Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 4, 2002 / 20 Adar, 5762

Joel Mowbray

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Is Ted Kennedy a racist? -- AT a Senate hearing for Gerald Reynolds, who was appointed to head the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, Sen. Ted Kennedy put forth an ugly display that raised delicate questions of racism--yes, racism--that demand exploration.

Given that no charge is bandied about more frequently, it is a label that should be applied only after great deliberation. Democrats have robbed the term of much of its power by crying wolf with breathtaking regularity, which is a terrible disservice to the millions of Americans who cope with prejudice on a daily basis.

Many will protest that someone renowned as a longtime defender of civil rights could never be considered a racist. But racism is much broader than one's policy positions, and can be found in the way one treats a fellow human being. While grilling Reynolds, who is black, Kennedy patronized him in a manner that he most likely would not have treated a white conservative.

The most frequent, and most pernicious, form of racism confronted by minorities is not the use of racial epithets or the denial of jobs or other opportunities, but the more subtle bigotry of disrespect and diminished expectations. One common manifestation is when a white person feels the need to "explain" something as if talking to a young child.

Kennedy, who was over 30 minutes late because he was attending a party, began by noting that Reynolds has an impressive resume, but this was mere pretext, as he immediately questioned his qualifications for the post. Although Reynolds has extensive experience in both public policy inside the beltway and private legal practice, Kennedy "explained" to Reynolds that the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights is a "highly technical" position.

When Reynolds attempted to spell out his credentials, Kennedy abruptly interrupted, snorting, "What have you done in the last four years in any of these areas, any of these areas?"

Given that no major educational reform, aside from the bipartisan overhaul signed this January, has been enacted in the past four years, why would Kennedy arbitrarily pick that time frame as the benchmark for relevant experience? Well, Reynolds left the Center for New Black Leadership, where he devoted half his time to education policy, in late 1998, making four years an exceedingly convenient cut-off. Since leaving CNBL, Reynolds has worked for a public utility covering "highly technical" regulatory issues, which Kennedy dismissed as inconsequential.

To deem Reynolds unqualified because he hasn't handled education policy for nearly four years is both silly and insulting. But Kennedy's words alone were not what turned my stomach; it was his condescending tone and body language. It reminded me of the experience many black friends had in high school with white guidance counselors. My bright and talented friends more or less received the same message: "You're smart, but you're not quite the right fit for honors-level courses."

Kennedy, whether intentionally or not, was playing to latent, racist perceptions of black ignorance and ineptitude by challenging the competence of someone with a law degree from Boston University and a decade of legal experience, including more than three years working directly on civil rights and education policy. Reynolds is eminently qualified for the post. Several of his predecessors at OCR had zero experience in education policy, and one was not even a lawyer, yet Kennedy objected to none of them.

The cantankerous Senator is hardly a sweetheart to white conservatives, but he's never sought to topple one as experienced as Reynolds as incompetent. But it's not as simple as to say Kennedy attacked Reynolds solely because of the nominee's race.

Kennedy undeniably would not have attacked Reynolds if he were a leftist, because that's the "acceptable" worldview for someone who's black. Reynolds probably would have also gotten a free pass if he had served a long stint at the NAACP or the Urban League. But merely holding such expectations about acceptable beliefs or career choices premised upon one's skin color is racist.

Kennedy has clearly done a lot to advance the cause of civil rights and worked hard to improve the standing of many minorities, but that is a different question than any racism he may harbor or exhibit. We need to expand our conception of racism, while maintaining vigilance against spurious allegations.

It is possible that Kennedy's demeaning attitude toward Reynolds was mere rudeness. But if he did treat or think of Reynolds differently because of the color of his skin, then we should call a spade a spade.

Comment on JWR contributor Joel Mowbray's column by clicking here.

02/26/02: The Audacity to Be Black and Conservative

© 2002, Joel Mowbray