The inauguration of the first black president of the United States capped off a year of national attention to race. From the contentious South Carolina Primary to then–candidate Obama’s historic race speech at the National Constitution Center in March 2008, the year was filled with moments when were focused on the racial significance of the events unfolding around us.
We can’t deny that something important has shifted in the last year. But what is it? How have the exciting, historic events affected, if at all, the reality of continuing racial discrimination and inequity on the ground in so many of our cities? Can we identify and accept that there has been real racial progress in our country? Do we fear acknowledging this fact? How do we continue to mobilize support to address racism and inequity when so many are enthused and optimistic about the new and hopeful racial moment? What is the new language of race?
Although national events and issues may shape our views about race, our most significant racial interactions are not those on the national stage. They play out in our families, on our jobs and in our communities, where racial tension and misunderstanding remain untouched by the soaring rhetoric and promise of events on the national stage.
OSI-Baltimore is sponsoring a series exploring how we talk about race in an effort to deepen and broaden our conversations about race in Baltimore. It’s been my experience that here in Baltimore we talk about race all the time–but often not explicitly and often not to each other. Coded language of crime, failing schools, responsible parents, and inner-city neighborhoods often mask very real and explicit conversations we should be having about race, poverty, and opportunity in our city.
I’m excited that this Thursday my cousin Gwen Ifill and I will be having a public conversation about race here in Baltimore City. Gwen is the managing editor of Washington Week, a senior correspondent for the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and the author of the penetrating new book “Breakthrough: Politics & Race in the Age of Obama.” And as a former reporter for the Baltimore Sun with years of experience in our beloved city, she knows Baltimore. Please join us for one in a series of conversations about race sponsored by OSI-Baltimore.
Professor Ifill:
I look forward to attending the June 4th conversation on race relations that you and your cousin, Gwen Ifill, will lead. I do not profess to be smart enough or experienced enough to have the answers to this extremely complex and vexing national travesty. But I do have a two-pronged hypothesis on a potential recipe to improve race relations. Hopefully, over time, these hypotheses can be tested in a respectful, open-minded, and intellectually-honest way to determine if they have any merit or perhaps modified to become most effective.
Like most difficult challenges, there is no single panacea for race relations. I suggest that there are two hypotheses that could be combined to make a potentially effective recipe to improving race relations. The first hypothesis is what I call the “T.R.U.T.H. or Consequences™” principles of all human relations (where the acronym “T.R.U.T.H.” represents the notions of Tolerance, Respect, Understanding, Trustworthiness, and Humility). The second hypothesis is even more difficult to explain succinctly. The second hypothesis is an achievement hypothesis, which I will describe in greater detail below.
First, I contend that it is a universal truth that the five essential ingredients to every healthy human relationship — whether between husband and wife, parent and child, or among family, friends, work colleagues, communities, races, religions, cultures, and even nation-states — all can be distilled down to a simple acronym, “T.R.U.T.H.,” where the letters of that acronym represent the values of mutual Tolerance, Respect, Understanding, Trustworthiness, and Humility.
I have previously written about how the “T.R.U.T.H. or Consequences™” principles could be applied to international relations to help defeat terrorism and to help defuse international tensions. These same “T.R.U.T.H. or Consequences™” principles could apply to help defeat hate crimes and help defuse racial tensions. This is not the appropriate forum to go into great detail about the necessity for mutual Tolerance, Respect, Understanding, Trustworthiness, and Humility as a pre-requisite to sustainable healthy relations among races. But suffice it to say, the audacious and courageous dialogue Professor Ifill and her cousin are conducting will begin the important journey toward achieving the Understanding that is necessary to ultimately achieve Tolerance, Respect, Trustworthiness, and Humility among races.
It would be naïve, however, to presuppose after such a long and painful American history of shameful race relations, that all of the sudden everyone will wake up tomorrow morning and begin to treat others of different races with mutual Tolerance, Respect, Understanding, Trustworthiness, and Humility. That is why it is essential that there be the companion principle of “Consequences” imposed on those who violate these precious “T.R.U.T.H.” principles. Recognizing the regrettable reality that vicious hate groups still exist who are committed to perpetrating heinous acts of racial violence, our government must be prepared to impose swift and forceful “Consequences” on those who commit such hate crimes. For these and other reasons, the healthy human relations “T.R.U.T.H.” principles must be coupled with the willingness and capability to impose swift and powerful “Consequences” on those who would violate the “T.R.U.T.H.” principles. Accordingly, this first hypothesis for improving race relations includes adopting a comprehensive “T.R.U.T.H. or Consequences™” policy for race relations.
