Fox News Protestors: Are We going to Act?

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

www.BoyceWatkins.net

At Your Black World, we had a strong and powerful protest of Fox News and the racist Bill O'Reilly. Shortly after our protest, I started to notice protests by other websites, such as ColorofChange.org, Moveon.org and others. I love the fact that groups are working hard to challenge Fox News for what they are doing to this election.

However, I am concerned that we in the blogosphere are starting to actually believe that getting petitions and having people sign them is going to actually change something. I spoke with the people at Color of Change, whom I respect for their amazing campaigning ability. When I asked what they planned to do with their petitions, I was told that they plan to present the signatures to Fox News when they reach 100,000. Fine idea, but I think that more might be required.

You see, Fox News can be like the devil: The devil enjoys when you pour grease on a grease fire. Fox enjoys the protests, they enjoy the petitions. They will receive the stack of signatures and likely throw them in the garbage. These individuals are intelligent enough to realize that controversy means ratings, and that the more liberals hate them, the more their conservative (sometimes highly racist) base loves them.

When it comes to Bill O'Reilly and others, you have to hit them where it hurts.

Corporate sponsors are a bit different from highly charged, Jerry Springer-like media outlets such as Fox. They are truly CONSERVATIVE (and not in a cutting-edge, insanely racist, Michelle Malkin- Ann Coulter sort of way...more like the "we don't like rocking the boat" kind of way). They don't like the controversy, because it puts their corporate brand at risk. Shaking their foundation makes the board members nervous and they take away their sponsorship of Fox News. That's how you hit em hard. Well, that's at least how you can marginalize them a bit more than they've already marginalized themselves.

Also, good old fashioned protest works as well. I agree with Rev. Jesse Jackson, who explained that bloggers do a lot of writing, but we don't actually get out there and get it done. I recommend forming protests and having people with picket signs, standing in front of Fox News' top 2 or 3 corporate sponsors.

That might be more effective than a list reminding Fox that 100,000 people hate their guts. To be honest, I think they already know that.

How I learn from the Black Community

One of the best things about having nearly 100,000 people come through our website each week is that I get such enlightening information from the community. That is part of the reason I invited readers to comment on Senator Obama as I prepare my thoughts for the upcoming BET special.

One email I received this week was from a man named Justin White, political science expert in Cleveland. I felt that his email was so insightful that I wanted everyone to learn from it:

Email from Justin White, a YBW Family Member from Cleveland, OH


A little personal background...This political process supports an hypothesis that I have submitted to students in classes for nearly 20 years while doing adjunct faculty work. Among other social science coursework, I teach social welfare policy and urban politics. Naturally, the current political culture, with respect to recent history, results in spirited discussion and interesting papers. I also speak as a brother; a baby boomer and; a resident of an almost exclusively black and not too prosperous suburb of Cleveland, Ohio.

The above mentioned hypothesis...It has been apparent to me for some time that African-Americans, for good reasons (and some not so good) do not understand the fundamental differences between electoral politics and protest politics. But, this election due to its duration and complexity, is becoming a graduate course for the community. Friends and colleagues are redefining themselves with respect to the manner in which they and other black folk should demonstrate civic participation. We are volunteering thoughts and feelings to each other unlike anything I have seen since the "rap sessions" of the early seventies.

Rather than applying the "conventional wisdom" that so frequently results in myths and derogatory conclusions, I believe we need dialogue and research that addresses the relationships between black civic/political participation and the existence (absence) of the types of institutions that engineer and support political participation. All the while remembering that African Americans are a minority people and the blueprint for these institutions generally reflects the dominant culture.

Today's political process, at least as we view the percentages of black voters who support Obama, indicates the utility of electoral politics as a factor in creating cultural bonds that offset social and economic divisions. (sounds like another hypothesis in the making)

I hope that of African American academics like yourself and Michael Dyson can assist us as we negotiate the political, cultural and social learning curves related to blacks taking on leadership responsibilities in electoral politics. This is not to place an unbearable onus on you. That would be unfair. The often amorphous, but real, "black community" must become engaged in every respect, by all forms of media to overcome the habit of ignoring its scholars. Your website is so important in that regard.

Barack Obama is living the "Jackie Robinson Syndrome" as he negotiates the dominant cultures' institutions in the absence of black institutions designed to support and strengthen him. Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton forewarned us 40 plus years ago in the classic book Black Power about the need to develop political institutions that are reflective of the culture. Again, I believe there is a a basic assumption to be considered...politics, whether they be electoral, protest or those politics associated with specified public policy, can and will define culture.

Additionally, Black Power's thesis was, in some regards, old wine in new wineskins if the messages of DuBois, Garvey and some others are carefully examined.

So now that we have all been caught unprepared by the politics of today, the leadership of academicians who still have a semblance of a resonating voice, is "so welcomed". We must support you and dialogue with you just as we make every effort to do the same for and with Barack Obama. I hope Obama's organization functions so that he can be reasonably receptive. I worry because I do not see the strong black institutions required to support this idea.

Personally, I cringed twice-over at Obama's politicizing of black fatherhood just as you expressed on your website. I heartily agree with your sentiments about that. I also believe that Obama, as a politician needs the fuel for more cogent commentary and that must come from all of us...ie black educators, researchers, teachers, social workers etc.

In addition, that unfortunate commentary was an example of the need for social science to provide us all with knowledge that countervails the current diatribe that currently prevails about black folks.

Again, I highlight the merits of your website as well as Michael Dyson's book that answered Bill Cosby . I just wish I could receive your beautifully thought out sentiments directly. I will sign on again.

Very Sincerely,

Justin White

Black People Catering to Lies and Ignorance: Nothing Ever Changes

I did a recent reflection on the life of boxer Joe Louis. One thing I didn't mention was a part in the documentary mentioning journalists who argued that Joe Louis should not be allowed to fight for the heavy weight title because it would lead to chaos. When the previous black champion, Jack Johnson, fought for the title and won, there were riots around the country. Whites could not stand the idea of a black man being champion, so they took out their anger with lynchings, and other forms of violence across America.

When I saw the journalists' arguments that "this black man should not engage in free will because white people might get mad", I thought about the election of Senator Obama. I continuously get one email after another, from well-meaning people who want to see the Senator get elected. In the emails, they say something to the effect of "Please don't talk about racism, even if it's true. White people might get mad and Senator Obama will not get elected."

In other words, not much has changed. We are still forced to run from the truth and hug a lie, all so white people don't get mad at us. I'm honestly tired of that crap.

Here is a response I sent to a reader who asked me to hold back my words on Senator Obama during an upcoming BET special so that I don't jeopardize Obama's chances of getting elected.

I hear what you are saying about "keeping quiet till the election". But I was not raised to cower in fear over what White America thinks of our words. I am also not a fan of encouraging leaders to point out flaws in African Americans, while simultaneously ignoring the flaws in other ethnic groups. This is a 400 year tradition, and it's time for this to stop.

So, I'm sorry brother. I plan to hold Barack accountable. That doesn't mean I don't support him. But just like in an abusive marriage, if you don't ask for respect, you won't get it. Black people must support Obama from a position of respect, or we will get another politician with a black face and not much else.

On the parenting issue, I know quite a few kids who aren't black who don't have fathers in their homes (50% of white Americans have absentee fathers). So, this notion that African Americans behave as animals who care less about our children than other ethnic groups has got to stop. We must think highly of ourselves and encourage brothers to try harder, while simultaneously having the courage to challenge the systems that make it difficult for a man in the inner city to provide for his family. We must not be victims of the system and silently take this abuse.

Obama was wrong to attack black fathers on father's day. I would never attack mothers on mother's day, no matter how many bad mothers I've seen. That would be wrong, but for some reason, we feel it is ok to do that to black men. This is not uncommon, since it is not a coincidence that black men are most likely to fill the prisons and black boys are 5 times more likely to be placed in special education (I was one of them). Even successful black men look down on other black men, which I find regrettable. As a successful black man, I encourage brothers to keep trying, and when I point out bad daddies, I don't just point my finger at the black man.

Remember: "tough love" should also involve the word "love". I saw no love in spending all of Father's Day embracing conservative stereotypes and acting as though black men are the only bad dads in America. To hell with that: I didn't hear ONE SINGLE SPEECH GIVEN IN ANOTHER VENUE where Obama took the same tone with any other group. There was a REASON that Bill O'Reilly applauded Obama's comments. O'Reilly, the man who was recorded in the middle of a sexual harrassment lawsuit, feels that he and other white males are morally superior to black men, and such comments by Obama only affirm that stereotype. I won't stand for that kind of behavior, not on my watch. Black people should not accept these double standards either and stop allowing ourselves to be demeaned in ways that are not acceptable for other groups. If I yell at your child and tell him "Your feet really stink and so does your breath. In fact, kids in your family tend to have the smelliest feet in the world.", that is not a positive comment, especially if my breath stinks as bad as his does. The truthfulness of my words becomes secondary to the fact that I have only berated him and excluded him, as if my own feet don't stink. Of course, he may go home and wash his feet and brush his teeth, but the truth is that I don't like the kid and I want to make him feel inferior. Making such a comment, without balance of judgement and positive reinforcement, is not going to lead to a productive interaction, especially if I then try to argue that the scent of my own breath is off the table for discussion.

