consider skin color — a kind of racial neutrality. What do you think of that?
It depends what is meant by neutrality. Is this a means to achieve greater justice? For me, neutrality leads to the perpetuation of racial stratification. Is this a good thing? In 1865, the emancipation of four million blacks had the effect of leaving them in their condition, in an impoverished state. I believe that what people seek is not a society blind to race but a fair and just society. I do not like the metaphor “color blind.” Who wants to be blind? I love seeing green, red and yellow. What people reject is "pigmentocracy," a system where people are rejected because of the color of their skin or their origin. I don’t believe that it can be shrugged off just by closing our eyes. Imagine that you open a new school by turning a blind eye on race and you end up with 100 percent white students. You wouldn’t have been racist, but wouldn’t the result pose a problem?
How long should we keep counting blacks and whites...?
We live in a time of transition. The issue of race will diminish in people’s minds. Nowadays, nobody is counting Jews in the Supreme Court because Jews have succeeded in American society. It will take time, but the same thing will happen for blacks. Already, many of my students feel multiracial. They have parents of different origins. They form their identities differently. Their sense of loyalty is more complex.
Do you believe in a sort of convergence: toward more equality in the United States and toward more identity in France?
Oppression can occur in various circumstances. Black Americans have been oppressed by being excluded by whites. The American Indians themselves have been oppressed by forced assimilation. Don’t be deceived by slogans like "racial neutrality," which could lead to a terrifying society.
Are you optimistic about the future of race relations in the United States?
I am not of the same mind as Tocqueville, who thought that America was doomed to racial stratification. I find myself in the camp of the optimists, that of Martin Luther King and Obama. It is a reality to come to grips with it, in spite of the way in which our tragic history continues to haunt us.
Interview by Philippe Bernard
Randall Kennedy, 55, is one of the most respected analysts on racial issues in the United States. He is a professor and a lawyer in the Supreme Court. His work is at the crossroads of legal and racial issues. His major books, not translated into French, are “Race, Crime, and the Law” (Random House, 1998) and “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word” (Random House, 2003). On Wednesday, Jan. 27, he came to Lyon to present a work that will be published in the fall [tentatively] entitled “The Racial Question in the United States in the Age of Obama” at a conference organized by the Villa Gillet and Le Monde.
One year after the historic election of the first black man to the presidency of the United States, is the growing discontentment against him related to the color of his skin?
Without hesitation, yes. I don’t claim that anyone who criticizes Barack Obama is racist. But I am certain that the race question pervades even the slightest aspects of American life. Some whites do not recognize the legitimacy of a black man as the head of the United States. Others only pretend to accept it. Part of the opposition is clearly fueled by racial prejudices. One must remember that Obama only garnered 43 percent of white votes. If whites had been the only ones to vote, John McCain would be the president of the United States.
How does this racial hostility manifest itself?
Deep within the American Right, racial prejudices are used to rally anti-Obama sentiments. At certain tea party gatherings, cartoons are distributed that represent the president as a monkey, with captions that claim he is not American, (in other words, not white) and that say, “Go back to Africa!” The Right uses the racial issue to maximum effect in order to “blacken” Obama. Rush Limbaugh (the host of a very popular ultra-conservative radio show) loves to remind his audience that [Obama] is black. The purpose of which, for the president’s detractors, is to weaken his popular support by accusing him of being anti-white and in favor of blacks.
Do elected officials resort to the same means?
A few months ago, while Obama was defending his health care reform in Congress, Joe Wilson, a Republican representative, interrupted him by shouting: “You lie!” That was so shocking that most Republicans criticized Wilson and asked him to apologize. Would it be permissible to hurl such an accusation at a white president? My belief is that [Mr. Wilson] expressed his concept of white privilege and his discontent at seeing it challenged. It is not a coincidence that this South Carolinian representative fought to keep the Confederate flag flying over the State Building. Mr. Wilson was asked if his words had a racial connotation. He replied that they did not, but that is denial. The race question pervades his attitude.
How did the president himself respond to this question?
He replied negatively. My understanding is that because race is an issue that is so explosive and so charged in the United States, Obama steers clear of it. It would have been very detrimental for him to have replied yes. He would have been accused of demagoguery by playing the race card. That is why he refrains from addressing this issue.
