FMO’s State of the Black Union served only to divide
Dr. Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. took one last look at his binder then closed it slowly and looked up to survey the crowd of 1,000 he was about to address. As he did so, he broke into a genuine, open-mouthed, teeth-baring smile. Though Northwestern had officially rescinded an offer to have him appear on campus in June — his presence would be enough to stir up acrimony to sour the mood of graduation, they claimed — the audience convened before him now at this same university was a friendly one.
The Wright on display Friday night, doted upon by For Members Only members as he made his way to the stage and flattered in an almost obsequious tone by the introductions, was not the Wright a Northwestern administration would be afraid of. Gone were the shrill pronouncements of his most famous sermons and his soft tone requiring careful attention in order not to miss a word lulled listeners into submission.
FMO wanted to prove a point, to show the administration that their will need not be done, and they succeeded — the line of attendees was long, the audience was receptive and the whole affair was pleasant. But to whose benefit? Rev. Wright was the most subdued of all the speakers, but the inflammatory tenor of the rest of the speeches not only doomed what could have been a positive conversation on race, but erased much of the benefit FMO accrued by attracting so much attention with a well known figure such as Wright.
“It should be known that FMO does not necessarily agree with everything that Reverend Wright has said and done. Necessarily, necessarily is the key word,” said Zachary Parker in his introduction, smiling, then shrugging and pointing at the audience as if to say, sorry, but we have to keep up appearances of remaining politically correct here.
The crowd loved it. They laughed, clapped and hollered in agreement. But it is precisely this sort of divisive and disingenuous claim of objectivity that shattered any hope for a productive, unifying night. The State of the Black Union was supposed to offer solutions for redeeming and reclaiming the black community. Instead, the parade of speakers succeeded only in further inflaming their base, falling back on tired accusations of elitism and insensitivity on the part of the University.
Most inexcusable was Parker’s remark, “It’s not that the president of the university is racist, per se, but it is his enforcing and mandating racially insensitive policies that were designed for advancing and sustaining white privilege.” He points to “racially insensitive financial aid packages offered to students of color” as evidence. However, Parker is not able to point to where this injustice actually shows up in Northwestern’s race-blind financial aid policies or Northwestern’s various programs to attract minority students. Just what Parker was suggesting remained unclear.
Ironically, it was Rev. Wright who stayed most true to the spirit of the event, offering sobering advice for a discontent generation. Mourning the “rupture in generational consciousness,” Wright exhorted Northwestern students to take their learning back to their communities, to ensure that African American culture and history are passed through the generations.
But instead of sticking to the theme, the rest of the speakers continued to emphasize division and heighten tension. “FMO rallies around Reverend Wright because we are tired of those in our community being held to a different standard than our wealthy and/or white counterparts,” Parker said.
It was hard to decipher just what double standard was at play here. Rev. Wright has “embraced a role of critique” in his work and has felt obligated to represent a “critical dissonant perspective,” said Professor Martha Bionidi. Wherever there’s a status quo agitator, media attention naturally follows. The media was interested in Wright because of his harsh, critical message, not just because of his race.
And that’s the same shortsightedness most of the speakers suffered from. They seemed to miss the fact that a great majority of their complaints grew not from the “culture of white privilege” that Mark Crain spoke of, but could apply to all Northwestern students. Northwestern may be occasionally inattentive and sometimes misguided, but there is no evidence to suggest that race has motivated any of its shortcomings.
Parker railed against the university for failing at simple tasks such as “buying new furniture and updating the Black House.” But consider the Hardy House, home to Northwestern’s 12 time National championship winning debate team. It has a temperamental front door, floors so creaky it’s probably a hazard, and for almost a year, the portrait of its namesake gathered dust on the floor, propped as it was against the trash can. Perhaps Northwestern should invest more in upkeep of its buildings, but that affects all students.
Many of the grievances of Northwestern’s African American community are well-reasoned and thoughtfully composed. But they are the grievances of Northwestern’s Asian, Caucasian, Latino, and American Indian communities.
Jesse Yang, the Asian American member of FMO’s executive board, came closest to articulating this realization, stating that “some of you might be confused by my presence on this stage” but that “none of you support injustice.” His impassioned and earnest request for everyone in the audience — regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation — to work against injustice was moving and on point. Unfortunately, by couching their appeals in racially divisive rhetoric, the rest of the speakers worked to undermine the very spirit of Yang’s appeal.
FMO has, even if crudely, re-started a necessary conversation on race. The “general fear with using strong words like justice” that Crain spoke of needs to be extinguished. No Northwestern administrator has claimed that the diversity problem has been solved. The list of shortcomings is long and embarrassing. But what would serve the Northwestern community more than baseless attacks is an offer to work together, administration and students, to reach agreeable solutions.
Tuesday, Nov. 11, 9:02 a.m. Black House has been properly capitalized. Thanks to Mark C. for the correction.
Interesting perspectives, Lara, I appreciate your being willing to continue this discussion. I want to note a few points.
1. In regards to Zachary’s comment about not necessarily agreeing with all of Rev. Wright’s beliefs:
Rev. Wright has stated, and proven, that he is both a scholar and minister. Frankly, many of his teachings are grounded in academic research. Thus, when most students don’t know the breadth of this man’s knowledge, and can only recognize him by distorted news clippings, then we feel compelled to re-enforce our support of him, unashamedly. In that same vein, if we did not want to make it clear that FMO wasn’t in agreement with all of his views, the comment wouldn’t have been made at all.
