Economy’s future lies in a global education

What is the value of a global education? Over the past 20 years, I have traveled all over the world as an international lawyer, educator or tourist. In nearly every place that I have worked or visited, I found that the world knows more about us than we do about them.

This truth is evident in the richest and poorest nations from Cape Town to Cairo and Calcutta to Calgary. Test: Can you locate Kyrgyzstan on a map?

The United States is no longer a world leader in secondary education, ranking 18th among 36 nations assessed, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Hence, not only do we comparatively know far less about the rest of the world than we should, we are also falling behind lesser-developed nations like China, India and South Korea in core subjects areas like math and science.

How can we adequately compete in the global marketplace and simultaneously remain ignorant about our competitors? Not only are we collectively ignorant about world geography, foreign cultures, languages, people and history; even more disturbing, we have yet to acquire a local or national appetite to learn about them.

This is a problem that has its genesis in American culture and supremacy, and the false notion that the world revolves around us. It often originates from and is reinforced in our K-12 and higher-education systems, given our excessive reliance on Western or Eurocentric perspectives and approaches on nearly every issue. Such perspectives filter into every facet of our educational, economic, social and political orders.

For example, why are we still teaching our children that Juan Ponce de León and Christopher Columbus discovered Florida and America, respectively, if Native Americans were living here when they arrived? Local perspectives do not create global outcomes.

We are a nation of immigrants — some by choice, others by force — with global histories and connections throughout the world. While our strength rests in our diversity and shared history, we have failed to harness them to forge positive relations with other nations. As we become more interdependent on the forces of globalization, whether it be economic, geopolitical, informational, cultural, social or technological, we must become more enlightened about how events and circumstances thousands of miles away affect our daily lives and vice versa.

In order to tackle today’s global challenges from, among others, reducing American indebtedness, combating terrorism, ending foreign wars, protecting the natural environment and effectively responding to humanitarian crises, we must reinvent educational approaches to produce a new generation of global thinkers, leaders and technocrats.

America’s parochial psychology has negatively impacted our global image, moral standing and ability to compete internationally. What are K-12 schools doing to prepare students to compete in the global marketplace? How many K-12 schools offer courses in Arabic, Mandarin or international studies? How many universities are training linguists and regionalists with expertise in Africa, Asia and the Middle East? How do you prepare American students to compete in a world where success necessitates global insight and collaboration if globalism is not a part of the curriculum?

These are the questions that we must begin to grapple with from primary school through college. At Florida A&M University College of Law, we, too, wrestle with these issues. Consequently, we have taken them head-on by developing academic and experiential opportunities that prepare our students to compete globally.

In the past two years, our students have immersed themselves in the study of international law, studied abroad on every continent and served as interns at the most prominent institutions in the world. They include the Caribbean Court of Justice in Trinidad and Tobago, International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda in Tanzania, International Fund for Agricultural Development in Italy, Interpol in Thailand, North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Belgium, Supreme Court of Ghana, United Nations and the World Health Organization in Switzerland, as well as the U.S. intelligence and public-diplomacy communities and not-for-profit sectors.

The future of our economy rests in our ability to compete globally. Global education is vital to American hegemony. Are you doing your part?

Jeremy Levitt is associate dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando.

The far right and its right-wing brethren’s most recent barrage of indignant and visceral attacks against President Barack Hussein Obama has led me to conclude that the scourge of anti-Obama fanaticism is nothing more than foolish racism masquerading as patriotism and phony Christianity.

It is no secret that the far right and its institutions have an unjust guttural dislike for President Obama. After allowing George W. Bush to destroy our economy and international standing without challenge for eight years, the far right’s central strategy for helping America is to attempt to delegitimize Obama with trailer-park prowess.

Right-wing disdain for the first African-American president is primordially violent and expressed in dishonest, uninformed, racist and unpatriotic rhetoric and demonstration.

I am not concerned with right-wing dishonesty, ignorance, racism or hate marching; these are not new phenomena in American culture and politics. However, what concerns me is the combustible combination of these perspectives when combined with a lethal dose of violent and unpatriotic actions targeting the U.S. president.

Certain fanatical people and groups, not worthy of specific mention, recently toted guns at presidential town-hall meetings wearing menacing T-shirts that read: “It is time to water the tree of liberty.”

This was a symbolically threatening parity of Thomas Jefferson’s celebrated call for vigilance: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.” Regrettably, this dangerously insolent and unpatriotic message was aimed at the leader of the Free World.

A patriot is one who loves, supports and defends his or her nation and loves its citizens, especially the U.S. president. A patriot subscribes to symbolic values such as honoring the flag, singing the national anthem and fighting nonviolently for fundamental freedoms. A patriot honors the U.S. president, irrespective of his or her biases.

