Athra Al-samarae
English 112
Professor Sexton
20 September 2016
" I Have A Dream" Is Still A Dream
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s (MLK's), declared that he wanted his children to live in a world where their attributes are more valuable than their color. It might be the most misunderstood, misremembered, and abused phrase in American political history. These words were taken from the iconic "I Have a Dream" speech delivered by King at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at the 1963 March on Washington, D.C. Given the current condition of race relations in the United States, King's timeless words have yet to be realized to this day.
Even after more than half a century, Americans are still in an endless debate over whether colorblindness or overt race-consciousness should guide policy decisions in dealing with the aftermath of slavery and segregation. White conservatives use King's words as a cover for rebutting Affirmative Action. When addressing any program that targets assistance for blacks and other minorities from college admissions and housing to corporate hiring, conservatives refer to MLK's reference in "I Have a Dream" to the need to be colorblind. The problem with the conservative rationale and argument is that MLK said that he did not want black children to be judged by the color of their skin-not that the color of their skin should be ignored altogether.
Considering the United States' history, absolute colorblindness-both in attitude and in policy-has had a dangerously disparate impact on minorities. For example, the War on Drugs has rules and regulations that are colorblind down to the letter, but has put a disproportionate number of black Americans (black American men, in particular) in America's prisons. The War on Drugs policy does not account for the ways in which racial bias affects the way that the laws are enforced. Being colorblind, creates problems and then offers a blanket excuse for ignoring them. Forced to deal with the ignorance of the "colorblind" white conservative, progressive forces in American politics and society react with knee-jerk predictability, always insisting that overtly race-conscious policies like Affirmative Action, corporate diversity, and quotas are the answer.
However, programs that are overtly racial in approach or race-conscious come with a major adverse impact because they have a segregative effect. By forcing all black people through this black-only pipeline, programs like school busing and Affirmative Action have only overemphasized the "otherness" of black Americans. Therefore, these hyper race-conscious programs focus on isolating blacks, further distancing them from white communities by insisting on treating black people differently. The consequences of race-conscious policies can sometimes be more detrimental than the problems that they attempt to readdress. In the past, programs which encourage mortgage lending to low-income and minority homebuyers have had the unintended result of leading to rampant predatory lending targeting those specific homebuyers, thus saddling these demographic groups with balloon mortgages and other financial scams. In a country with a history of racial injustice and discrimination, programs that single people out by race are just as likely to be abused and misused as programs that claim to be colorblind.
It is not a question of either/or, but rather, it is both/and-a balanced combination of the two extremes and somewhere down the middle of colorblindness and race-consciousness. You have to be "racially conscious in your thoughts" so that you can be "racially neutral in your actions". You have to understand and accept the ways in which people are different in order to craft policies that truly treat everyone equally. To be aware of race does not mean that you need to necessarily point it out or draw attention to it. A well-designed mixed-income housing program, though racially neutral on its face, can desegregate a school more effectively and less disruptively than busing students to a school that is on the other end of town or even in another town altogether.
A world where we judge people by the "content of their character" through understanding how their character was shaped by the reality of the color of their skin. That is the world to which Martin Luther King, Jr., was referring to. The problem is that too many people lack that understanding of King's speech and legacy, that ability to find the nuanced approach down the middle. As we analyze MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and its impact on the country (and on the world), politicians and policymakers must remember what his dream really was about and how we should move forward to truly achieve this goal.
English 112
Professor Sexton
20 September 2016
" I Have A Dream" Is Still A Dream
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s (MLK's), declared that he wanted his children to live in a world where their attributes are more valuable than their color. It might be the most misunderstood, misremembered, and abused phrase in American political history. These words were taken from the iconic "I Have a Dream" speech delivered by King at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial at the 1963 March on Washington, D.C. Given the current condition of race relations in the United States, King's timeless words have yet to be realized to this day.
Even after more than half a century, Americans are still in an endless debate over whether colorblindness or overt race-consciousness should guide policy decisions in dealing with the aftermath of slavery and segregation. White conservatives use King's words as a cover for rebutting Affirmative Action. When addressing any program that targets assistance for blacks and other minorities from college admissions and housing to corporate hiring, conservatives refer to MLK's reference in "I Have a Dream" to the need to be colorblind. The problem with the conservative rationale and argument is that MLK said that he did not want black children to be judged by the color of their skin-not that the color of their skin should be ignored altogether.
Considering the United States' history, absolute colorblindness-both in attitude and in policy-has had a dangerously disparate impact on minorities. For example, the War on Drugs has rules and regulations that are colorblind down to the letter, but has put a disproportionate number of black Americans (black American men, in particular) in America's prisons. The War on Drugs policy does not account for the ways in which racial bias affects the way that the laws are enforced. Being colorblind, creates problems and then offers a blanket excuse for ignoring them. Forced to deal with the ignorance of the "colorblind" white conservative, progressive forces in American politics and society react with knee-jerk predictability, always insisting that overtly race-conscious policies like Affirmative Action, corporate diversity, and quotas are the answer.
However, programs that are overtly racial in approach or race-conscious come with a major adverse impact because they have a segregative effect. By forcing all black people through this black-only pipeline, programs like school busing and Affirmative Action have only overemphasized the "otherness" of black Americans. Therefore, these hyper race-conscious programs focus on isolating blacks, further distancing them from white communities by insisting on treating black people differently. The consequences of race-conscious policies can sometimes be more detrimental than the problems that they attempt to readdress. In the past, programs which encourage mortgage lending to low-income and minority homebuyers have had the unintended result of leading to rampant predatory lending targeting those specific homebuyers, thus saddling these demographic groups with balloon mortgages and other financial scams. In a country with a history of racial injustice and discrimination, programs that single people out by race are just as likely to be abused and misused as programs that claim to be colorblind.
It is not a question of either/or, but rather, it is both/and-a balanced combination of the two extremes and somewhere down the middle of colorblindness and race-consciousness. You have to be "racially conscious in your thoughts" so that you can be "racially neutral in your actions". You have to understand and accept the ways in which people are different in order to craft policies that truly treat everyone equally. To be aware of race does not mean that you need to necessarily point it out or draw attention to it. A well-designed mixed-income housing program, though racially neutral on its face, can desegregate a school more effectively and less disruptively than busing students to a school that is on the other end of town or even in another town altogether.
A world where we judge people by the "content of their character" through understanding how their character was shaped by the reality of the color of their skin. That is the world to which Martin Luther King, Jr., was referring to. The problem is that too many people lack that understanding of King's speech and legacy, that ability to find the nuanced approach down the middle. As we analyze MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and its impact on the country (and on the world), politicians and policymakers must remember what his dream really was about and how we should move forward to truly achieve this goal.