Doesn’t he have a choice to react in another way?
No, if he said the truth he would pay dearly for it politically. This is the outcome we have: The President of the United States of America is a frighteningly powerful figure who cannot speak the truth when it comes to weighing in on the race issue in his country. He was elected at the expense of this repression.
Has this been the case since his election?
Consider the case of the black professor who was arrested at his home in Massachusetts. At first, Obama declared that the police had acted stupidly, without alluding to discrimination. That minuscule criticism caused him to be accused — falsely — of having challenged police practices as discriminatory. But because he was attacked in that way, he felt it was necessary to backpedal and to invite the professor and the police officer over to the White House to have a beer. For the same reason, you will never hear Obama speak about a subject as crucial as criminal justice. He thinks that he cannot do so because the political fallout would be too heavy, and it’s true.
Some blacks recently demonstrated in Washington to denounce “white power in black face.” Isn’t the black community itself, but for opposite reasons, abandoning Obama?
No, this ultra-minority protest is not significant. Blacks are ideologically very diverse. Some criticize Obama because they are conservative, while others, on the left, blame him for remaining insensitive to the unemployment rate among blacks, which is twice as high as that of whites. However, if Obama’s popularity approval rating has fallen among whites, that is absolutely not the case among blacks. They remain behind him and they will never publicly express any criticism.
Some go as far as to accuse him of being a “traitor to his race,” a notion to which you have devoted a book ("Sellout: The Politics of Racial Betrayal," Pantheon Books, 2008).
Some blacks are disappointed by Obama’s silence on the race issue. They are not realistic. These are people so accustomed to being marginalized, so foreign to the idea that a black man could be elected, that they have no idea of the steps to overcome it. But the vast majority of blacks see things very differently. They know that three quarters of voters are white, and they are extremely patient with Obama. They understand that he would like to help more people in general and particularly blacks. But they understand that Obama is not a king. In order to change things, he must bring everyone together.
Barack Obama has always stated that his racial identity was secondary to his political policy. By adopting this posture, does he contribute to relativizing the importance of the race issue?
Partly yes, because of this major fact: A black American family now resides at the White House. Psychologically, this reality has a huge impact. It opens the field of possibilities without Obama having to say a single word about the issue of race. Millions of white American children live with the evidence that the president is a black man. This means to them that there may be black bosses, black generals and black surgeons. Similarly, black children watch the president with admiration. It broadened their horizons. But Obama cannot change things by snapping his fingers. He must have Congress pass laws. However, in our system it is much easier to stop plans than to achieve them.
Didn’t he achieve a historical milestone in race relations?
The current period is historical, but not comparable with the 1960s. A mass movement then totally delegitimized racism and changed the nature of race relations.
Will Obama be unable to improve living conditions for blacks?
The black middle class lives in a state of grace: Never have so many blacks been appointed to positions of responsibility. But I don’t believe that Obama can change the social status of poor blacks. For them, it would require much more than electing a president. It would take a social movement similar to those that moved Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Obama is liberal by instinct, but he is a prudent politician. Let’s not forget that he was elected by an exceptional set of circumstances — an economic crisis, an aging opponent, wars and an unpopular predecessor. A student asked me if the election was the result of an "aberration." That’s a good question.
Do you blame Obama for favoring social solutions over racial solutions?
Absolutely not: I would prefer that he tackle social problems. The racial issue has always limited the scope of social mobilization. Historically, because of racism, a large part of the white working class has subordinated its class interest to its racial preference. Unfortunately, it is still too often the case. The best thing to do is to help blacks without saying it with policies that benefit them. This is precisely the case of health care reform.
Did Obama usher in the emergence of a “post-racial America”?
Of course not! Why did people cry when Obama was elected? Didn’t the color of his skin count for anything? Of course it did! Why was that moment so wonderful? Because many people thought they would never see the day when whites would vote for a black man. If America were post-racial, you would have never seen that! Race remains central to the daily lives of Americans. Friendship, marriage, leisure and housing: Nothing escapes it.
The identity of African Americans is the product of a tragic story. What place do you give to individual freedom in the construction of identities?