Black men must move forward with positivity. Negativity won't work and I consider it unacceptable. I respect black men as much as I respect black women. We must respect one another if we are going to strengthen our community.

Again, I support Obama, but I am not an "anything goes" kind of brother. People who fall for the "anything goes" mentality usually get ignored and left behind. I am not interested in being a victim, and I will challenge the systems of this country until the day I die.

Stop hating yourself. Love yourself, improve yourself, and fight diligently against anyone who chooses to berate your people under the guise of "tough love". If they are doing it to black men in the inner city, guess what? They are sitting in the back rooms of your corporate executive suite saying the same stuff about YOU. Don't get it twisted, we are in this boat together.

My Trip to BET: Please Give me Your Thoughts

Greetings,
BET is doing a special on Barack Obama and the Presidential election. I’ll be one of the academics brought in to provide the scholarly perspective on this. In my last project with BET, “The 25 Events that Misshaped Black America”, Michael Eric Dyson was my partner in crime. Mike is my friend, and was one of my greatest inspirations when I chose to pursue a career of public scholarship.

As you’ve seen, I don’t hold back on my own point of view, even if it is not popular (I am not a politician or in a popularity contest – I believe the role of the public scholar is to engage in sincere intellectual leadership). However, as I move forward with this project on Obama, I feel an obligation to be cognizant of what the black community is thinking.

We tape the episodes in July, and I expect them to start airing in September. So, in order to get my finger on the pulse of the community, I would like to encourage you to submit your opinions. Tell me: How do you feel as you’re watching this election? Are your feelings changing as time goes by? Has anything surprised, disappointed or angered you? I would really like to know.

I want to quickly give a shout out to the Atlanta Black Achievers. I’ll be keynoting their teen leadership summit on September 6. I wanted to mention this particular engagement, since I owe a life debt to Black Achievers. Had it not been for the Louisville, KY chapter of this organization, I would never have gone to college. In fact, I dedicated my first book “Everything you ever wanted to know about college” to the Black Achievers organization. If there is a chapter in your city, I encourage you to join or make a donation. It was my mama’s willingness to yank me by my afro and force me to go to meetings on Saturday mornings that changed my life forever. I encourage other parents out there to not give up on their kids and do the same thing. EVERY BLACK CHILD IS COLLEGE MATERIAL. Don’t let teachers, counselors or anyone else tell you different.

In case anyone is interested, I wrote an article on the feud between rapper Ice-T and Soulja Boy. As someone who speaks regularly to high school kids (all of whom seem to live and die for Soulja Boy) I felt like this was a chance to discuss the divide between older generations and younger ones. I am not sure if we always give our youth the respect they need to make them feel empowered to carry the torch. Yes, we are better drivers, but we need to trust them with the wheel, since we can’t drive forever.

I even witness this divide myself when I appear on shows with individuals from the Civil Rights generation. While many of them are open to the idea of new leadership, there are some who don’t seem to feel that any generation after their own has anything of value to contribute to the world. But I applaud the NAACP in their decision to elect Ben Jealous as their new president. I am optimistic that Mr. Jealous can inject fresh, youthful blood into the organization, while maintaining a sincere respect for the contributions of the past. Properly passing the torch requires a delicate and respectful negotiation between generations. Berating young people only marginalizes them. I am a fan of encouraging youth and empowering their desire to bring fresh, energized and educated perspectives. In return, when we sit at the table to give advice, we will find them quite receptive. Whether you realize it or not, the feud between Ice-T and Soulja Boy is no different from the divide between Bill Cosby and black teens, or what I’ve gone through with some (not all) Civil Rights leaders. As we work with youth, it is critical to remember that the phrase “tough love” also includes the word “love”. Love and hate can be reflective devices: the more you give, the more you usually get back. Let’s love our kids to greatness.

At any rate, be well and God Bless.

Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.BoyceWatkins.net
www.YourBlackWorld.com

Ice T vs. Soulja Boy Need to Kill the Beef Right Now

Some might wonder why I have the desire to comment on the beef between Soulja Boy and Ice T. But I hope people remember that professors are also people, and I am not a Finance Professor who happens to be black, I am a black man who happens to be a Finance Professor. So, for those who don't like hearing me speak on hip hop, deal with it.

I get mixed up in some hip hop beefs every now and then, as I spent a lot of time providing perspective on the beef between Ice Cube, 50 Cent and Oprah Winfrey last year. I speak with a lot of artists when I go to Hot 97 and BET, and I enjoy talking to them about how to manage their money and get their finances straight within an industry that is quick to financially rape black men.

The beef between Soulja Boy and Ice T was interesting, as Ice T doesn't seem to feel that Soulja Boy is adding anything to hip hop. In his remarks, Ice T told Soulja Boy to "eat a ....." (no, it was not a cheeseburger). Soulja Boy came back hard, referring to Ice T as an "Old ass n*gga", among other things.

I can't disagree, Ice T is pretty old. I don't know too many rappers born in 1958. He's actually old enough to be Soulja Boy's grandfather. At the same time, elders must be respected, and few artists have this kind of staying power. Ice T printed game unlike any other before or after him, and that contribution must be respected. But respect must be earned, and I don't feel that Ice earned his respect with the way he came at Soulja Boy.

I wrote an article or two on the topic, but I won't go into that. But I can say that when I watched the commentary by Soulja Boy, I saw a confused kid. I saw a young man who was (in his words) "poor as hell" just a year earlier, trying to find a way to make a living for he and his family. He said that he had tremendous respect for Ice T, and I speculate that he would have wanted to hear an older person say "eat your vegetables", instead of "eat a .....".

I could tell that Soulja Boy was hurt by the criticism. But when a man comes that hard at you, you have to respond strongly like a man. I am sure that he would rather have seen Ice T reach out to him and (in his words) "give him some pointers". Instead, Ice T came with the attack first, rather than trying to communicate as a brother or father figure.

I respect Ice T and I know alot about him from my conversations with Wendy Williams at WBLS. He is an amazing talent and his wife Coco, beyond being a stripper, is actually the intellectual engine that makes his empire move. So, seeing such an astute, intelligent and talented man like Ice T come at a 17-year old kid in such a nasty way really shocked the hell out of me.

Ice T, you're a man and a true playa. Now, swallow your pride, pick up the phone and mentor this young kid. Part of being a man means being man enough to admit that you were wrong. Soulja Boy's insults to you were really a reflection of his pain and disappointment. Young people don't need our disses, they need our guidance. Now get to transmittin game.

Black America Web: Michelle Obama Will Be Attack Target of the GOP

Date: Monday, June 16, 2008
By: Michael H. Cottman and Jackie Jones, BlackAmericaWeb.com

Stepping up attacks for the rough-and-tumble presidential campaign, Republicans have set their sights on a new Democratic target: Michelle Obama.

In a preview of what's to come, the media is already questioning whether Michelle Obama will be featured in negative ads by the GOP in an effort to discredit Michelle and her husband, Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, who is challenging Republican Sen. John McCain for the White House.

Fox News has dubbed Michelle as Barack’s "baby mama" and some black political analysts say the disrespect for Michelle is just beginning and the attack ads about her are perhaps not far behind.

But a gallant Barack Obama defended his wife and told reporters he’s not having it.
Click here click here

"If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful," Obama told ABC's "Good Morning America" last month, "because that I find unacceptable the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

Some black women argue that people are uncomfortable with Michelle Obama in a potential role as America's first black First Lady.

"Here we have a classy, intelligent black woman and some folks just aren't interested in that picture, particularly because she could become our first black first lady," Breea Willingham, a journalism professor at St. Bonaventure University, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"Black women aren't 'supposed' to be in that role; they're 'supposed' to be cleaning the rooms in the White House, not running it," Willingham said. "But bottom line for me: Who cares what the GOP says about Michelle? The sister is bad and will continue to do her damn thing regardless."

In a recent column for The New York Times, Maureen Dowd wrote, "It's good news for Obama that Hillary's out of the race. But it's also bad news. Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama."

Dowd listed many of the negative rumors circulating on the Internet about Obama, including a videotape in which she allegedly denounces "whitey." Obama aides say no such video exists.

And The Wall Street Journal asked: "Is Michelle Obama fair game?"

Some black women say no.

"This strategy would be laughable if it weren't so sad and desperate!" Margaret Mitchell, a technical writer in Rochester, N.Y., told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "The GOP must really be quaking in their shoes if this is their grand scheme for winning the election."