The second hypothesis, as noted above, is a bit more complex. I refer to it as an achievement hypothesis. Specifically, I contend that personal achievement can be predicted with essentially a mathematical formula that is represented by the acronym “FIVE OX with a SACRED ‘I’.” Moreover, I contend that this hypothesis provides a vehicle to maintain appropriate affirmative action programs that would be truly “color-blind” and should be able to withstand Constitutional muster.
The theory that “It Takes a Family” is true, but only in part.
The theory that “It Takes a Village” is true, but only in part.
Both theories omit other, absolutely essential ingredients to an individual’s achievement. Both theories, therefore, ignore important implications affecting the family, village, which in turn lead to misguided public policy.
This Achievement Hypothesis can be summarized by the following mathematical formula:
A=(F+I+V+E)x(O+X), where
I=(S+A+C+R+E+D)
The elements of this mathematical formula are as follows:
A = ACHIEVEMENT
F = FAMILY (supportive and teaching the “S.A.C.R.E.D.” values described below)
I = INDIVIDUAL (calculated by the “I = S+A+C+R+E+D” formula below)
V = VILLAGE (nurturing neighborhood and communities supporting “S.A.C.R.E.D” values)
E = ENVIRONS (not just healthy natural environment, but also positive cultural environment)
O = OPPORTUNITIES presented (and either seized or ignored by the individual)
X = Perhaps the biggest variable of all — the “X” FACTOR (unknown and uncontrollable events or conditions that arise, which might be enormously positive or devastatingly negative. Some may call it “luck,” others may call it “fate,’ others may attribute it to a “God” or supreme being. It matters not what we collectively may call it. It is simply necessary that we all recognize that there are such influences on one’s ability to achieve, which no one can anticipate or control (whether it be luck, fate, God, or some other unknown source). And each person may experience numerous such “X factors” throughout life, including hugely positive “X factors” as well as overwhelmingly negative “X factors.”
With respect to the Individual formula, the value that would be inserted into the Achievement Formula (above) is determined by calculating the level of Individual’s:
S = SACRIFICE (e.g., foregoing immediate gratification for long-term growth)
A = ATTITUDE (e.g., no entitlement of success; it must be earned)
C = CHOICES (choosing to pursue positive opportunities and avoid negative influences)
R = RESPONSIBILITY (facing the consequences of one’s choices and actions)
E = EFFORT (achievement realized only through intense effort)
D = DETERMINATION (continued perseverance even after experiencing failures)
One’s prospects for personal achievement, therefore, can be predicted based upon this mathematical formula, where each variable is given a factor between -10 and +10, with -10 being the most severe adverse condition and with +10 being the most advantageous condition.
This Achievement Hypothesis thus has implications for Family responsibility, Individual responsibility, Village responsibility, and even for public policy. But this hypothesis also exposes some of the fallacies of many Conservatives, who claim that anyone in America can achieve success if they simply assume individual responsibility. For example, this mathematical equation demonstrates that even if one had a +10 score on Individual “S.A.C.R.E.D” scores, plus a +10 on the Family score, if that person has significant negative Village or Environs factors (e.g., dangerous neighborhoods, uncaring neighbors, polluted ground water, etc.), and/or negative Opportunities (e.g., inadequate schools, inadequate social services, no connection to successful people or institutions, etc.), and/or the bad luck “X factors” (e.g., unexpected illnesses, natural disasters, or other catastrophic events in one’s life, etc.), then the likelihood of that person’s succeeding would remain “against all odds.” The individual, no matter how strong his or her “S.A.C.R.E.D.” attributes, cannot achieve success on his or her own.
Correspondingly, this theory also exposes some of the fallacies of many Liberals, who argue that all government needs to do is throw more money at social programs (which can rarely reach the “tipping point” for an entire disadvantaged population), then all can succeed. In fact, this hypothesis demonstrates that even if government had unlimited resources (which, of course, it does not) to fund everyone in society to obtained a theoretical +10 factor for its Village and Opportunities, if a person has seriously negative Family factors (abusive or drug addicted parents or siblings, poor parental choices, etc.), and/or seriously negative Individual factors (e.g., unwilling to make sacrifices, carries a bad attitude, makes poor choices, unwilling to accept responsibility, fails to put forth real effort, and fails to persevere after setbacks), and/or experiences “X” factor bad luck (illnesses, natural disasters, etc.), then the likelihood of that person’s succeeding would also be “against all odds.” Government, no matter how good the intentions are, cannot be the prime factor in achieving one’s success in life.
This Achievement Hypothesis could be applied, for example, to influence how to modify (or modernize) governmental affirmative action programs to recognize the still necessary and laudable goals of affirmative action, but in such a way to withstand constitutional muster as well as those arguments used to advocate for its abolition. The “Liberal” arguments for continuing affirmative action programs continue to have merit, but only in part. It is true that the African-American population continues to suffer disproportionately from the lingering disadvantages emanating from our nation’s history of destructive discrimination and slavery (e.g., inadequate schools, lack of other necessary resources, etc), and they must be given an opportunity to break away from those cyclical conditions.