The U.S. president is the head of state and government, as well as the highest official in the country and commander in chief of the armed forces. He is not only the most-influential and -recognized political figure in the world, but also the living embodiment of our democracy.

While I believe that it is healthy to constructively engage and criticize government, the far right has shamed our nation by attacking President Obama with unpatriotic idioms and schemes.

As a close follower of presidential politics, I do not remember another time when an American president was so unpatriotically maligned by Americans, namely, right-wing politicians and media, and the millions of Joe and Judy plumbers who would disown Jesus if they knew he was African, and Obama if he were the Second Coming.

The truth remains that right-wing anti-Obama rhetoric around abortion, health care, education, gun control and foreign policy are cowardly coded smoke screens intended to mask fear and racism.

Whether it is the birthers movement, gun-toting right-wing anarchists, bigoted congressmen, hate marchers or garden-variety dogmatists, the fact remains that Obama won the election.

Any American family that participates in the far-right campaign against President Obama by, for example, depriving their children of the opportunity to receive apolitical words of wisdom and encouragement from the president and leader of the free world, is unpatriotic.

Is it patriotic to stifle debate with right-wing anti-Obama propaganda when our nation stands in the balance between a broken economy, a controversial war on terrorism, a sick health-care system and an uneducated educational system? Is it patriotic to malign the first African-American president with racially coded and violent messaging?

The far right and its right-wing brethren have shown that they are driven by envy and racial animus.

I would remind the far right what the Apostle Paul wrote, ” ... there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Hence, Obama is the U.S. president and leader of the Free World because he was appointed by God.

Need I say more?

Jeremy Levitt is associate dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando.

Jeremy Levitt
Think Twice
June 9, 2009

Shortly after President Barack Obama selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor — originally a Bush the First appointee — as his nominee to the Supreme Court, key Republican Party operatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and G. Gordon Liddy launched a barrage of racist, sexist and unpatriotic public attacks against her.

The attacks allegedly were for a statement she made in a lecture which later was published by the BerkeleyLa Raza Law Journal.

What appears to have fueled the far-right backlash is that a Latina judge would dare state that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Sotomayor’s statement was, in part, made in response to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s odd assertion that wisdom rather than gender would result in a wise old man and a wise old woman reaching the same conclusions in deciding cases. I wonder whether O’Connor envisioned a 70-something white male and a 50-something Latin woman when she made her statement.

Would a wise Latina judge vote to uphold cases that perpetuated sex and race discrimination as did Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Benjamin Nathan Cardoza? I think not. To argue otherwise is to indict the definition of wise.

Moreover, what is so controversial about Sotomayor’s commentary? Is the mere suggestion that a wise Latina could reach a better conclusion than a white male objectionable? Has anyone asked whether or not Sotomayor may be right in a country that is soon to be a majority-minority? Would it be less controversial if she had said “a wise woman” rather than a “wise Latina”?

If one were to read Sotomayor’s entire commentary titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” it is clear that she forwarded the basic premise that the gender, national origin and personal experiences of judges impact their judging. Is this really a novel revelation? Does such an assertion warrant racial attacks against a senior member of the American judiciary? Is this simply Washington politics, or is there a more primordial and insidious rationale?

Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity and Liddy’s shameful and ignorant attacks on Sotomayor are nothing more than race-baiting, and they exemplify the worst sort of sexism, racism and lack of patriotism we have come to expect from fledging pre-integration ideologists.

Last Friday, Limbaugh went as far as to claim that the only way to be promoted in a Barack Obama administration is to hate white people. I did not know that Limbaugh was the chosen spokesman for white America. Few whites that I know, whether Republican or Democrat, support this type of race-baiting. Perhaps, bobble head didn’t know that Sotomayor was formerly married to a white man.

In addition, if hating white people were the litmus test for advancement in the Obama administration, there must be a plenitude of white-on-white violence in Washington, as nearly all of Obama’s key appointments are white men and women. In fact, Obama has yet to appoint a single “traditional” African-American to his Cabinet. Attorney General Eric Holder’s parents are from Barbados, and U.S. envoy to the United Nations Susan Rice, who is married to a white man, does not hold a traditional Cabinet position.

For anyone to refer to Sotomayor as an ignorant and racist Latina is not only foolish, but sorely disconnected with a post-segregation America.

Racism may be defined as a belief that inherent or biological differences among races, rather than cultured experiences, alone determine the superiority of one race over another resulting in racial hatred and intolerance of other races.