On Fox News, The graphic "Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!" was flashed during a recent interview with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin about whether Barack Obama's wife has been the target of unfair criticism.

In response to the outcry, the network issued a statement, not an apology. "A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment," said Fox's Senior Vice President of Programming Bill Shine, in a statement to Politico.

In the past two weeks, Fox anchor E.D. Hill has apologized for referring to an affectionate onstage fist bump shared by the couple as a "terrorist fist jab," and Fox contributor Liz Trotta said she was sorry for joking about an Obama assassination.

Dr. Boyce Watkins, a commentator and political analyst, criticized Fox News for the "baby mama" reference.

"At what point is it clearly concluded that Fox News is a racist network?" Watkins asked in a column. "What does this say about our country that we have many Americans who will continue to support a network that says things like this about black people?

"Does this lead us to believe that we have become equal and respected partners in the American family?" he asked. "Would they say the same thing about Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, Cindy McCain or Hillary Clinton?

Click to Read More.

Black People: Hats Off to BET - We'll Be talking about Obama

I just got a call from BET today about being part of a series they are doing on the election and African American issues. BET is a network that has received criticism for some of the work that has appeared on its network. Much of that criticism was quite valid, as there is a heavy expectation of social engagement that precludes the ability of African American businesses to focus on a single-minded bottom line. In other words, I was not happy with the Bob Johnson business model (which I reflect upon heavily in my next book).

However, today BET made me proud. Speaking with the producer, I was led to the impression that the goal of this show is to voice African American issues in the Presidential election and to ensure that both candidates are listening. With all the political flip-flopping that has been going on with both Obama and McCain, it is becoming quite clear that when you don't put carrots and sticks on politicians, they are likely going to take you for granted.

African-Americans are a patient, conservative and relatively humble group of people. Not all of us, but many of us fit this mold. We want validation from white America badly, for that is how we have historically learned to feel good about ourselves. Getting Barack Obama into the White House is considered the ultimate achievement in terms of receiving the validation that we cherish so much. We have always loved our country and wanted love from our country, even when our country did not love us.

One of the concerns I have, however, is that when you seek love and validation from an historically abusive partner, this may possibly lead to more abuse and disrespect. It also inhibits your ability to demand fairness from that partner. A woman being beaten by her husband cannot simultaneously stop the beating, while still waiting for her husband to tell her that she is pretty. Ultimately, the discomfort created in their relationship by the woman's new demands will provide an incentive for her husband to withhold his love and validation as punishment for his wife "causing trouble in their relationship."

African Americans don't want to cause any trouble, we don't like "making a ruckus". Even if something is true, we encourage that person not to say it in public. We want Obama to get into the White House, and like the abused wife mentioned above, we are willing to tolerate nearly any disgrace, embarrassment, denunciation and humiliation in order to get there. While one can certainly applaud that degree of patience and kindness, one can become concerned that the willingness to take anything in order to receive validation from an abusive partner will only lead to more abuse. By labeling us "radical" or "racist", so-called mainstream media is engaging in the same sort of mental abuse that the violent husband might use to control his wife. By seeking validation from corporate America, so-called mainstream media outlets (not owned by African Americans) and majority white universities, we can sometimes jeopardize our ability to be true to fairness and equality. The man who really wants to be a Harvard professor is not going to speak out on racial equality, even if he knows his words to be true, especially if he is going to be labeled "an extremist" and not be given tenure.

There is a point where you must stand strong. Barack Obama needs to be encouraged by the black community to cherish our support and not take it for granted. He and others need to be informed that strong blackness is not criminal and should be a source of American pride. So, I am glad BET and black bloggers are putting our issues on the table. Having a black president won't mean a thing if we are only happy having a black president. A black president who represents diverse interests of black people as respected members of the American family, now that's something to write home about.

I am not a fan of putting too much pressure on Barack Obama. But I strongly recommend that we all remember: if you ask for nothing and expect nothing, then you will usually get NOTHING. By shutting down any African American who speaks honestly about race, we are further lowering our issues on the table of American priorities. To make it plain, a wife who tells her busy husband that it's O.K. to ignore his family (even for "just a few months") may end up sad, lonely and abandoned. A month becomes a year, a year becomes a decade and a decade becomes a lifetime. We must be sure not to let Obama abandon us, even for a little while.

Don Imus, Black American Protest: Contact Information for Imus

Here is the contact information for the producers of Imus in the Morning. Here is a form letter you can use when you write them via email. Here is a link to an email you can use to forward this message to anyone else you feel might Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, BET, Hip Hop vs. America, rapperswant to fight this issue.

Mail:
[Same as street address]
Phone:Fax:
(212) 613-3800(212) 613-3866
Street:
2 Penn Plz17th FlNew York, NY 10121
Home Page:Email:
http://www.wabcradio.com/webmaster@wabcradio.com


Anderson, Bruce PM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 613-3800 (212) 613-3823 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Bartlett, Rob AM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 268-5730 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Bonk, Lisa Advertising Sales Manager (212) 613-3888 (212) 613-3866 lisa.bonk@citcomm.com

Borneman, Steve President & General Manager (212) 613-3801 (212) 613-3866 steve.borneman@citcomm.com

Boyce, Phil News Director (212) 613-3805 (212) 613-3866 phil.boyce@citcomm.com

Boyce, Phil Operations Manager (212) 613-3805 (212) 613-3866 phil.boyce@citcomm.com

Boyce, Phil Programming President (212) 613-3805 (212) 613-3866 phil.boyce@citcomm.com

Foster, Karith AM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 268-5730 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Gigante, Robert Late Night On Air Personality (212) 613-3800 (212) 613-3866 grant@wabcradio.com

Hannity, Sean PM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 301-3554 (212) 613-3866 hannity@foxnews.com

Imus, Don AM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 613-3800 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Levin, Mark Late Night On Air Personality (212) 268-5730 (212) 613-3866 mark.levin@citcomm.com

Maldonado, Jack Sports Director (212) 613-3863 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

McCord, Charles AM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 268-5730 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Powell, Tony AM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 268-5730 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Slender, Leslie Marketing Director (212) 613-3800 (212) 613-3866 leslie.slender@citcomm.com

Slender, Leslie Promotion Director (212) 613-3800 (212) 613-3866 leslie.slender@citcomm.com

Sliwa, Curtis Mid-Day On Air Personality (212) 613-3872 (212) 613-3866 webmaster@wabcradio.com

Winek, Linda Web Site Contact (212) 613-3802 (212) 613-3866 linda.winek@citcomm.com

Wolf, Warner AM Drive-Time On Air Personality (212) 613-3800 (212) 613-3866 warner.wolf@citcomm.com

Don Imus Racism on Pacman Jones: Imus is at it again?

I received a call today from a producer at WVON in Chicago. My good friend Roland Martin (the black dude on CNN) and I are going to discuss Don Imus tomorrow morning at 8 am. I like WVON, it's literally my favorite station in America. There is a great deal of tradition there.

I was involved with the first removal of Don Imus from the air, as I worked with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on the phone to talk about ways to deal with him. I mentioned that if African Americans engage in a unified effort to challenge his corporate sponsors, we can bring him down. That is what Jesse and Al did, and it worked. As a Finance Professor, I always look to the money first. That is the most critical element of power in a capitalist democracy.

You can imagine how disappointed I was to see Don Imus back on the air so soon. I admit that when I saw Imus appear on Al Sharpton's show, I really believed he was truly sorry for what he did. For him to repeat his actions is simply baffling, and I wonder out loud Rev. Jackson and Rev Sharpton feel the same way.

I recorded some of my thoughts on Don Imus below. The fact that this man can do what he did the first time, get back on the air and repeat the same stunt one year later is yet another reminder of just how little respect African Americans get in white media. No, it's not mainstream media, because mainstream media should reflect viewpoints from all perspectives. The truth of the matter is that most media is owned by people who are not black, so people like Imus and Bill O'Reilly can get away with this stuff without being forced to engage in any form of respect or responsibility. The ownership structure of American media is an artifact of 400 years of slavery and economic exclusion of African Americans. Our grandparents never had the chance to own CNN, FOX or NBC and they also did not have a chance to own the corporations that financially support these media outlets. African American wealth was stolen from us and now lies, in part, in the hands of companies that support racism on the airwaves.

So, the networks continue to insult black people and there are no consequences. Personally, I am getting tired of this crap. What is most ironic is that no matter what anyone says about black people on the air (lynching Michelle Obama, killing Barack Obama, calling Mrs. Obama a Baby's mama, calling Barack a terrorist, or calling black women Nappy headed hoes), someone is always there from the right wing willing to rationalize this behavior (some, like Juan Williams, are even black). It reminds me of a relative I had with a drinking problem. No matter how much you pointed out his weakness, he always had an explanation. America's addiction to racism is a lot like the addictions of my uncle.

It's actually kind of pathetic.

The video is below:

Black Media, Black People, Black News: The Good Negro Behavior Protocol

Does this look like a professor to you? Or do you picture a thug, convict, athlete or criminal?


