Segregation: In Politics And Publishing

I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of the press. I really do. Thus I guess I don’t think the Philadelphia Inquirer should fire columnist Acel Moore (though perhaps the person who hired him should be fired), but I do think the name of his column should be called “Urban Legends” instead of “Urban Perspectives.”

Here are some choice excerpts from his column that appeared on December 31, in italics, some followed by comments and some simply beyond comment.

After noting that Trent Lott was forced to resign “for appearing to endorse segregation,” Moore writes:

The fact that Lott became a leader in the Republican Party while openly harboring those thoughts in words, actions and votes is now something his party must confront if it truly wants what its leaders claim it wants: to be more inclusive. [Emphasis on “and” in original]

Regular readers of your humble bloggerservant (Poor souls! Turn over a new leaf!) will know that I am no Lott fan, but even I don’t think he ever voted for segregation in the Senate.

Republican elected officials from the South, many of them former Democrats, have opposed most initiatives that benefit African Americans and other minorities, particularly affirmative action initiatives.

They have also opposed legislation that increases the minimum wage; laws that would ban racial profiling; and changes in the death penalty laws.

And your point is what? That Southern Republicans are … Republicans? (Moore is obviously beyond recognizing that at least some of those Southern Republicans would argue that “most initiatives” that are said to “benefit African Americans” don’t.)

The test of whether this nation wants to be fairer and confront the unfinished business of race will come before the U.S. Supreme Court when it decides a lawsuit against the University of Michigan over a policy that allows race as one of the factors for admission.

So, if the Supremes decide that equal protection requires, well, equal protection (treating all races/ethnicities the same), it will indicate that the nation does not want to be “fairer”? You bet.

The incorporation of blacks and other minorities into the mainstream has been slowed or choked since the murder of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

This is one that defies rational comment.

There has been some progress since the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, but race is still a vexing issue, and in too many ways this country is still as segregated as it was 40 years ago.

“Some” progress? Still “as segregated” as 40 years ago? This is another one.

Some believe that if the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action and Frist or his party offers no alternative to deal with the unfinished business of race, then the segregationist cause will have won.

“The segregationist cause”? Give me a break. Does anyone seriously think that any conceivable “sensitive” or “inclusive” or “compassionate” policies Republicans could follow would deflate criticism of this sort?

Eric Alterman recently suggested that the New York Times has been taken over by “Raines’ Right Wing Conspiracy.” (Link via InstaPundit). Perhaps the conspiracy is even more pervasive and devious than he suspected. It may be no accident, as we conspiracy theorists are fond of saying, that columnists like Acel Moore in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe (Jackson won a coveted Begala Runner-Up Award from Andrew Sullivan, and was also criticized here) are so bad that they are almost parodies of themselves. Maybe Alterman should investigate the suspicion — not that these guys were “affirmative action hires,” but that they were hired knowing that public exposure of their advocacy would undermine affirmative action.

There’s another explanation of why the Acel Moores and Derrick Z. Jacksons have their privileged platforms, and it supports and even more sinister Altermanic-like conspiracy. A brief digression is required to explain it.

I grew up in a small south Alabama town in a time when the police oppressed the local black community in all the ways, and more, that liberals today think of when they think “Republican.” But one of the worst forms of that oppression is not as familiar to most of us today: black-on-black crime was frequently ignored. What happened in the black neighborhoods, even violence, simply wasn’t regarded as very important. It was simply assumed that “those people” couldn’t meet “white” standards, and that it was futile, and also unnecessary, to expect them to. Besides, having the police ignore a good deal of black-on-black crime was seen as a way of reducing friction with the white community. Of course, it goes without saying (at least in some circles; in others, it must be emphasized) that refusing to expect and demand that blacks meet the same standards as whites was itself a severe form of racist discrimination.

Reading Moore and Jackson, I can’t help being reminded of my town fathers and their police. I wonder if their editors and publishers really care what they say, or if they don’t regard columns like theirs as a kind of pandering pacification program.

Say What? (1)

  1. Andrew January 6, 2003 at 7:34 am | | Reply

    I too read Acel Moore’s column with disbelief that such a poorly written piece could end up as an op ed at one of the country’s largest dailies.

Say What?