2. In regards to staying on topic
If you still have a copy of the program, I’d recommend that you flip back through and look at the title of each speech. You’ll realize that not only was each speaker on topic, but that each speech served to give context to Wright’s overall message. Addressed were the state of the university from the perspective of a “seemingly marginalized community,” the state of the Black community here, and then in a more resolvent tenor, Rev. Wright’s instructions on transcending the issues we face here, to redeem and reclaim our community.
3. Why the media was interested in Wright
The media was not interested in Wright because of his “harsh, critical message,” they were interested in him because he was painted to be an anti-semite and anti-American. Such an association could then cast shadow on Obama’s judgement. This is the reality when people like John Hagee and Rod Parsley are not demonized across national television for their harsh and critical hate-spewing and relationships with John McCain. You cannot enter this conversation unwilling to recognize and acknowledge common double standards.
4. The state of the Black House (and we’d appreciate if you capitalized both Black and House)
This is a very nuanced conversation. I don’t know whether the Hardy House is endowed, or who’s control it’s under. I don’t know how hard members of the Debate Team have fought to have the house repaired. I don’t know that comparing a space shared by one university team to one won in a historic event, and shared by a several-hundred member community is even appropriate. I do know that for several years leaders in the Black community have been consistent in their efforts to have problems within Multicultural Student Affairs resolved. We have examined a number of ways in which the department is currently failing to serve students and how that could be changed. Just some of those issues were covered Friday night. It’s interesting that both myself and Zachary brought attention to material problems within MSA, an actual structure at this university whose actions have real repercussions for students here, and you passed an opportunity to open conversation on this issue, but instead sought to trivialize our concerns, and in some instances de-contextualize our statements.
Jesse’s welcoming remarks were important because they encouraged all in attendance to explore a different perspective, to realize that the experiences of Black and white students on this campus are in fact different - and that this does not necessarily impede attempts to ‘unify’ the student body, but adds a valuable dynamic. His remarks made way for one speech examining how the failure of Northwestern to cope with race - and if it wasn’t an issue we wouldn’t be talking about it - has had negative effects on the entire community, Black, white, Latino, Asian, etc. This speech then gave way for one that offered the perspective of many Black students at Northwestern. It’s a perspective that perhaps you don’t understand. It’s one that perhaps you can’t believe actually exists beyond the two people who were last elected to lead FMO. It’s one that hopefully more dialogue can bring you to comprehend, or at least acknowledge.
-MC
Mark C.
November 10, 2008 at 12:25 pm
-The media’s interest in Wright, in response to Mark C’s comment above (part 3)-
The media tends to blur reality into the sensational, but his statements were exceptionally inflammatory, albeit perhaps not to the extent suggested. In his widely publicized sermon, Wright criticizes the United States government’s handling of past events, but he mixes factual statements on the Tuskeegee Experiment, Japanese-American internment, Native American reservations, and unequal social conditions for minorities with controversial, poorly-supported accusations of government prescience of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and purposeful invention of HIV for the intent of killing minorities. While his intention of bringing to light the injustices faced by all minorities in America is honorable, his method of doing so along with his lack of attention to any kind of solution to these problems do not lend an audience to a sense of cooperation and willingness to resolve these persistent issues.
This is not to say that America’s history should not be examined, but it is very counterproductive for Wright to call on God to damn America instead of asking God to help our nation work together to first recognize the issues that we face and bless not only our nation, but all nations of the world with the ability to correct past injustices. Remember the past so we can improve the future.
As for Wright’s connection to Obama - Barack Obama did have a closer relationship with Wright than John McCain did with Hagee and Parsley. Obama actively attended Wright’s church and listened to his sermons while McCain only received endorsements from Hagee and Parsley and did not have any other substantial connection to either of the two men. That being said, I agree that the media was interested in Wright for the wrong reasons, as it is driven by highly interested partisan groups as opposed to true objectivity.
In the end, it is up to individuals to decide whether to assess a person’s character based on the company she keeps or the content of her character. Yes, it is a shame that the media is overeager to tend to the sensational, and it does hold a lot of power over the information received by the general public, but it is our responsibility to be able to filter the information we receive and evaluate its applicability.
Greg G
November 10, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“The media was not interested in Wright because of his ‘harsh, critical message,’ they were interested in him because he was painted to be an anti-semite and anti-American. Such an association could then cast shadow on Obama’s judgement.”
… Yes, because his harsh, critical message was anti-American (and his newsletter has included articles by members of Hamas– there’s your anti-semitic). Why this group has turned someone like this into a guiding light in a so-called fight against injustice is, in my opinion, completely counterproductive. Note, by the way, the similar treatment in the media of William Ayers (a really, really white guy who, apparently, is also just enough of a prick to be welcomed with open arms by FMO as a VIP guest). The media didn’t pick up these stories because of race; they pick them up because an unknown who was running for president had questionable associations with bad people. And there’s no double standard here, Mark. As Greg pointed out, the connection between McCain and hate-filled preachers like Hagee and Parsley was a nod to the religious right and something with no compare to a man who you write about in your books to be a guide in your spiritual reawakening. If McCain had sat in the pews as Hagee went off on gays or immigrants, though, it would definitely (and rightfully) cast a shadow of doubt on his judgment.
In general, though, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you want equality and to end divisiveness based on race, you can’t then complain that such equality is too color-blind to suit your needs. At some point, you have to just say, “Okay, they’re not discriminating against us because of the color of our skin,” and move on.
PS: Has FMO ever brought someone like Bill Cosby on campus? I think he would be much more helpful on campus in a discussion about race than someone like Reverend Wright. Or is he not radical enough?
Dima
November 15, 2008 at 8:30 pm