Responsibility of Actions

Today what extent can we be held accountable for what the people around us say? We must understand that our histories and relationships are far more complex than most people are willing to give us credit for. Living in an individualist country, we commonly look past the situation and place blame on the individual’s actions. During the 2008 Presidential Elections, President Obama was scrutinized for attending Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr., United Church of Christ in Chicago. When confronted at a press conference, Obama explains Rev. Wright’s attitude by exploring the history of the United States and emphasizes that there are aspects of our history that are respectable and there are aspects that are shameful. He highlights how Racism was once written into our nations laws, yet we never hold the white man standing next to us accountable for those actions. We cannot deny the complexity of American history. As much as we would like to deny it today, Racism is embedded in the deepest roots of this country. Also written into our constitution is Freedom of Speech, which allows us to speak our mind and explore our past attempting to make sense of our history. One man’s thoughts expressed, does not mean that every man who hears them believes them. The press attempted to hold Senator Obama accountable for Wrights words and tried to portray Obama as a black elitist.

Obama walked a thin line during his presidential candidacy. Declaring himself as a black man, he changed the nations views on race in the United States. People looked for flaws in Obama’s life and this is what they found. Handling the situation admirably, Obama did not deny his relationship with Reverend Wright, yet opened the eyes of many Americans by calling them out. Obama acknowledges that racial prejudice exists yet America is the only country that allows him as a black man to reap all the benefits he has gained as a citizen. Playing his cards delicately, Obama enlightens the public that he can not be held accountable for what his Reverend has said, he even goes as far to state that he has disagreed with a lot of things that Wright has preached about but it is his faith as a Christian that comes first. Although I agree that citizens had a right to be discouraged by Obama’s acts, if this is the only flaw they could truly find it appears shameful. Obama cannot be too black or be too white and instead has to bridge his past and his family’s heritage in order to find himself as a man fit for America. So I ask you, do you think it was right of the press to place blame on Obama for attending these sermons? Should Obama be held responsible for his Reverends actions?

Students of Color

I am ¼ Asian and because of this fact I can apply for the Dean’s Scholarship at Rhodes College and receive $20,000 off my tuition. However, I applied to Rhodes as a female Caucasian, and received no scholarship and instead pay the full $36,464. Rhodes College attempts to unite their students and blur the line of racial prejudice that surrounds our campus, however, in reality they only make the line more distinct. On the Rhodes College website, under the About Rhodes Fact Sheet, Rhodes second bullet point about the “student body” is that “Students of color make up 19% of the student body.” This statement comes before the percent of women and men that attend Rhodes or even the acceptance rate. I find this amusing that this fact comes second to the amount of students enrolled at Rhodes College.

The College attempts to place emphasis on their racial diversity yet at the same time pretend that prejudice does not exist. When you click on the link “Students of color” a picture of African American students pop up with an Asian in the corner at a bowling place and a quote below the picture states “Be the change you wish to see in the world” Mahatma Ghandi. There are 5 organizations that Rhodes highlights and yet you will not receive any information about these groups unless you apply as a “student of color” Rhodes College will send emails to “students of colors” attempting to make them feel more comfortable and try to bring them together as a group. But they do not try to intermingle the races. I have never been invited to a student of color meeting and I doubt many of my peers have either because they are not offered to people who are “Caucasian.” The picture of the “students of color” does not have one white person in it. Rhodes has never offered me the chance to go bowling with a small group of students. For this I feel that Rhodes plays their hand against prejudice too strongly. They highlight it more than they try to intermingle it. So I ask this, is Rhodes discriminating against the 81% of the students that are not considered “students of color?” Why does skin color or race get you a scholarship? I feel that Rhodes believes that it is important to highlight that they accept not only white students but are they doing this in the best way possible?

