Failing to Scrutinize Black Leaders

A year ago, in the heat of an August summer, Democrats were trying to solve the "Jesse problem." Overlooked for the vice-presidential nomination, Jesse Jackson continued to use the campaign as a rallying point for his cause: a cause some would call social/political reform, and others would call ego-mania.

In the heat of that summer, Democrats feared criticizing Jackson almost as much as they feared what Jackson would do next. Questions were raised concerning his statements about Jews, Martin Luther King's assassination and Louis Farrakhan. Some also asked whether Jackson, who had never held elected office, was qualified for the job. These doubts remained in the back-ground of Jackson's campaign, but the press never brought them to the front page.

Those who tried to explain why the media failed to scrutinize Jackson were left tongue-tied. Put simply, some feared that criticism of a Black leader was comparable to condemnation of the entire race. If we criticize Jackson, thought many journalists, it might be construed as racism.

Maybe, but to not criticize Jackson merely because he is Black is also, dare we say, racism.

THIS summer, August brings cooler weather, but the race/leadership problem has not gone away. In a summer when Spike Lee urges audiences to "Do the Right Thing," no one is seriously asking what happens when Black leaders do the wrong thing.

One alternative is to ignore it. The Los Angeles Times, for example, sat on a potent article revealing conflict of interest settlements between a financial conglomerate and Mayor Tom Bradley. Bradley, who has been credited with calming racial tension in Los Angeles after the Watts riots in the late 1960s, has been backed by the Times' editors for decades. Finally, The L.A. Herald released its version of the story.

When asked why it had delayed publication of the story, The Times said it would not be party to the demise of this Black mayor. The paper wanted no responsibilities for whatever racial conflicts might ensue if Bradley were to fall.

But if Bradley were to fall, it would be of his own making. No different than Jim Wright or Ed Meese or Richard Nixon. Because he is Black does not make him immune to criticism, or to flaw.

Furthermore, to assume that Black leaders are the only sources of racial harmony in urban areas completely simplifies the problem of bigotry. The Times' argument is claiming that the only reason why Watts doesn't burn again is because "they've got one of their own in the statehouse."

THE concern voiced by The Times--no matter how ill-placed, no matter how journalistically unsound--was evidenced in the confirmation hearings for William Lucas, President Bush's nominee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. A former sheriff, admittedly poorly-versed in social law, Lucas was denied approval for the post of assistant attorney general by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the vote, conservative white senators accused their liberal counterparts of reverse racism for expecting a Black to be necessarily liberal and pro-affirmative action.

Imagine, however, a former white sheriff, responding to questions in front of the committee. When asked what this white lawyer thought of the recent Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action, he responds that he is not too familiar with most aspects of civil rights law. Would it be racism to deny his confirmation, or prudent sense?

Prominent, national Black leaders have, unfortunately, been rare in American history. Reactions to such leaders have ranged from overt bigotry to condescending protectionism.

If step one in the Civil Rights Movement was to catapult Blacks into powerful public positions, step two must be to realize that in every race there are the unqualified, the unethical, the unworthy.

An objective, even cynical, review of Black leaders in America is not racism. We would expect the same scrutiny of our white leaders. That many Black leaders are the victims of unfair accusations is a truism. To cry (or fear cries of) racism like some Pavlovian response because one dares to treat Black politicians primarily as office-holders--and secondarily as Blacks--dilutes the word "racist" and undermines attempts for racial objectivitiy in our political debates.