"FIRM...but fair" with Jeffery A. Faulkerson  

On Thursday, July 30, 2009, United States President Barack Obama sat down with Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Cambridge Police Department sergeant James Crowley in what is being touted by the media as a “beer summit.”  According to media reports, and statements issued by both Dr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley, the meeting went well, even though neither party offered an apology for what transpired in Cambridge, Massachusetts on July 16^th.  Their hope is they and other Americans will be able to bury the hatchet, encourage more Americans to have thought-provoking and healing conversations about America’s race problem. 

 

As an American, I’m all for that.  But as a black American, who also just happens to be a realist, I believe these sentiments are easily expressed but difficult to achieve.  I say this because Sgt. Leon Lashley, the black sergeant who was on the scene when Dr. Gates was arrested, had the audacity to write a letter to Sgt. Crowley in which he asked him to mention to Dr. Gates and President Obama that he is now known as the “black sergeant” and to some others as an “uncle Tom.”

 

When CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer read the letter during a July 30^th airing of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, I immediately asked myself why Sgt. Lashley would go there, especially when he probably knows deep down in his heart that the shoe probably fits as it relates to this incident.  Just look at the facts in this case.  Sgt. Crowley, the colleague that he is defending, reportedly made false statements in his police report, writing that 911 caller Lucia Whalen identified the alleged burglars as “two black men.”  During a press conference held days before the Gates and Crowley White House meeting, Whalen said she never said anything about the alleged burglars’ racial identity.  But the facts also reveal Sgt. Crowley used “poor judgment” when he arrested Dr. Gates.  We must never forget that the prosecutor ultimately dropped the charges levied against Dr. Gates the day after the arrest.

 

In my opinion, Sgt. Lashley is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.  On one hand, he wants to be protective of Sgt. Crowley, his friend and colleague.  But on the other hand, he wants to “be down” with his black brothers and sisters.  I can understand where the brother is coming from, because, like him, I too have to walk this tight rope, as do countless other upwardly mobile black Americans.  But if I were in Sgt. Lashley’s shoes, I would remain silent.  As the only other black American on the scene, he could have said something to Dr. Gates that would have de-escalated the situation.   

 

If you really think about the metaphorical significance of Sgt. Lashley’s actions, you can see that his support of Sgt Crowley instead of Dr. Gates is reminiscent of those black American slaves who had the privilege of residing in the big house.  Because these House Negroes were in closer proximity to their White masters, they began to take on the identity of these same White masters.  Some of them even severed their ties to those Blacks who had the misfortune of working in the fields (i.e., the Field Negroes) under the glaring heat of the hot Sun.  Because they now had the honor of munching on a few “privilege crumbs,” they slowly began to think they were better than the Field Negroes. 

 

That being said, I don’t think Sgt. Lashley’s actions support the notion that he thinks he’s better than other black Americans.  What it does show, however, is the lengths some upwardly mobile black Americans will take to hold on to what they have.  Sgt. Lashley is undoubtedly a respected officer within the Cambridge Police Department, as well as a respected member of his community.  Like many of us, he has used, or uses, the money that he makes from his job to support his wife and children.  But right is right, and wrong is wrong.  And he opted to defend Sgt. Crowley, a man who is unapologetic even though the evidence against him shows that he was in the wrong on two occasions.  I know police officers aren’t pastors or priests, but aren’t they supposed to be supportive of righteous, law-abiding citizens?

 

What do you think?

 

I look forward to reading your responses.

 

Jeffery A. Faulkerson, MSSW

From THE PURPOSEFUL WRITER

www.purposefulwriter.blogspot.com

On Tuesday, July 14, I watched as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about her distinguished record as a federal court judge. Judge Sotomayor just happens to be the first Latina woman nominated for this judgeship. But my skin crawled when Senator Graham lambasted Judge Sotomayor about her “wise Latina” comment.

Senator Graham believes that if he had said the experiences of a wise Caucasian man better equip him to use “sound judgment” when making court decisions, his career would have been over. And he would have been right, resulting from his being a member of the controlling majority. We must never forget that the ancestors of this same controlling majority, or white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males and females, ascended to power by stepping on the backs of Hispanics, African-Americans and other persons of color. And even though America has come a long way in healing the wounds suffered during its racist past, many members of this controlling majority continue to walk around thinking they are God’s gift to mankind, thus diminishing the varied contributions of other racial/ethnic groups.

Senator Graham is also ignorant to the fact that many persons of color on the grassroots level are unable to take advantage of educational and vocational opportunities because access is often denied. I believe this denial of access results from the existence of longstanding “Good Ol’ Boy Networks” that welcome white males and females with open arms but turn a blind eye and deaf ear to Hispanics, African-Americans and other persons of color applying for the same jobs. If these networks had been more inviting to persons of color, we wouldn’t be prefacing Sonia Sotomayor’s name with “the first Latina woman to be…”

I applaud Judge Sotomayor for using phrases like “wise Latina” to inspire Hispanic children and adolescents. Senator Graham and others like him should be doing the same. A wise Latina understands that there are better days ahead, that a day will arrive in America when, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., persons are judged by the content of their characters rather than the color of their skins. But I don’t think this message registered with Senator Graham. He seems to be on a mission to classify Judge Sotomayor as an activist judge. But I have one question for Senator Graham: Doesn’t the legacy of American racism and discrimination require that all persons of color assert themselves as activists, especially as it pertains to our inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness?