The Fight for an Equal Education

In a Jim Crow society, the ability to seek equality was near impossible. The inequality among blacks and white bled into each and every institution, especially education. The immense disparities between the white schools and blacks schools were quite alarming. The white students received new course materials, school equipment, better quality facilities, and bus transportation to and from school. The black students watched on the sidelines as the white student were showered with a number of advantages over black students. The black community was opposed to the growing disparities between the two communities and found ways to supply the materials they could to resource their students. As the black community continued to rally around the schools students in support, finally in 1954 the legal system took notice.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka influenced public education in an extreme manner. The ruling pointed to the disparities between black and white education and found that black students were being deprived of an equal education. From this ruling the implementation of integrated schools arose. All across the country schools were told to integrate their students. Specifically in the South, school systems chose to take their time with this ruling. However as pressure rose, the ability to stay segregated became harder and harder.

The integration plan that Little Rock, Arkansas chose to instill began the integration process with the high school and then would systematically work its way down to the lower levels. In Little Rock nine black high school students chose to attend Central High School, an all white public school. These first nine students were embraced with hostility and rage. The first day that the nine black students arrived at Central High School they were faced with angry mobs of students and community members. The students were also confronted by the Arkansas National Guards upon the instruction of Arkansas’ Governor Orval Faubus, preventing their entry into the school. Following the national press this received, President Eisenhower commanded over 1,000 troops from the 101^st Airborne Division to be stationed as protection for the nine black students. This local concern rapidly became a national matter, and with action provided by the federal government changes began to occur. The following year, one of the original nine graduated from Central High School as the first black graduate. This graduation marked the beginning of a new hope for fair and just education for both blacks and whites.

Now, fast forwarding to our present day, the question I then pose is this: Are school systems considered fair and just today? When I think about our education here in Memphis, I can immediately recall public schools that are under funded and lack resources. Instead of specific disparities between blacks and whites in the education systems like the 1950s, today’s society has enormous disparities between social-economic levels. I feel like there are still struggles that we face as a nation that represents segregation within the education system, and the question then is: Is there a way to provide fair and just education for all members of society?

Creating Change: MLK

ED Nixon (a prominent Civil Rights Activist) called Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in as the major spokesman for the Civil Rights Movement. At the age of 26, King was given the responsibility to lead the nation in a fight against segregation. He approached the movement in a nonviolence manner, as his actions were watched around the world as he spoke across the country regarding race relations and equal rights. This YouTube video below provides a brief five-minute glimpse into King’s life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ank52Zi_S0

As the video explains, King was imprisoned over twenty times because of his involvement with the movement. One of his most famous pieces comes from a time he was in prison in 1963, known as “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. His letter is written in response to criticism he received calling his actions “unwise” and “untimely”. In the letter King makes many powerful and profound statements in defense of this nonviolent movement. He states, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I think a comment such as this makes a strong presence. This statement is at the foundation of the nonviolence approach. It shows the severity of the racial tension within society, and the significance in the need for change.

King explains the knowledge behind the nonviolence approach within this letter. He states, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action.” When looking specifically at the facts, King knew that injustices existed across the country for black people living in a white man’s world. He identified the injustice of inequality and then proceeded with negotiations, self-purification, and direct action. King goes on to explain the struggles they faced in following most of these basic steps,

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't

negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed,

this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create

such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly

refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the

issue that it can no longer be ignored…The purpose of our direct action program

is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to

negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has

our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue

rather than dialogue.

King makes a profound statement here as he is pointing out the obstacles that the movement has faced. His explanation shows that members of the movement are merely seeking to have a conversation in regards to the unequal rights between blacks and white, but that society and its officials have closed the door to negotiate their concerns.

Due to the lack of concern that the city officials and larger members of society showed towards the movement, King explains the necessity in the nonviolent action that is needed in order to create some small element of change. King states,

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

King seems to make this statement with the understanding that he will not be able to change society as a whole in one nonviolent march or protest, but instead knows that if he changes one person’s heart, and then another, that this can effect many numbers in the future as the movement continues. The nonviolent approach is therefore effective in instilling change in individual’s hearts, and can therefore then affect much of society with time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” provided a response that signified the importance of the movement and its nonviolence approach. He wrote with passion and conviction in order to show that he worked to make a difference. It was through letters like this and nonviolent protest and marches that individual’s lives were changed and a difference was made.