just back from an excellent speech by chris edley, jr., a swat alum and harvard law prof who has been in the forefront of many a political battle over race and race policies. the particular talk he gave tonight was ostensibly "for" martin luther king, jr. day, but early on edley seemed to dispense with his allotted topic in favor of a more general talk about the ways in which racial discrimination is alive and well in america today. he focussed during this part of the speech upon "discrimination" and "disparity," citing some entirely uncontrovertible social science data (matched pairs studies, educational attainment figures) which seemed to astound parts of the mostly-white audience.

why are some (most?) white people so unwilling to admit this? i suppose it’s basically a question of our need to feel like "good people." but as chris edley pointed out, to talk up the american (public) commitment to equality and racial harmony while ignoring the actuality of discrimination, segregation and inequality sounds rather eerily similar to many a southerner of the civil rights era: "i’m not a racist—lots of my friends are black—it’s just not the government’s place to legislate morality." in any case, as I hope I will continue to be the first to admit, it can be really tough, when you have experienced entirely legitimate personal struggle and difficulty, to admit that you’re the recipient of something as ominous as "privilege," or a repository of something as nasty as "prejudice." well…but we are.

here he paraphrased al gore, rather in opposition to martin luther king jr.: racism—or more broadly, the part of us that is hateful and distrusting toward what is different—is less like an act of sin and more like a propensity toward sin. in that sense, it’s not going to be a case of everyone coming to their senses and agreeing that racism, being Bad, should be ended now. rather, we’re likely to accept that racism is bad and still practice it in underground ways. we must, to put in not too dramatically, be ready always to do battle. tough stuff to think about, when you’d rather not be racist, or you’d rather not be battling…but there it is. as edley pointed out, and as I, rather to my own surprise, have come to agree…race really is harder than rocket science.

most of edley’s speech was concerned with leadership, with what sorts of leaders can combat racism and with how those leaders are produced, at swarthmore or anywhere else. important points here included the oft-forgotten fact that king was a revolutionary, that he was not always popular, that people both black and white just wanted to be left alone, that revolutionary leadership requires moral courage, and that the development of good and intense and intellectual thinking about race requires academic respect. during q&a he took al bloom to task for asserting that the best education for anti-racist leaders would take place outside the curriculum.

why hadn’t I thought about or accepted this before? if it’s a complicated and difficult question, if it’s the subject of much thought, and if it’s fiercely contentious, and if it’s a well-defined part of public debate, and if it’s vitally important (as it is)…why, if all these things are true, is it not a central part of our curriculum, especially in the social sciences? edley contrasted such an approach with the approach too often taken by colleges and other institutions: "we’re going to have a club, and it’s going to meet every thursday night to talk about Race." but he’s right, in a way I hadn’t considered before, and in a way that challenges a lot of common assumptions about what is or should be canon in education.

…and finally, inevitably, the talk rolled around to affirmative action and the UMich case. edley’s main point was a fairly scathing (and very well-argued) beef with the bush administration’s take on the case, which baldly and spuriously supposes that the criteria in that case are "like quotas." such bullshit! he didn’t attempt to defend quota-type systems, which I found rather too bad—but then, nobody can really do that in the US these days without risking crucifixion. he even stipulated something which I think is true (though not necessarily therefore good)—namely, that if it works to ameliorate racial discrimination as well, class-based educational integration is indeed less divisive. furthermore, deconcentrating poverty absolutely is better for all concerned. my only concern here was that the speech sidestepped one important issue: why is class so much more OK than race? because it's more obvious, with more obvious harms, i suppose. (but as he had previously pointed out--maybe a little divisiveness is better, if it means the debate is honest?)

as always, i was taken with morality-talk from the left. edley reminded us of king's "prophetic" vision and pointed out that, yes, progress has been made...such a vision is not today entirely prophetic; one might actually find an example or two out there of race relations that somehow *work.* but his statement that king's true strength was his vision of what should be for the country really struck me, especially in contrast with his experiences in the clinton white house. [and don't even get me started on the bushes.] leaders with a personal moral vision, rather than a personal sense of entitlement or a burning, blinding ambition, seem to be in such short supply these days...like one of the pitt frosh asked me after the talk, who the hell am i going to vote for in 2004?