When it comes to diversity and integration, I have some critics. I created a website called YourBlackWorld.com, a website for African-Americans. The site was created in response to my experience dealing with mainstream media, which typically provided a 1 or 0 dimensional perspective to black points of view. Although I have a PhD in Finance, I was never called by CNN, FOX or CBS to discuss money or financial issues. I was usually called whenever they had a conversation on “black stuff”.

The fact that they saw me as a black man before they could see anything else was no fault of my publicist. A wonderful and energetic woman, my publicist called all the major networks to introduce me as a person well-qualified to discuss the economy, money management, stock markets or global finance. I have trained literally thousands of Suzie Ormans and Wall Street experts through the years, so it was only logical that this be an area that I speak on as a public scholar.

The problem was that many Americans do not see a black man when they envision a financial expert. A black man is more likely to be seen as a rapper, athlete or criminal. At best, they see a black scholar willing to discuss black rappers, athletes and criminals. That became my role with CNN.

I don’t mind discussing black people, for I have a very strong black identity. However, the limitations of my role bothered me a great deal, and what bothered me most was that it didn’t bother anyone else. If anyone else was bothered, it was for all the wrong reasons. I remember having a debate with a black conservative on CNN about why African-Americans have such a negative image in the world. The conservative, buying into some of the basic tenants of white supremacy, truly believed that the reason black Americans have such a negative image throughout the world is because black people simply choose to behave like criminals. He argued that if black people would simply mind their manners and stop getting arrested so much, the media would have nothing to report.

Apparently, this man had forgotten that there are over 30 million black people in America. So, even if 95% of these individuals were to choose to become perfect angels (or engage in what I call “The Good Negro Behavior Protocol”), there will, by simple statistical fact, be at least 1 million individuals doing things that could embarrass the rest of the community. By virtue of the fact that the media’s lens focuses most on those individuals in the black community who engage in embarrassing behavior, it would be these 1 million individuals who receive the most airtime.
I strongly believe in the idea of freedom. I believe that the black community has a right to be as diverse as any other group of people in America. Rappers have as much a right to exist as professors do. The idea that we can get angry at rappers because CNN and other networks focus on rappers more than anyone else is not the fault of the artists, but rather, due to the one dimensional perspectives of the networks themselves. It’s not who is in front of the camera, it’s where the camera chooses to focus itself.

Another problematic dimension to the “good negro behavior protocol” is this idea that all of us should be “embarrassed” when there is a black person on TV behaving in a comical or criminal fashion. I hear educated African-Americans speak of how embarrassed they are by the behavior of Flavor Flav, the ex-rapper turned reality TV star. I personally find Flavor Flav to be funny and I feel that he has as much of a right to be himself as the white guys on the great MTV show “Jackass”. I have never once heard a white man express that he is embarrassed for the white population because of what the guys on Jackass do on television. I have never once heard a white female say that she is embarrassed for the white race when Paris Hilton is arrested for drunk driving for the 1,000th time. The reality is that they know clearly that Paris Hilton and Jackass do not represent the white experience or dominant white expression.

For some reason, black people are the opposite. Rather than questioning why the media gives us an either-or reality for how we express ourselves in media, we get angry at one another for choosing to express ourselves in a unique fashion. The truth is that Flavor Flav has a right to be a comedian, he has a right to be a jack ass. If anyone in the world watches Vh-1 and thinks that all African-Americans behave like Flavor Flav, then their ignorance is their problem, not mine.

This was an excerpt from the book "Blinded by the Bling: The Plight of the Black Middle Class" by Dr. Boyce Watkins, set to be released August 15, 2008. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.net.

Statistics Show that Barack Obama was Wrong about Black Fathers

Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote an excellent piece citing a study that shows that black absentee fathers are more engaged with their children than white absentee fathers or absentee fathers of any ethnic group.

Many black males continue to be insulted by Barack Obama and his speech writers relying on stereotypes rather than hard evidence in his Father's Day Speech. Barack is a man whom I will always respect, but what he has done is unforgivable.

What's more interesting, as Earl correctly points out, is that Barack's father was not African American. He was a Kenyan National who wanted to leave the country. So, perhaps we should spend some time asking ourselves why we were so quick to accept this blanket indictment of black men, while allowing Obama to use his own father's choices to provide moral authority for him to use stereotypes.

I consider Barack to be one of us. But he also represents "all of us". Rather than pandering to the crowd and telling them what they want to hear, I hope that one day he can gain the courage to tell people what they NEED to hear.

What Barack Obama did to the good black fathers of America was wrong. My urgency in supporting him is not as great as it was before. With each passing day, I become more and more confused as to whether we are putting a black man in the white house, or a man who is afraid of being associated with other black men. When it is time for him to take a stand against racism, I hear that he is "everyone's president", not the black candidate. But when it comes time for him to attack black men with petty stereotypes, I hear that he is a "black man" and therefore, able to engage in these sorts of attacks.

Which one is it? I grow weary of the games.

Barack Obama and Black Fathers, Why Black Men are Still Fuming

I received a lot of email from both men and women about my comments on Barack Obama's Father's Day speech. I watched the speech, hoping that I could find some way that I was wrong about Barack. Perhaps his speech writers, surely the best in the business, slid in a line or two conditionalizing his statements to remind us that Father's Day is a day to celebrate good fathers, not to spend all our time mulling over the bad ones.

I looked and looked for that one line of salvation and never found it. That makes me sad, since many of the emails I received were from black fathers who came right out of the Bill Cosby book of parenthood (even though Cosby has made some dirty mistakes of his own as a dad). These men, some of whom were conservatives or in the military, did not understand why little time was spent giving them the same respect we give women on Mother's Day. Instead, they were fed the same old stereotypes of black male irresponsibility. These were the same stereotypes that allowed their ex-wives or mothers of their children to feel completely vindicated for any poor treatment bestowed upon them as they worked hard to stay in their childrens' lives. They were the same stereotypes that keep the 50% of divorced white males of America comfortable that their broken homes are not as bad as the broken homes of black men. After all, the presidential candidates conveniently forget to critique White America in the same way they critique the black male. I thought Obama was 50% white? Doesn't that mean that he is as much a part of White America (thus entitled to critique) as he is Black America? Or is he just the Black Candidate?

To spend father's day obsessing over what black fathers are doing wrong is like going to someone's birthday party with a list of all the things you hate about them. Even if I'd been born with a terrible mother, I would not spend Mother's Day saying "Mom, there are far too many days when you are not there for me the way you should be." It would be even worse if I then went on to tell my father that the breakup of our family was all my mother's fault and that he is completely relieved of any guilt whatsoever.

That is what Obama did when he patted black women on the back and essentially said "That's ok. We know how all those black men are treating you. They're just bad and you're good. Let's spend Father's Day talking about you and how disappointed we are in them." He was preaching to the choir, since I am willing to bet that many of the men in that church were loyal and dedicated fathers, either sitting confused that they were being chastised on their special day or nodding their heads in agreement that black men are collectively a pack of screw ups. "Some do the right thing, but doing the wrong thing is the norm". Does anyone wonder how deformed your existence becomes when you consider the most pathetic segment of American society to be people who look like yourself?

This strikes a chord with me because I have seen it up close. I have seen black women who swear up and down that the reason every man they meet doesn't want to be with them implies that there is something wrong with all men. I see black men who refuse to date black women because they feel that black women are all angry, bitter and nasty. In both scenarios, I correct the individual and encourage him/her to look in the mirror. If all of your relationships are falling apart, you are the only variable that is consistently present in every relationship you've ever had. Either you are consistently choosing the wrong person to procreate with, or you are consistently mistreating the right people who come your way. Women who choose good men and treat them well remain happily married. That's just a fundamental fact and I, as a man, know this because I have chosen the wrong woman at times, and there have been times when I've not given a woman the respect she deserved. In either case, I ended up disappointed.

What is true is that both men and women play a role in the survival of our families. When a divorce or breakup occurs, the children are usually given to the woman. Also, most divorces are not always the sole fault of one party or the other. So, if we are going to define the term "deadbeat dads", we cannot generalize that term to include any man who does not live with his kids. Senator Obama DID NOT, to my knowledge, make that distinction.

What is most interesting is Obama's claim that "far too many men are not in the home....they've chosen to be boys instead of men". This implies that if you get a divorce and the kids live with the woman, then you are effectively behaving as a little boy. This further signals that if Michelle Obama were to divorce Barack and keep the kids, he would effectively become a deadbeat. I am sure that Senator Obama, who would likely spend plenty of time with his children and pay plenty of child support, would become agitated to hear someone speaking about him and other black men as a pack of dead beats, especially on Father's Day. Perhaps he could be consoled with the words "No, we weren't talking about you. We just avoided celebrating you on Father's Day because we wanted to place all the blame on the deadbeats, which includes most black men."