Activists are committed to changing the status quo, or business as usual. If most of the firefighters in a department are white, the administrators in that department must make intentional strides to recruit, hire and retain more persons of color. If a college or university serves as a haven for mostly white students, college recruiters must make intentional strides to equip and identify students of color who can thrive on their campus. It doesn’t take a genius to know that these efforts must be made to level the playing field. But we must ask ourselves, are our powerful and influential white brothers and sisters willing to make these intentional strides.

I wish Sonia Sotomayor would respond in a way that lets these senators know that America has a long way to go in leveling the playing field for all Americans. But she won’t. Like most persons of color who ascend to powerful positions, she is going to appease the controlling majority by saying what they want to hear. Shameful? Yes. But let all of us hope that when she gets confirmed, she will not forget where she came from, that she will extend her hand to the other minority men and women, boys and girls, who want to lead prosperous lives.

What do you think?

I look forward to reading your responses.

 

Jeffery A. Faulkerson, MSSW

THE PURPOSEFUL WRITER

www.jefferyafaulkerson.com

Join "FIRM...but fair" host Jeffery A. Faulkerson, MSSW, on Sunday, June 28th at 9:00 p.m. (EST) as author Rocco Micciche returns to offer a more thorough explanation of his "Principles of Leadership". As you will recall, Rocco appeared on the show a few months ago, offering a user-friendly method for leading in the 21st century. This is one show you do not want to miss. The phone lines will be open, so give Jeffery and Rocco a call at (646) 716-5918. "FIRM...but fair" with Jeffery A. Faulkerson, the podcast that prides itself in offering socially conscious commentary for the common good.

By now, most of you have heard about Jon and Kate Gosselin’s separation. The Gosselins were supposedly the parenting superstars of The Learning Channel's (TLC's) Jon & Kate Plus Eight. I say parenting superstars because if you step into any Target, Walmart or Borders, you will come across magazines and books with them gracing the covers with their eight, young children.

I readily admit that I have yet to watch a complete episode of their hit reality show. And with them announcing their separation on the Monday, June 22nd episode, I never will. Their testimony—that of being the married parents to eight, young children—has lost its luster. The script has now been flipped, as worldwide audiences will now see Jon fade into obscurity while Kate’s star will continue to rise. I say this because now she will be viewed as a single parent raising eight, young children.

But why is the Gosselin’s marriage failing? It’s really quite obvious. They allowed a camera crew into their home. I can only imagine the number of hours they spent staring into cameras, telling worldwide audiences what it is like to have childrearing responsibilities for eight, young children. My wife and I have one child, a five-year-old son, and having a camera crew following our every move would probably be a death sentence for both our marital and parenting relationships. I say this because we would be forced to wear masks when the camera is on, being allowed to remove them only when it is off.

When the Gosselins removed their masks, they apparently didn’t like what they saw. Kate reportedly viewed Jon as passive when it came to the children, while Jon viewed her as aggressive. Since Kate was so aggressive in this area, Jon seemingly stopped growing in his role as HOH (Head of Household). In his mind, his role had everything to do with providing and protecting, nothing to do with nurturing. But if Jon were sitting in front of me during the writing of this essay, I would communicate the importance of fathers being intentionally aggressive when it comes to providing the kind of nurturance that protects children from themselves and others.

Fathers nurture their children in this way by modeling the same kind of love that Jesus Christ displayed in the presence of his friends and foes. Throughout the first four books of the New Testament, we find that Jesus harbored a deep and abiding love for God and humanity. It was this same love that gave him the motivation to provide us with instructions for living Godly lives. In short, Jesus Christ established a tone that resonates with us even today.

As the Head of Household, Jon Gosselin must be the person who sets the tone for his marriage and childrearing. He must once again be that beacon in the night that Kate looks to for masculine leadership. To be viewed in this light, he must be the one who tells the TLC crew (with Kate’s consent) to turn off their cameras and go home. Only then will Kate be able to see Jon as a benevolent (i.e., good) and strong man.

What do you think?

I look forward to reading your responses.

Jeffery A. Faulkerson, MSSW
www.jefferyafaulkerson.com

Join "FIRM...but fair" host Jeffery A. Faulkerson, MSSW, on Sunday, May 24th at 9:00 p.m. (EST) as he chats with Raleigh resident Charles Smith, who lived during the height of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s. This segment is for people who understand the value of remembering the past so that more positive outcomes can be achieved in the future. The phone lines will be open for your questions and comments, so give Mr. Smith and Jeffery a call at (646) 716-5918. "FIRM...but fair" with Jeffery A. Faulkerson, the podcast that prides itself in offering socially conscious commentary for the common good.

Join "FIRM...but fair" host Jeffery A. Faulkerson, MSSW, as he chats with Brandyn McElroy, XPosed Youth Communications; Earl Christian III, Urban Wall Street Project/Young Producers; and Antoine Medley, Future Black Men of America/Cornel West Academy of Excellence. The question on the table: How are mentoring programs changing lives? The phone lines will be open for questions or comments, so give us a call at (646) 716-5918. "FIRM...but fair" with Jeffery A. Faulkerson, the podcast that prides itself in offering socially conscious commentary for the common good.