Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald wrote an interesting article on futility, opening with this:
This will be a futile column.
Experience dictates that it will change no minds, inspire no reconsideration among those who disagree. It will sit on the computer screen or the newspaper page taking up space, affecting nothing, until another column replaces it. It will be a useless essay, written for one reason only: to protect the writer’s mental health. If the writer did not write it, you see, there is a great danger his head would explode.
I know how he feels, on so many levels.
My latest column, Redistricting and race, appeared in The Virginian-Pilot Wednesday. Writing about either topic, much less both, is so much of an effort in futility. I happen to believe that no matter how many articles are written, no matter how many hearings are held, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about the redistricting process this cycle, at least not at the statewide level. That horse has already left the barn. The time to have done something about it was several years ago, in 2008, when the first split General Assembly was seated. If redistricting by someone other than the General Assembly couldn’t be accomplished then, why in the world does anyone think it can be done now? The lines were mostly drawn last fall, with minor tweaks in them once the census numbers were released. The hearings on March 31 and April 2 in advance of the General Assembly session on April 4 is pure window dressing. Make the public think they are being listened to.
And then we have the issue of race thrown into the mix at the last minute. Come on, folks. I recall conversations about a potential second minority-majority Congressional district at least four or five years ago. Heck, I could even give you the names of the folks who were lining up to run. So why all the talk about it now? Why wasn’t it an issue much, much earlier?
But one thing is certain: mention race in any context and the racists out there come out of the closet. Read through the comments in Pitts’ column for a sampling. And remember, those probably aren’t the worst of what Pitts gets. My own column has not a single comment – but I can tell you that I’ve gotten emails. Happens every single time I mention race – and I knew it would happen this time, too.
We have a problem in this country and the problem is that we have yet to openly and honestly deal with the issue of race. As the result, any effort to try to do so is met with hostility from some very vocal quarters.
One of the rules we used to have when I was a facilitator with Norfolk United Facing Race was to “speak harsh truths softly.” Sometimes, no matter how softly you speak the truth, ears, as Pitts said, don’t hear it. They hear what they want to hear. Just as it is a problem when Democrats and Republicans talk past each other, so, too, is it a problem when blacks and whites do the same. The only thing we can do is to continue the conversation, hoping that somehow, someday, we’ll reach a point of understanding.
So yeah, I had to write that column. And yeah, I had to point out that blacks are under-represented in elected office in Norfolk and in Virginia, even if there is virtually no hope that the situation will be addressed.
Because otherwise, my head would have exploded.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Just out of curiosity, what would your definition of dealing with race be?
I was at the informal city council meeting Tuesday and Riddick asked what the city could do if not enough black people were qualified for promotion in the police department. He seriously suggested promoting someone simply because of the color of their skin. Pishko was quick with the, “uh sir, that would be illegal” comment, but it was still rather shocking.
Am I crazy for thinking that’s a textbook definition of racism? Because I’m pretty sure if I told Riddick that he would call me a racist for thinking it.
Dealing with race is not filling positions with unqualified people. Dealing with race is finding out and correcting, if possible, the reason there are no qualified people.
I am of the school of thought that racism requires power. If Riddick had the power to get someone promoted simply on the basis of race, that would be racism. But, obviously, he doesn’t. So that would be prejudice, but not racism.
Very good point, I’ve honestly never thought of it that way.
So racism would be using your power or power in general to discriminate while prejudice is basically wishing you could?
That makes sense to me. I definitely agree that the solution is to find out why and fix the problem. Education is the answer, not pushing people forward just to even out some quota. This country would be a lot better off if we failed more kids in high school who aren’t ready for college. I forgot the statistic, but Dr. Bentley mentioned at a board meeting how the number of remedial classes in college has skyrocketed in recent years.
Yes, that’s right.
But I also don’t know that we can always fix the problem. For example, what if, when they did serious research, they found that few people – black or white – want to be on the police force? Maybe the pay isn’t sufficient for the risk involved. Or maybe people have other interests. That’s not an education problem.
