 Are We Living in a Post-Racial Society?By JAMES SIMMONSHas a new day arrived in America where race no longer matters? Has the dream of a post-racial society overcome the monolith of America’s institutional racism? Are the courts of this land acting without the taint of the vestiges of slavery in their decision-making processes? The election of an African American president in 2008 does not mean that “the dream” of a post-racial, colorblind society in the United States has been achieved anymore than the election of Tom Bradley in 1973 meant the end to racism and arbitrary police violence in Los Angeles. One of the most prominent pillars of institutional racism in America is the court system. At times the courts are useful in progressive efforts such as breaking down the walls of segregation, or in challenging racist practices during jury selection with decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Batson v. Kentucky. Unfortunately, the courts on a day-to-day basis are a continuing source of support for the notion — articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford — that those of African descent have no rights that the white man is bound to respect. Racism and white supremacy consciously and unconsciously permeate the minds of many people in these United States. This applies not only to poor, illiterate workers in Mississippi and Georgia, but to amply compensated and learned judges, attorneys and others linked to the legal profession in California as well. A small example of the subtle nature of racism in the courts can be seen in the following sad series of events:In a recent accusation by the California Board of Psychology, a Southern California psychologist was accused of displaying what the board termed a “racially insensitive” sign in his office. The complaining party is an African American mother whose children were upset and disturbed by a plaque in the play room of the psychologist’s office that read: “Unattended children will be sold as slaves.” This psychologist had been appointed by the court to do psychological evaluations of the children for a custody action. The sign was removed after the mother’s attorney contacted the psychologist, who then withdrew from the court case, citing the development of a conflict “which might affect his impartiality and judgment.” In an unrelated case, the same psychologist was appointed to do evaluations for a child custody case involving children from an Asian mother and an African father. When the father became aware of the incident with the sign in the playroom, he asked that the court appoint a different psychologist. The court refused, stating on the record that the sign was not racist but simply insensitive. The attorney for the father later chastised the court for minimizing the racist nature of the sign and forcing the father to cooperate with this psychologist who appears to be prejudiced against his rights as a black man, thus creating a conflict as in the previous case. The judge apologized for verbally minimizing the racist nature of the sign, but did not take any action to remove the psychologist. Now some reading may believe this is much to do about nothing and say that the sign was “color free” and harmless. Such people may make the oft-touted claim that black people are hypersensitive, make specious complaints, and are prone to so-called “reverse racism.” Would not a sign that read “unattended children will be sold into prostitution” be considered outrageously sexist? Would not a sign that reads “unattended children will be put in concentration camps” lead to the perception of possible prejudice against Jewish or Japanese Americans? How about a sign that read “bad kids will be deported?” Would not those people whose children are affected have the right not only to have their children be protected from the vile and frightening nature of the sign, but have assurance from the court that their rights are protected from a court-sanctioned professional evaluating children with the mentality that felt a sign was OK? Yes, there has been movement in America’s progress toward divesting itself of the most onerous and obvious forms of racism, especially for select individuals. Unfortunately, the making of exceptions does not mean the walls of injustice have been broken down, nor that the institutions of government, especially the courts, have been cleared of racism. Simmons is a co-founder of Human Rights Advocacy, a Southern California-based organization dedicated to human and civil rights education and advocacy, and his commentaries can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles. He can be reached at humanrightsadv@gmail.com. Photo: James Simmons.jpg
|