That is where black men are coming from. On Mother's Day, I am not going to spend one second talking about how "there are too many bad baby's mamas keep their child's father from seeing his kids", that "angry black women are divorcing their husbands and taking their children and money from them", or that "black women treat men like crap and then get mad when the man leaves the relationship." I would say none of these things, even though I can name several instances in which this has happened. Instead, I am going to spend Mother's Day celebrating the successes of black women and the wonderful impact they had on me.

As I said before, it takes two to Tango, black men aren't doing the family break up dance by themselves. Also, the dance of child-rearing is not just being done by the black mothers. Black women are certainly the backbone of the community, but black men aren't just freeloading.

Juan Williams on Fox: The Flavor Flav of Social Commentary

I just heard from a friend that the "great" Juan Williams, the eternal happy negro on Fox News, has done a couple of interesting things. First, he wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal of all places, about disappearing black dads on Father's Day. I am not 100% sure where a black man feels he is making his point by writing in a predominantly white publication about the problems of the black community. Obviously, the only benefit of such a column would be to get the old "Yeah boss, these black people sho is messed up" brownie points. For that, I congratulate you Juan, you have continued to earn your paycheck at Fox News.

Of course, even though Juan Williams speaks to a predominantly white audience, he often fails to mention the growing divorce rates in the white community. I would love to see him attacking the millions of white men who have left the homes of their children. But then again, putting out White America's dirty laundry would surely get Juan fired.

Secondly, I read that Juan has actually asked Senator Barack Obama to apologize for being a part of The Trinity United Church of Christ. My man Roland Martin had him on his radio show, and I am sure Roland handled Juan. Juan Williams is not very intelligent, so he's an easy person to wear down in a debate. What is most ironic is that although Juan Williams seems to jock Bill Cosby like a bright eyed school girl (in his book), my inside indication is that Cosby doesn't have much respect for Juan.

You see folks, that's the difference between Juan Williams and Bill Cosby. Cosby says what he says (although I don't agree with him all the time) because he actually LOVES black people. He is like the father who loves his son so much that he beats him with a stick to make him act right. So, rather than getting better behavior, his child ends up with brain damage. Juan Williams is the person who goes across the street to his son's enemy, and then helps the enemy break into the house to shoot his son in the head. Juan Williams, in my opinion, does NOT care about black people and he is not a friend to African Americans. As a Finance Professor, I can say that Juan Williams is what I would call a sell-out. Cosby, on the other hand, at least deserves respect for being willing to take a major beating from the black community to say what he truly feels.

The most heated thing I've ever said on national television is when I explained on CNN why Juan Williams is Bill O'Reilly's Happy Little Negro (which I explained in detail later, since many of my non-black colleagues were appalled that I used such terminology. I am not sure if they've ever heard the word "negro" used in public before). I had to explain the history of racism to help them understand why these were the most appropriate words for that scenario). Any black man who spends most of his time defending Bill O'Reilly from black people is truly an enemy of African Americans and a reminder that black images on television, from 50 Cent and Flavor Flav to Juan Williams and Jesse Lee Peterson, are reflective of where our society stands when it comes to racial misrepresentation in media.

I think that Juan Williams must be going senile, for his desire to disgrace the black community grows more and more every day. I am glad that no one in the black community pays much attention to him anymore. Well, then again, there are people who listen to Flavor Flav, so perhaps I am wrong on that point.

I actually feel sorry for Juan Williams, I am sure he has a hard time sleeping at night. It's hard out there for a pimp, and even harder for a black journalist seeking to get pimped by the highest bidder.

Fox News: Black Women are Typically Angry

For those who may not understand why I had to challenge Barack Obama's contribution to the perception of black men being irresponsible, perhaps you can get it now. Fox News recently did a segment about "why black women on TV tend to be angry". In the segment, they make continuous reference to the "angry black woman", and point to several examples of black women who tend to be angry during interviews. The video clip is at the bottom of this comment.

I am not a fan of such stereotypes, and I hope that any black woman who is offended by this stereotype can understand why many black men are not happy with the stereotypes that are placed upon many brothers. I have always worked to be a responsible man. I personally find it offensive (whether Obama or anyone else is alluding to this concept) when others imply that black men as a collective behave irresponsibly. I agree with Malcolm, who felt that no matter how much respect people had for him, "if you insult my people, then you are insulting me".

I received about 130 emails yesterday from people who had mixed opinions about my article on Senator Obama's comments about black men needing to learn the art of fatherhood. They've been interesting and seem to call for more discourse. I noticed that the opinions were right down the middle and many of them were very strong in either direction. I will do a video on the topic soon, but I wanted to pose some quick thoughts I had as I was reading the emails (and yes, I do read my email and try to respond to you. I only ignore people who come off as flat out lunatics, since I don't mess with crazy people). Here are my thoughts.

1) Why do we assume that a broken family implies that a man "ran away from his responsibility"? Is it not also the case that many relationships also end due to actions of the woman as well? All of us know of at least one "insane baby's mama" - either you have dealt with one, been in a relationship with a man who was dealing with one, or perhaps you have BEEN ONE! This does not imply that the end of the relationship is most likely the fault of the woman, but it does take two to tango.

2) No. I didn't make my statement for political purposes or to make money. I don't get paid for what I do on the internet, and I am NOT a politician. I consider politicians, as a general rule, to be liars, and life is too short for me to spend all my time lying. Telling the truth is the only way I can sleep at night, even if it implies that some people don't like what I have to say. One thing you will always get from me is a straight shot, I assure you of that.

3) Yes, I support Obama 100% . Critiquing someone and keeping them honest doesn't mean you hate them. I critique my mama and I love my mama.

4) Obama has made a commitment to being race neutral in this election. However, if he or anyone else chooses to address race in this election I ONLY ASK THAT THEY BE FAIR. For Barack (or anyone else) to shut down anyone who speaks honestly about racism, and then to contribute to racial stereotypes about black male irresponsibility is not balanced. For those who feel that Obama was "telling it like it is", please remember this: Dr. Jeremiah Wright was also "telling it like it is", but he was shut down, disowned and told that his words needed to be muted. Honesty should not know racial boundaries. If Barack Obama is not comfortable going into a group of white males and being honest about racial stereotyping, then it is not acceptable for him to do that to black men.

5) There are ALWAYS going to be people in every group who do the wrong thing. White women are not stereotyped by the actions of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. I would never stereotype black women for the actions of a few "insane baby's mamas". So, the notion that it is ok to define black men by the actions of a select few is equally problematic. However, it is comfortable to say "these brothers need to start doing right" because it alleviates anyone else of the guilt of whatever role they play in the breakdown of their families, and it also contributes to the 400 year tradition of defining black men as being socially inferior. A person could just as easily celebrate the great choices of positive black men as he could mulling over the actions of the irresponsible.

Here is the issue: I do not feel that Barack would go into any other venue and paint any other group with a blanket indictment. He would not say "too many Jews support killing Palestinians", or "too many Catholic Priests are molesting little children". So, I am not sure why it is ok to say that "too many black men are ignoring their responsibilities and not being fathers". While all three of these stereotypes may have some element of truth to them, it seems that "truth in stereotyping" is only acceptable when dealing with black folks.

Racial conversation must be HONEST AND BALANCED. If you would not say something to a group of white men, then please don't say it to me.

Black Fathers, Black Men, Black Relationships

I received a lot of interesting feedback on my open letter to Senator Barack Obama. In the letter, I was applauding Senator Obama’s conclusion that black men should be better fathers. At the same time, I questioned the fact that only the flaws of black men and black culture are acceptable for public discourse, while the flaws of other ethnic groups are left off the table. Isn’t Obama trying to be “everyone’s president”? If so, then why isn’t he criticizing everyone equally? Don’t get me wrong, I hate bad fathers, because my father abandoned me as a child. But this notion that “those black men need to get it together and learn to be fathers” is not only inaccurate, but misguided.

To give you an example of the flaws of single-minded analysis, let’s assume I was describing “America’s Dad”, Bill Cosby. Someone could accurately state that “Bill Cosby needs to learn a lot about personal responsibility. He cheated on his wife, had an illegitimate child in the affair and then had his daughter sent to jail when she needed him!” Such a statement is certainly accurate, but it would be misguided and one dimensional. Bill Cosby has numerous contributions to our society that go far beyond his desire to cheat on his wife and send his child to jail.

If a one dimensional portrayal of an individual is problematic, then a one dimensional portrayal of 18 million men is damn near criminal. The notion that “all those black men need to stop” is an insult to the millions of black men who do the right thing. It is no more flawed than someone taking a video camera to the dirtiest trailer parks in America and saying, “This is how white people live.” Yes, this is how SOME white people live (the statement is technically correct), but it is not how ALL white people live (one-dimensional). The same way every white woman would not want to be compared with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, every black man does not want to be compared to Flavor Flav and 50 Cent.