Conversely, the “Conservative” arguments for abolishing affirmative action programs also have merit, but only in part. It is true that the current affirmative action programs have elements of undermining a pure meritocracy — by selecting seemingly “less qualified” candidates over those who may appear to be “more qualified” — as well as running afoul of the Constitutional mandate to be “color-blind.” It is also true that affirmative action programs may have the unintended consequences of inadvertently stigmatizing truly meritorious African-American achievers — who may wrongfully be perceived as achieving their success solely due to affirmative action preferences. Moreover, the justifications for affirmative action programs — and the need for public financing of affirmative action programs — are all undermined where it is seen as allowing otherwise affluent and privileged African-Americans to get a competitive advantage solely on the basis of the color of their skin.
I contend that if we substitute this Achievement Hypothesis for the present form of affirmative action programs, we can achieve the desired public policy goals, avoid running afoul of the Constitutional mandate for “color-blindness,” and simultaneously reconcile the competing valid arguments of both the “Liberal” advocates for affirmative action and the “Conservative” opponents of affirmative action. Each high school applicant for college, for example, could be scored on the color-blind “Five Ox with a Sacred I” formula.
It could well be that one African-American student may appear superficially to have “achieved” greater high school success (on objective standardized test scores, grade criteria, etc.) than another Caucasian applicant. But that may be simply the result of the African-American student having a tremendous advantage of positive Family, Village, Environs, Opportunities, and “X factor” good fortune, although that individual may possess merely mediocre “S.A.C.R.E.D.” attributes (e.g., Sacrifice, Attitude, Choices, Responsibility, Effort, and Determination). On the other hand, the Caucasian applicant may demonstrate extraordinary “S.A.C.R.E.D.” attributes, but could not “achieve” the same standardized test scores or grades for reasons beyond his or her control (e.g., negative Family, Village, Environs, Opportunities, or “X factor” bad fortune) that no teenager could control or be expected to overcome on his or her own. I would argue that in a true meritocracy, the second Caucasian applicant demonstrates much better promise for achievement in the future and it would be prudent for a college to admit the second student over the first. Notice also, that the same reasoning would apply if the racial profile of these two hypothetical students were reversed, which demonstrates the “color-blindness” of this methodology.
I theorize, therefore, that by combining the ingredients of the “T.R.U.T.H. or Consequences™” principles of human relations with the “FIVE OX with a SACRED ‘I’” achievement hypothesis, we can make significant progress in our needed journey to the “Promised Land” that Dr. Martin Luther King envisioned, where none of us is not judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. And if one asks why we must consider these hypotheses to seek improved race relations, I would say the answer is quite simple and can be summed up by four precious words — “Because of our Children.”
**Jonathan M. Genn is a full-time business executive and attorney, part-time political theorist, and retired little league coach from Baltimore, Maryland.
The opinions expressed above are those of Jonathan M. Genn only, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of any business enterprise, charitable organization, or any other affiliation Jonathan M. Genn may have.
©2009 by Jonathan M. Genn
Ms. Ifill,
I was very disappointed to be unable to go to this talk (tho I posted the link on my Facebook & got some good responses, so I’m sure it was well attended. I don’t mean for this comment to be posted, I just wanted to let you know that I would have appreciated being there, and hope there is another opportunity sometime in the future.
I am an older white middle class woman who raised her kids on the west side of the city (Hunting Ridge, which is Sheila Dixon’s neighborhood) – and there is a question I’ve had rolling around the back of my mind, which I may have formulated better if I’d attended, but I’m not sure that I would have had the courage to raise in that forum.
My doubts in raising my voice have to do with my sense of being uninformed. I don’t listen to news shows in general, simply because I feel the large networks project more about the feelings of the ‘anchors’ than they do any new information, and the ‘information’ provided by the local anchors is usually about things I consider trivial, and not helpful in participating in the community.
My question would have dealt with Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright. I am disappointed that this relationship was fractured in the way that it was – and don’t believe that there was an honest dialog to see the Rev. for who he is. I’ve got to say my views are as usual slanted with a narrow slice of input – the only time I saw Rev. Wright speak was on Bill Moyers’ show (& some of his sermons from the church website). It seems to me that this needs further discussion, but perhaps being a victim of public scrutiny has already taken too much toll on both of these men & I’m pushing something that is better left alone.
I just wanted you to know that there was another community member who was grateful to hear about this forum, even though I was unable to attend.
Best Wishes,
Jill Harrison
vjillh@gmail.com