In a diary yesterday entitled
"WaPo Guest Editoralist: 'No Such Thing as the Black Male,'" I was critical of Michael Meyers editorial, his analysis of Black Male Initiatives and his psychological drift away from his point toward the "truth" that there is no such thing as the "black male."
Having made the Diary Rescue and read the comments of my peers, I have decided to be even more critical.
The title of the article 'Stop the Black Only Treatment' is a rhetorical attempt to parallel black male initiative programs with whites only bathrooms, libraries, theaters, schools, universities, public park swimming pools, restaurants and water fountains which were the law of the land after
Plessy v Ferguson (1896) which yielded the phrase "separate but equal." That, in itseelf, is egregiously ridiculous. To compare a limited number of programss which attempt to lift the consciousness, enlighten, redirect the perspective or shift the paradigm with the inequities of African Americans in this country post Civil War or post Plessy is a
ridiculous premise to begin.
In his opening paragraph, Meyers is dismissive of efforts to address the inequities of the graduation rates of African American high school and college males versus African American females, white males and white females.
I'm sorry to report that 52 years after Brown v. Board of Education, separate but equal is all the rage in certain parts of the education world -- especially on college campuses where special programs are offered that target minority students for "special" and separate attention, counseling, mentoring, tutoring, residences and instruction.
"All the rage" Meyers condescends, as if he were talking about frappuchinos, iPods are the Harlem shake. Further, "separate but equal" meant that African Americans that paid the same taxes as whites, could not swim in their very pools that were paying for and could not attend the very schools that their tax dollars paid for. These programs do not exclude whites from attending these universities or in any way compares to the volume of disparity between then and now. One might argue, that state funding of these programs that are black only discriminate against whites but one couldn't argue that this, in any way, approaches the volume of disparity between then and now.
The latest of these race fads are the Black Male Initiatives (BMIs), government-funded and university-sponsored, and underway on campuses in states including Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York.
Again, he is insulting and dismissive of the herculean efforts of academia, psychologists, teachers, students and the business community's collective efforts as the latest "fad."
His third paragraph could be considered self-serving.
Until recently, when the New York Civil Rights Coalition filed a complaint against the City University of New York, these special programs were unassailable.
Self-serving one might say in that he is the director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition that struck the blow against the programs that heretofore were unassailable. He continues.
But more and more they are being shown to feature new variants of an old prejudice. This has included stereotyping all black male students as "at risk," and, for example, running special classes only for black men at CUNY's Medgar Evers College.
Let me point here, that as I understand that Meyers is againsst the idea of treating black men as a homogeneous group, all in need of rescuing and saving. I get that. I gently chip away at that tendency in conversations on the job, socially, on the campaign trail and even among my own in the African American community. But Meyers is guilty of the same homogeneity of which he rails against.
Also, his pointing out that Hunter College only invited blacks to a planning conference is legitimate as well as his pointing out that Medgar Evers College's treatment of all black males as needing special instruction for their deficiencies and needing to reclaim their traditional patriarchal roles is a legitimate concern. However, he changes gears at the end of the statement.
This special instruction focused on black men's alleged deficiencies and their need to act more responsibly in order to reclaim their traditional patriarchal roles as leaders in the black community and of the so-called black race.
Arguing the unfair treatment of all black males as "at risk" is one thing; referring to the "so-called black race" is a totally different thing. Thus, I snarkly suggested that he was saying that I didn't exist. If I oversnarked, accept my apology. But in all seriousness, he continues
Not surprisingly, this racial identity ferment -- aka self-determination -- is proudly endorsed by white liberals disturbed by the dwindling numbers of black men on campus, as well as by many black female students for whom interracial dating is either taboo or impracticable.
This is where the article takes its partisan and politically ideological turn with his Republican talking points reference to "white liberals" which is always a glaring indicator. Insult to injury, he further bastardizes his legitimate argument with his statement that black females support these programs because interracial dating is taboo or impracticable for them.
"While not all BMIs look alike" he admits six paragraphs into his ten paragraph editorial, he again goes back to Medgar Evers college which along with Hunter College are apart of the New York university system for which his organization filed suit against. He never discusses the other states that he listed in his second sentence. Let's look at a couple of them now.
Georgia
Kelly Simmons of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in her article Regents adopt ideas to increase black male enrollment gave the statistical findings of the task force asked to examine this disparity
- African American males make up only 7.2% of students in Georgia's public colleges and universities while African American females are 15% of the student population.
- Graduation rates for African American males - 21%; African American females - 35%; white males - 42%; and white females - 47%
This task force of college and university, K-12 schools and business representatives made such suggestions as recruiting of African American males into teacher educcatioon programs and encouraging colleges to provide support services and delevoping mentoring opportunities between colleges and high schools. No reclaiming patriarchal roles, no "saving". Just common sense solutions to a legitimate problem.
Kansas
In a University of Kansas press release
Vincent L. Edwards of Wichita, one of about 140 of the first graduates of the African-American Male Leadership Academy, is headed to the University of Kansas as a freshman with 10 academic scholarships. KU's fall term begins Aug. 21.
Based at KU, the academy was established in 1993 with a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation under the leadership of Jacob U. Gordon, director of KU's Center for Multicultural Leadership, formerly the Center for Black Leadership and Development.
"About 95 percent of the first 150 participants in the academy are seeking post-secondary education. And 99.3 percent completed high school," Gordon announced in a recent report.
And I am sure that we are all familiar with the Jane Addams Hull House
The KU leadership academy is part of the National African-American Male Collaboration, an innovative and grassroots effort of more than 30 organizations dedicated to helping men and boys reach their fullest potential while ensuring the stability of their families and communities. The collaboration is based at Jane Adams Hull House in Chicago.
Meyers legitimately argues against "racial thinking" including his mentor Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, again self serving and falls well short of the mark in delegimitizing the nationwide efforts of programs that "attempt" as I said in the beginning, to address the racial disparity of high school and college graduation rates.