On father’s day, I did not spend one second thinking about the black man who abandoned me. Instead, I spent that time celebrating the scores of black men who were there for me. When I talk about the craziness of kids in the hip hop generation, I am equally concerned about the millions of college students on white campuses who think that drinking till you puke every weekend is normal behavior. The desire to be honest and “tell it like it is”, if possessed by our president, should be equally strong and forceful in all directions, not just for groups in which the message fits with pre-existing racialized norms and stereotypes. Whether Senator Obama’s words were correct is not the entire issue, since there are many things I can say about you right now (good or bad) that would be technically correct (i.e. The Bill Cosby example above). The question is whether or not I am being too selective and destructive in my analysis. I can’t imagine Senator Obama speaking at the Vatican on Christmas and saying “All those Catholic Priests need to stop molesting children”. Yes, child abuse has been a problem in the Catholic Church, but it would be unacceptable to dampen the celebration of Jesus’ birth by painting the entire priest population with the actions of a subset.

While I know some black men (and white men) who abandon their kids, I know far more men who are right there with them. I know many men who want to be with their children, but they are dealing with an overbearing, hyper-dominant custodial parent who doesn’t allow him to see his child. I know a lot of men who wanted to stay married, but the conditions of the marriage were unacceptable, or their wives left them. I know many men who would have gladly taken their children with them after the divorce, but their wives (who refused to remain married) did not let the children go. In fact, I get many calls and emails from men around the country to this effect. So, if we are going to point out of the flaws of black men, we need to point out the role that EVERYONE plays in the breakdown of American families. The notion of flat out abandonment, while easy to construct and comfortably fitting with the negative portrayals of black men in America, is inaccurate in many cases. To say that fatherless homes are completely the fault of irresponsible black men is like saying that broken families are the fault and sole domain of black women who can’t manage their relationships. Both statements would be correct in some cases (we all know at least one insane “baby mama”), and flat out wrong in others.

Mother’s Day is not a day to assault divorced women for being bad mothers or to assume that they are doing things to tear their own families apart. Independence Day is not the day to remind our government of the millions we kill around the world every year. Similarly, Father’s Day is not the day to tell all black men that we are terrible dads. You don’t spend Christmas talking about the devil. Father’s Day is not a day to obsess over bad fathers, it is a day to show respect for the good ones. Also, negative stereotyping should be challenged, since 18 million men do not move with the same mind. I can’t find a single media story that focuses on the millions of rank and file black men who do remarkable things in the world, but I can always find a stack of haters who swear that black men are the worst creatures on the planet.

I love you Barack, but please don’t ever paint me and other men with a brush we don’t deserve. All of us don’t behave in the ways of your father (the Harvard educated man who likely played some role in the fact that you went to Harvard as well). Also, we are not always the ones responsible for the breakdowns of our relationships. We know that good fatherhood is critical, and the instinct of men to care for young children doesn’t disappear with black men. At the same time, we can all do better to make American families stronger, since many Americans (not just black people) see their families ripped apart by divorce every year. I am not sure how anyone in their right mind can lay all these problems solely at the feet of black men. We’ve got to be more responsible than that.

Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama

From Dr. Boyce Watkins

Dear Senator Obama,

I recently read about your Father’s Day comments at a predominantly black church. In your remarks, you mentioned that too many black fathers are absent from the lives of their children. “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception” were your words.

As a boy whose father abandoned him at birth, I applaud your commitment to strong fatherhood. I also agree 100% with your commitment to personal responsibility, for this is how I’ve lived my life, as I’ve sent my God daughter and little brother to Ivy League institutions. I do, however, have some questions for you:

1) If you have a message about the value of fatherhood, why did you wait to speak at a predominantly black church to give the message only to black parents? As a man who has taught mostly non-black students at the college level for the past 15 years, I can assure you that black parents do not have a monopoly on bad parenting. If I didn’t know you better, I would believe that you somehow feel it is OK to criticize the black community, while the courage to “tell it like it is” wanes when you are speaking to an audience that is not black.

2) While we’re attacking black fathers for the poor choices of some (not all) individuals in this group, did you make an equally valiant effort to hold the non-black community accountable for their extraordinarily high and equally devastating divorce rates? Divorce is arguably more detrimental to the well-being of a child, since one solid, consistent parent can be better than having two parents who fight like hell, rip your family apart and abruptly reduce your standard of living. I am not a bible thumper here, but it seems that if you are attacking black men for what some of us do wrong, you would construct an equivalent message to be shared with everyone. In fact, based on my experience working with CNN, part of me believes that if 99% of black men did everything right, the media and politicians would find joy in focusing on the 1% who make bad choices. That’s why Michael Vick will always get more airtime than the hundreds of Morehouse Men who graduate from college every year.

3) Is Father’s Day a time to celebrate the actions of wonderful fathers or to become obsessed with the choices of neglectful fathers? In spite of what you and others may lead the media to believe, black men have just as much of a commitment to black youth as white men. I would encourage you to be more optimistic in your Father’s Day addresses in the future, as those of us who try to do the right thing find it ironic that politicians want to paint us with the brush created by men who do the wrong thing. I didn’t spend Father’s Day complaining about the one man who abandoned me. I spent that day celebrating the five men who were strong enough to take his place.

4) While you seem to have moved away from almost any discussion of race in your campaign, we as a black community (including myself) have continued to support you. However, I find it odd that one of the few times you feel comfortable mentioning race is when it is time to paint the entire black male community as a pack of neglectful fathers. I would have no problem with a message on the importance of good fatherhood were it delivered in a mixed race venue and left out the word “black”. I know a lot of men who aren’t black who could use such a message. In fact Senator Obama, I would prefer that you not even mention race in this election. I will continue to give you my support if you are race neutral, for I truly understand the political damage of you being painted as the “black candidate”. However, if you decide that one sided attacks of African American males (who are already attacked, disdained and misrepresented by nearly every segment of society) is a way to get more votes, then I cannot give you my support.

Yes, black men can do a better job, but so can white men, white women, black women and everyone else. The message of “What’s wrong with you brothers?” is getting old and neglects personal responsibility that all of us play in the plight of our society. I am part of an organization (Brothers of the Academy) with hundreds of black male PhDs who are negatively impacted by these consistently harmful messages. To be honest brother, we are getting sick of it.
As I mentioned before Senator Obama, you have my vote. But I expect the same respect you give everyone else as you move forward with your candidacy. If you can give blanket affirmation to Israeli policies against the Palestinians, and you are not allowed to criticize White America for failing to even apologize for the atrocities of slavery, then I expect you to remember that many black men care for our children, just like everyone else.

We sir, are not animals. The same group of black men who created Flavor Flav and Willie Horton also created Thurgood Marshall, Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Boyce Watkins and Senator BARACK OBAMA. I hope you will keep this in mind.



Be well,
Dr. Boyce Watkins
www.BoyceWatkins.com
www.YourBlackWorld.com

The R. Kelly Trial: Quick Thoughts on Mr. Kelly

As many of you know, the great R&B singer R. Kelly is on trial for 14 counts of child pornography for allegedly videotaping himself “getting freaky” with an underage girl. As I watch R. Kelly's trial move forward, and all the madness that goes with it, I simply had some honest questions. If I could ask R. Kelly, I would, but I've never met the man. From what I've heard about him behind closed doors, I am honestly not sure if I want to.

I asked some of these questions when I hosted an XM Satellite Radio show on Power 169 a couple of years ago. That was a memorable show, since I interviewed Rev. Jesse Jackson on the same day that Martin Luther King's daughter died. Jesse has my respect and gave me a great compliment by stating that he feels that my work at Syracuse is helping to continue Dr. King's tradition. You can't buy that kind of encouragement with any amount of money.

I’ll start this by saying that I am not going to presume that R. Kelly is innocent or guilty. I’ll let the courts make that decision. I am also going to put aside the fact that I have a teenage daughter and the thought of R. Kelly or any old dude touching my child makes me want to get a little kung-fu-ish. I must also admit that R. Kelly is probably the most talented R&B singer in America. With all that said, I have some questions:

R. Kelly Question Number one:


Why did it take 6 years for this trial to get started? The alleged incident happened in 2002. To put it into context, in 2002 President Bush had an incredibly high popularity rating. The Iraq war had not yet started, the term “50 Cent” referred to an amount of money, no one could pronounce “Barack Obama” (and no one felt the need to try), and “facebooking” your friend sounded both violent and degrading. I am not sure how a man can be accused of a crime in 2002 and not go on trial until 2008? Since that time, long prison sentences have ended, freshmen have graduated from college, and newborn babies are now in elementary school. What kind of justice gives you 6 years before you go on trial for a serious crime?