Another great point. I think society looks way to much at the numbers and not enough at the underlying causes. Just because a group is underrepresented doesn’t mean there is racism somewhere along the line.
And this is why we have to have real conversations about race, rather than the knee-jerk reactions that happen far too often. Sometimes, under-representation IS the result of racism. And sometimes, it’s not.
And I think sometimes it may be the result of racism, but not at the same level. If someone was subject to some form of racism during their school years and got a bad deal on their education, such as being placed in a sub-standard school with racially gerrymandered attendance zones, then they are going to be at a disadvantage for most of their life.
I think that has a lot more to do with the perceived racism in the workplace than any sort of actual workplace discrimination. If their aren’t enough minorities in leadership positions then perhaps we should look at the schools or the qualifications and experience of the candidates before we look for racism in the company or people in charge of the company.
I know you’re concerned about education but sometimes that’s not the problem. Sometimes, it is simply discrimination.
Blacks are 20% of Virginia’s population, but only about 15% of the college-educated population — which is for all practical purposes a prerequisite to holding public office or being appointed to a board.
Black voter turnout is also lower, especially in non-presidential years.
It seems that the percentage of Blacks in elected office in VA is very close to the percentage of Black voters that meet that minimum qualification.
Except that reapportionment does not mean voters nor education, it means people. So your comparison does not hold.
I was not talking about reapportionment, but about the assertion that blacks are underrepresented in state government. It seems that the percentage of blacks in state government is close to the percentage of voters that are minimally qualified for such office — that minimum being a 4-year college degree.
That’s your minimum – and it is not a requirement for office. Thelma Drake, Director of DRPT, served in the U.S. Congress and she didn’t have a college degree.
You cannot divorce the discussion of reapportionment from that of redistricting and under-representation. It simply doesn’t work that way.
I’m not divorcing the discussions, either, only disputing the assertion that blacks are underrepresented.
I do that on two bases — the first the percentages qualified for public office, and the second that only a black person can properly represent a black person.
You also seem to be arguing against yourself. In one post, you seem to want more majority-minority districts, to get more Blacks elected. In another post, you say, “Please split up my ‘community of interest.'”
And you can’t read. Because I didn’t write that community of interest post.
My mistake. I’m still not used to others’ writing articles here!
One advantage for drawing a second minority-majority district is that you could condense the gerrymandered 3rd. It could be relatively compact and contiguous, contained completely in Hampton Roads.
1. You made up the qualification.
2. Which you NEVER mentioned in your original comment.
So no, Warren, you have not provided any basis for disputing that blacks are under-represented.
1) It seems to be the practical reality. There are exceptions, of course. Even worse, a majority of Representatives are lawyers, and only about 7% of law students are black.
2) I was trying to take one point at a time.
I find it interesting that Bobby Scott is considering a bid for the US Senate. Apparently, HE doesn’t think he needs a majority-minority district to win, either.
Your contention seems to be that only a black person can adequately represent black voters. Is that an incorrect assessment of what you have said?
In my opinion, if blacks vote for their representatives, they are represented. However, black voter turnout IS lower than average. Also, it has been shown that black voter turnout correlates to their percentage of the electorate. THAT is a reason I might support majority-minority districts — to improve voter turnout among blacks — but not simply to get more black representatives.
Admit that your “minimum” is not law and therefore, has no bearing on reapportionment or redistricting.
And don’t put words in my mouth as I’ve not said “only a black person can adequately represent black voters.”
You are Exhibit A of what my post above was originally about: having ears and not hearing.
Of course it is not law, nor does it have any bearing on reapportionment or redistricting. But it does go to the question of “under-representation.” It is not on the assertion of under-representation that you want more majority-minority districts?
Now, I did not “put words in your mouth,” but said that your contention SEEMS to be that only blacks can represent blacks, and asked whether that was an incorrect assessment. I am glad to see that it was.
Since whites CAN adequately represent blacks, on what basis do you think that blacks are under-represented?