I believe that individual liberty is extremely important in defining identity. I think people should not be locked into an identity and should have the freedom to choose. In my books, I use many words to describe blacks — black, Negro, African American, colored — and I am criticized for it. I remember that Martin Luther King used the word "Negro." Fluidity is especially necessary as African Americans have changed a great deal in twenty years due to immigration from the Caribbean and Africa. Obama’s own genealogy does not lead to the cotton fields of Mississippi! It belongs to the African diaspora. On my campus at Harvard, black students from the Caribbean or Africa are more numerous than those whose parents were born in the United States.
Isn’t that because they are more successful than the descendants of slaves?
I don’t know; there may be many reasons. Historically, immigrants are very enterprising people — they succeed through education. They are successful to the point that it raises the question of whether black immigrant students should or should not qualify for affirmative action. Should they be helped in the same way as the descendants of slaves? This debate continues to grow.
What is your answer?
If you think that affirmative action is justified by the need to repair slavery, it must be denied to people arriving today from Africa. However, if it's because you want campuses to include all parts of the population, then your answer will be the opposite.
How about you, what do you think?
I think affirmative action has two justifications. I argue for a broader notion, which would include people like Barack Obama. Children of immigrants should benefit from it, as should disadvantaged black children, women or the poor Appalachian whites! I want to be able to tell them: “Stop hurting yourselves to get revenge on us! I want to help you because you were left on the side of the road, even if you're white.” In our history, leaders have always asked white workers to belittle blacks. In doing so, the poor whites have degraded themselves. I say to them: "Let us be allies to create an open society where everyone can have an opportunity!"
Then, you are not arguing for a purely racial conception of "affirmative action."
My choice is for its expanded practice based on criteria other than race.
Your wish corresponds to the evolution of the contested decisions of the Supreme Court.
Yes, the Court agreed that race may be taken into consideration, but only in order to create greater diversity: sexual, social and geographical. We use euphemisms; we complicate things. Sometimes it is better not to make things too distinct; it upsets people. The main thing is to continue. This is what is going on with affirmative action.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of "affirmative action"?
The benefits clearly outweigh the disadvantages, but the latter exist. Some say that affirmative action has served to maintain the division between black and white workers. It also fueled resentment and may stigmatize. Even at Harvard, at the beginning of each year, I know that some of my students, white or black, wonder if I am a true Harvard professor or a professor who has been promoted beyond his capabilities because he is black.
In France, the understanding of equality is based on the refusal to consider skin color — a kind of racial neutrality. What do you think of that?
It depends what is meant by neutrality. Is this a means to achieve greater justice? For me, neutrality leads to the perpetuation of racial stratification. Is this a good thing? In 1865, the emancipation of four million blacks had the effect of leaving them in their condition, in an impoverished state. I believe that what people seek is not a society blind to race but a fair and just society. I do not like the metaphor “color blind.” Who wants to be blind? I love seeing green, red and yellow. What people reject is "pigmentocracy," a system where people are rejected because of the color of their skin or their origin. I don’t believe that it can be shrugged off just by closing our eyes. Imagine that you open a new school by turning a blind eye on race and you end up with 100 percent white students. You wouldn’t have been racist, but wouldn’t the result pose a problem?
How long should we keep counting blacks and whites...?
We live in a time of transition. The issue of race will diminish in people’s minds. Nowadays, nobody is counting Jews in the Supreme Court because Jews have succeeded in American society. It will take time, but the same thing will happen for blacks. Already, many of my students feel multiracial. They have parents of different origins. They form their identities differently. Their sense of loyalty is more complex.
Do you believe in a sort of convergence: toward more equality in the United States and toward more identity in France?
Oppression can occur in various circumstances. Black Americans have been oppressed by being excluded by whites. The American Indians themselves have been oppressed by forced assimilation. Don’t be deceived by slogans like "racial neutrality," which could lead to a terrifying society.
Are you optimistic about the future of race relations in the United States?
I am not of the same mind as Tocqueville, who thought that America was doomed to racial stratification. I find myself in the camp of the optimists, that of Martin Luther King and Obama. It is a reality to come to grips with it, in spite of the way in which our tragic history continues to haunt us.
Interview by Philippe Bernard