R. Kelly Question Number two:

What’s the deal with the little kids dawg? I am not accusing Kelly of doing whatever it was that everyone thinks he did on the video that everyone has seen. I just need to understand why a grown man who can get any woman he wants goes hunting for women in the public school system. We all know about R. Kelly’s annulled marriage to 15-year old Aaliyah back in the day, so it’s not as if there isn’t a precedent. This chasing after super young women thing doesn’t make any sense. But then again, it almost never does to people who don’t do it.

R. Kelly Question Number Three:

Does the creation of a slamming album wash away all sins? It seems to me that the quality of R. Kelly’s music over the past several years has led to the public simply forgetting about the fact that there is evidence that this man might be a child molester. Yes, I believe in presuming innocence, but someone should have gone through the process of figuring out if he might be guilty. I once had a conversation with a high powered executive from one of the top radio stations in Chicago. I asked him why the Chicago stations conveniently forgot the indignant stand they initially took against R. Kelly’s music after the charges were made public. It seemed that once R. Kelly came out with another song that people liked, everything was golden once again. The executive had no good answers for me, and only behaved as if R. Kelly’s talent was enough to make us forget about what he may have done to that little girl. Now, I am not one for calling out the lynch mobs against a man who has not yet been convicted, but damn.

R. Kelly Question Number four:


R. Kelly has the ear of the entire ghetto and even inspires people when he croons. Can he PLEASE ever sing songs about something other than silly sh*t? Don’t get me wrong…I know that Jesus saved him, taught him that he can fly and helped him step in the name of love….yeah yeah yeah. But most of the R. Kelly songs seem to have a consistent combination: go to the party with a car full of women, get drunk, go to the after party, have sex after the after party and then do the same thing the next day. One would expect that a man with the ear of the black community could sing about something a little more substantive at least every now and then.

R. Kelly Question Number five:

Why is everybody trying to get a copy of this damn sex tape? Remember: curiosity killed the cat, and the possession of this tape is TECHNICALLY the possession of child pornography. So, if your objective is to look at this tape just so you can see what everybody else is saying they said they saw, you might want to think again.

Side Question in the R. Kelly Trial: Are the people involved in all this craziness at least using protection? Sorry, but I have to be the one to ask. I can't imagine what some of these folks' medical reports are looking like these days. Not to hate on anybody's sexual habits, for I too am a fan of great sex. However, I am a bigger fan of intelligent, responsible and meaningful sex. I hope that R. Kelly's "special friends" are fans of the same thing, since we all know what happened to the great Eazy -E, who loved to rap about his sexual exploits that eventually led him to the grave.

If R. Kelly did indeed commit this crime, this is no laughing matter. Child pornography and sex with a minor are serious offenses. I would hope that no song of any quality can lead us to forgive and forget, for we can’t have predators hurting our children.

Sorry R. Kelly, your music jams, but if this is truly your issue, you might need some help.

One of the attorneys on YourBlackWorld did some legal analysis on the R. Kelly trial. You might find this interesting as well.

Dr. Boyce Thought of the Day: What it means to be educated

I recently gave a speech at Stanford University for the Black Student Union. We were going to talk about educational empowerment and “black people stuff”. The Stanford University campus possesses, as expected, some of the more brilliant minds in America. It also has its share of stuffiness and elitism, as many such campuses do. I have personally been a believer that education is what you make of it. A person at a community college who studies for 10 hours a day is, in my opinion, far more capable than a student at Harvard who studies for 4 hours a day. The key to your greatness lies inside your heart, not in the walls of the institution you attend.

Michelle Obama: Fox News Calls her Barack Obama's "Baby's Mama"

Fox News referred today to Michelle Obama as "Barack Obama's Baby's Mama" (video below). What is interesting about this statement is that it was clearly made because she is African American. I can't imagine them saying the same thing about the wife of John McCain.

This clearly shows that Fox News is engaged in a consistent campaign to use race to undermine this election. This election has really told us alot about our country and proves many of the points I've made in the past about racism. Subtle racism of the 1990s is out the door, since Fox News has given America permission to show just how racist they really are.


Just for the record, Michelle Obama would not be considered a "baby's mama". A baby's mama is typically unmarried. Michelle has been married to Barack for a long time. So, unless you are going to start calling Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan and other women "baby's mamas", you better not say that about Michelle Obama.


Michelle Obama is one of the most distinguished women in the history of this country. Fox News cannot and should not be allowed to undermine her greatness with such pathetic language.

The video is below.

Anybody wanna see Dr. Boyce Rapping on Camera?

No, I'm not a rapper, but I like having fun. I love hip hop, and although I don't consider myself a "hip hop intellectual", I have alot of respect for my homeboys Michael Eric Dyson, Marc Lamont Hill and others who are intelligent enough to understand the intelligence of hip hop music.

Enjoy!

“Divisive Hate Speech”: Why this Term is Silly

by Dr. Boyce Watkins

http://www.boycewatkins.com/

As I work to do my part toward the fair treatment of African Americans, I can't recall how many emails I've received from well-intended, yet uninformed individuals who presume that my words are nothing more than "divisive hate speech". It doesn't matter what I say, or how I say it. As long as I bring up the impact that slavery and oppression has on the present, I am accused of using "divisive hate speech". When I bring up the fact that slavery, oppression and economic exclusion have created the massive wealth gap between blacks and whites in America, I am accused of using "divisive hate speech". When I mention the disproportionate black male prison population (an artifact of Jim Crow and slavery) or the lack of tenured faculty at majority universities, I am again accused of "divisive hate speech".

I now ignore that line in any email I receive. To use that term in response to being confronted with slavery is like an irresponsible father getting angry every time his child's mother reminds him to pay child support. Reconciliation for extraordinary damage and devastation comes with a price. You can't just wish it away.

I know how to look past the critics, they don't bother me. But for some reason, that term (divisive hate speech) was in my brain when I woke up this morning, and I wanted to share some thoughts with those who are bothered by such a criticism. Part of the price of admission for African Americans into so-called "mainstream America" is that we must do our ancestors a huge disgrace by remaining quiet about the atrocities they've experienced. If you spend just one day thoroughly studying the impact of slavery and the experience of some of the slaves, you wouldn't think for one second that it is ok to forget what they went through.

The reason the term "divisive hate speech" is silly in response to any African American who speaks up on racism is because it is reflective of the lack of personal responsibility that our country teaches when it comes to dealing with the impact of slavery and discrimination. If I am wealthy because my father raped my best friend's mother and stole her belongings, it would be irresponsible for me to say "that's divisive hate speech!" whenever my friend attempts to have my family held accountable for the actions of my father. In that scenario, if I am forcing my friend to remain silent about what happened to his mother as a condition for our friendship, then the truth is that he is not my friend at all. The secondary truth is that I do not respect my friend nor love him enough to make things right after what my family has done.

African Americans are in the same situation. My precondition for being accepted by my colleagues in the academy is for me to remain silent about the raping, castration, murder, robbery and torture of my own family members during slavery. If you can go with me for a second (close your eyes and really imagine this for me), imagine having your siblings taken away forever at the age of 6, seeing your mother raped in front of you or watching your father beaten and eventually killed. That gives you a tiny glimpse into the life of a slave.

The secondary reality that comes from treating another group of people like this for 400 years (that's nearly half a millennium, a very long time to form cultural habits) is that the oppressive group is going to feel comfortable oppressing the minority group. The minority group is going to feel comfortable being oppressed and victimized. I refuse to be a victim, so I am fighting back. Fighting back and refusing to be victimized is what leads to a rejection by the group that is comfortable oppressing minorities. It also leads to a rejection by those in the oppressed group who have grown comfortable remaining silent about the truth. That partially explains the term "divisive hate speech". In fact, I recall hearing an esteemed black colleague of mine tell his superior that "racism doesn't exist in his organization", when privately, he knows that his company has not promoted a black man in 40 years. That is the kind of sick, twisted lie that many African Americans are forced to live, all in the name of "not appearing divisive".

Another reason it is irresponsible to use a term like "divisive hate speech" to describe any man or woman's desire to discuss the impact of slavery is that the truth MUST BE CONFRONTED IF YOU ARE TO MOVE FORWARD. A fat man who is challenged to exercise might want to say "Exercise is painful and unfair!" But he should understand that without exercise, he is going to remain fat. America is that fat man. Every time the term "divisive hate speech" is used as an attempt to silence those who speak out on race, Americans are behaving like the fat man who doesn't have the discipline to exercise. He should realize that confronting his weight problem is the only way he is going to get healthy. Making bad choices in the past (or perhaps his mother feeding him the wrong food) implies that he ABSOLUTELY MUST endure the pain to achieve the gain. There is no way around it.

For the overweight man in my example above to think that he can achieve the gain without enduring a period of discomfort and sacrifice would be both weak and irresponsible. That is what many Americans want. They want racial harmony without the responsibility of true reconciliation and accountability.

That is something I refuse to accept. So, from this point on, the term "divisive hate speech" is officially deemed silly and counterproductive. If you want to criticize me, you have to come at me with something better than that.

Why aren't college athletes being paid again?

I just did an interview with a site called www.Bleacherreport.com, which seems to be a great sports website. Talking about sports got my blood boiling about the NCAA again, which I feel is one of the most corrupt and exploitative institutions in American history.

I participated in a CBS sports special on whether or not athletes should get paid last year, as well as some shows on CNN, ESPN and other places. I was impressed by the amount of effort the NCAA puts into managing its perception as the benevolent overseer of the athletes it is abusing. Any league that earns a billion dollars per year off the backs of families in poverty should be ashamed of itself.

Here is the transcript from the interview we did today, it's interesting:

1) People often say that the opportunity to receive a free education
is enough compensation for college athletes. What's wrong with that
argument?

A free education is valuable, no one knows that better than a college professor. The problem is that we can’t assume that $30,000 per year is fair compensation for any job. If Tom Cruise stars in a blockbuster film, he is going to kick your butt if you try to pay him $30,000, even if you throw room and board in with it. In America, you get paid what you’re worth.

I see many athletes who are literally responsible for bringing $20M per year into their campuses, yet their mothers are starving to death or homeless. This should be a shame for us all, since I’ve never seen a D-1 college coach’s mother go hungry.

2) If colleges could pay athletes, the wealthier schools would appear
to have an advantage. Do you think there would need to be a salary cap
or other measures put in place to ensure some parity in college
sports?

I am not opposed to the idea of a salary cap, although I haven’t seen a salary cap for coaches. My goal is not to support preferential treatment for athletes, I only endorse fairness. I don’t see why coaches and athletes can’t have the same rules. They are all under the same pressure to win, they are both treated as professionals and expected to produce as professionals. This pressure doesn’t come from the fact that their campuses love sports so much, it’s because CAMPUSES WANT THE MONEY. They are pushing these guys much harder on the court and the field than they do in the classroom, because good grades don’t pay university bills; only big wins bring in big paychecks.

But in terms of a salary cap, I would not be opposed to that. The NCAA is lucky, since they are the only multi-billion sports league that can get away with paying their players 1/100 of what they are worth. Players would be ecstatic to play for $150,000 per year, which is far less than the millions many of them would earn in a fair market system. The money wouldn’t have to come from university budgets, they could start by sharing the money coaches get from shoe deals. After all, the players are the ones we pay to see and they are the ones wearing the shoes. But as a general rule, the Finance and free market capitalist in me doesn’t like the idea of any kind of government regulation restricting wages. I am sure coaches wouldn’t like a cap on their wages either.

3) Do you think that recruits should be offered contracts by schools
based on the performance they showed in high school? How would each
individuals contracts differ from the next?

I don’t think that we know all the answers to these questions, but one thing is true: The market knows ALL ANSWERS to ALL QUESTIONS. In other words, if a player is the next Lebron James, then the schools know what he can do in terms of revenue generation. I say let them bid it out and the highest bidder wins. Seriously, who is to say that Rick Pitino is worth $3 million per year? Nobody says it, there is a negotiation and the price that he gets is what he is worth. The beauty about the free market is that when the market is fair, open and efficient, no one gets more than what they are truly worth, since no one pays more than the value of the commodity.

What I love about the NCAA (who expends a tremendous amount of money on their propaganda machine) is that they do a good job of making it seem that paying the athletes would be excessively complicated and nearly impossible. The problem is that they find a way to get around the complications when it’s time to bring in a coach for $4M dollars per year. The market works out all complications, because you either get the deal done, or the game doesn’t happen. They have a lot of PhDs working for them, and we are smart enough to help them work out the complications of their contracts.

The reality is that anyone who exploits someone else, whether it’s the NCAA or a pimp on the street, is always going to find a good excuse for keeping their money in their pocket. I say this as a financial expert. I am sure that when Billy Packer or Dick Vitale show up for their multi-million dollar paychecks, they wouldn’t want to hear any reasons that their money isn’t available. For some reason, they expect athletes and their families to accept these excuses.

4) What should be done regarding sports that bring in very little
revenue such as golf, tennis, and track. Would the contracts for these
athletes be substantially less?

Yes, they would be. That’s the way things work in the real world. I am a professor, and some could argue that educating our youth is far more important than being a Hollywood actor. However, I will always make less money than (and not be attractive enough to date) Angelina Jolie. I accept that.

I find it most ironic that when individuals expect payment equity among young athletes, as well as gender equity, they almost never mention the necessity of such equity among the coaches.

Again, going back a fair market, if an athlete brings revenue to the university, he/she should have the same rights of negotiation that coaches, administrators, corporate sponsors and everyone else getting paid from his/her labor. If you simply release the rules and let the market work, you will get the result you are looking for.

5) How would you like to reform the horrendous academic environment in
college athletics? It is no secret that this is a huge problem facing
college athletic programs.

I agree, the environment is horrific. I’ve seen athletes admitted to college with no expectation that they are ever going to consider graduating. Money is a drug, and a drug addiction can make any of us lower our standards. Universities are no different, as many of them abandon their academic missions in exchange for the opportunity to earn a few million dollars off the next superstar from the ghetto.

We must remember that incentives roll downhill. A coach with high graduation rates and a low winning percentage would be fired, while a coach with low graduation rates and a high winning percentage is given a raise and promotion. This shows blatant disregard for the value of academic success. I see universities giving coaches blank checks for controlling every aspect of their players’ lives in order to get them ready to play, but they throw their hands up and negate their responsibility to see to it that these young men and women are getting educated. The excuses are interesting: “We can’t make them study if they don’t want to!” At the same time, the same coach who claims that he can’t make the athletes study miraculously finds a way to get 80 grown men awake at 6 am for intense weight lifting sessions. They are able to motivate the athletes to do what coaches deem to be most important.

I don’t completely blame the coaches for these contradictions, I blame the campus. Coaches understand that they are not going to be rewarded for academic achievement. Winning, however, is key to their job security. Campuses should take the lead in putting oversight in place that insures that academic progress is the most important part of any athletics program. That means that if a player has practice the night before an exam, he/she misses practice. If they have an exam during a game, they miss the game (even if it is a million dollar game on ESPN). THAT, my friend, is the life of a student athlete. Right now, college athletes live the lives of professionals.

6) If you were named President of the NCAA, what other changes might
you make other then compensating athletes?

I am hesitant to be an armchair quarterback on the NCAA, primarily because I believe that many of the administrators in the NCAA know that what they are doing is wrong. In fact, Walter Byers, the former executive director of the NCAA has reversed his position and stated that athletes should be paid. Honestly, anyone with common sense realizes that if you earn millions for someone else, you deserve more than a college scholarship. I believe that Miles Brand, in spite of the propaganda exercise performed by he and CBS Sports last year (in an attempt to refute my analysis) knows that he would never allow himself or his coaches to operate under the same constraints, penalties and exploitation placed on athletes and their families (especially if his mother were getting evicted, as many of these players come from poverty). In fact, I found it quite ironic that nearly every participant in the CBS sports special was earning at least a few hundred thousand dollars per year while simultaneously explaining to athletes and their families why they shouldn’t get any of that money.

Beyond paying the athletes, I would make a decision: either the NCAA is going to be a professional organization or an amateur one. It’s not going to be a hybrid. A truly amateur organization doesn’t have coaches earning as much as $4M dollars per year. Coaches earn no more than, say, $80,000 per year.

- An amateur organization doesn’t fire losing coaches with high graduation rates and reward winning coaches with low graduation rates – any coach hired by the NCAA is expected to not only teach at the university, he/she is expected to ensure that academic achievement is first and foremost in the life of each athlete.

- The rules should disappear: why can’t players transfer to other schools without being penalized? Coaches leave in the middle of the season all the time. Why is it illegal for athletes to receive compensation from outside entities? Coaches take money from whomever they please. Athletes are given the same responsibilities as adults, told to behave as adults, yet we put rules in place that treat them like children. Again, anyone who exploits another human being, whether it’s the NCAA or a corrupt warlord in a third world country, is going to place constraints on you and then guise his/her motivations by claiming that the rules are in place for your protection. That is the consistent theme of the NCAA’s justification for controlling their student athletes. But their desire to protect the athlete goes out the window when an athlete gets into trouble, loses his/her eligibility or loses his/her scholarship for not being able to perform on the field.

The NCAA needs to redefine its mission and be honest with the world. Right now, it is an elephant with bunny ears, swearing that it’s nothing but a harmless little rabbit. The truth is that the NCAA is exactly what it appears to be: a professional sports league. So, rather than allowing me to become the head of the NCAA, I would rather be the head of the House Ways and Means Committee, which initiated an investigation into the NCAA and began to question its non-profit status. A bureaucratic beast that has grown so deformed with contradictions needs to be deconstructed and rebuilt in a model of fairness. As it stands, the NCAA exists in stark contrast to the values most of us embrace as Americans. I’ve seen it up close over the past 15 years and it bothers the heck out of me.