Sotomayor is no racist and has not authored racist jurisprudence, or, for that matter, employed a “poor choice of words” in her Berkeley La Raza Law Journal article. The attempt of the far right to block the first Latina Supreme Court nominee with hateful and bigoted rhetoric will damage the Republican Party’s ability to redefine itself as inclusive; alienate women, minorities and fair-minded white voters; and, in time, unwittingly confirm Sotomayor’s visionary premise about Latina decision-making.

Jeremy Levitt is associate dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando.
Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

Out of moral darkness and into the bright light
Jeremy Levitt

Special to the Sentinel

January 25, 2009

WASHINGTON

I begin writing this column early Monday morning, on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday and one day before the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States and the country’s first African-American president.

It is 20 degrees outside, and I am sipping on hot coffee in the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington D.C. four blocks from Capitol Hill. The hotel is buzzing with a spirit of anticipation and renewal. The streets are crawling with the rejuvenated spirits of hundreds of thousands of people from every conceivable background.

As King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is played over and over in the hotel lobby, I am reflecting on his legacy as well as other civil- and human-rights leaders such as Harriet Tubman, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X. I am proud that freedom and liberty are ingrained into the African-American identity, and that we faithfully served as America’s moral compass during its darkest chapters.

It is fitting and poetically ironic that King’s birthday falls on the eve of the inauguration of our first African-American president. Within a 24-hour period, Americans will not only hear about and contemplate King’s dream, but also witness it. It is a dream made possible by the hopes, imaginings and hardships of American descendants of slave masters, enslaved Africans and other groups seeking to perfect our union. Despite our violent and unjust history, only a great nation could evolve from legal segregation to the lawful election of an African-American president less than 45 years out of this nation’s apartheid.

As hotel guests arrive for the inauguration, I see euphoria on their faces. There is a grand sense of unity among people from all walks of life—a harmonious patriotic flow among Americans that I have rarely seen. I too feel elated. I ask a beautiful elderly African-American woman sitting next to me what Obama’s election means to her, and she looks me square in the eyes, and with a gracious smile, replies, “Freedom. I can now go to the Lord in peace.”

A 40-something white woman sitting a table away overhears our conversation and begins weeping. I take a teary-eyed sigh and silently lean back in my chair, filled with pride. For many, Obama’s inauguration signals a new era of consciousness that will eventually deliver a death blow to racial bigotry. Time will tell.

As I sip on my coffee, a man pats me on the shoulder while passing by and loudly says, “How did you like the ball?” The night before, my wife and I had attended the 2009 Inaugural Latino Gala at Union Station that featured Marc Anthony, Jennifer Lopez and George Lopez. It was fantastic. I felt privileged to witness so many blissful people dart around the District to attend the various galas.

My family and I left the hotel that morning, walked on the National Mall and visited a few of the Smithsonian Institution’s wonderful museums. The Mall and museums were packed with tens of thousands of people eagerly waiting for Obama’s inauguration. Although the nation’s capital is not known for being jovial, on this day, everyone was unusually buoyant. It was pleasantly eerie.

On Tuesday, my wife and I woke up early, dressed in triple layers and marched to the Capitol. It was our “March on Washington” to fulfill a shared dream. It was very cold, and we waited like huddling sheep for nearly two hours before the gates of history opened. We watched the inauguration unfold 150 yards away from President Obama to the backdrop of nearly 2 million roaring souls.

Thomas Jefferson abolished the American slave trade; Abraham Lincoln emancipated black Americans; and King led America out of segregation and moral darkness. America has wisely chosen a man once considered three-fifths of a person under our original Constitution to lead the country and the world out of political and economic turmoil. What a wonderful country. No recounts required.

Jeremy Levitt is associate dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando.

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

What they think

Onward to inauguration: Why I voted for Barack Obama

Jeremy Levitt | Special to the sentinel
January 14, 2009

In a few days, my family and I will be departing for Washington to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States and the first African-American to hold the office. As Jan. 20 draws nearer, I feel butterflies in my stomach, and prideful tears of joy building. His election symbolizes freedom.

I was an Obama supporter long before he was a national and international icon. However, I have not been a blind supporter. As a resident of Chicago I voted for and supported him during his 2004 senatorial campaign. When he was a virtual unknown outside of Chicago, I criticized and defended him on local television and radio. As a former regular contributor to the Chicago Sun-Times, I constructively discussed his silence on critical issues such as the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and examined America’s readiness to elect an African-American president.

Until recently, I hosted a daily talk show in Chicago—often recorded from my office in Orlando—and covered every aspect of his bid for the presidency. On Nov. 4, 2008, I reported on the election live from Chicago, spending part of the evening stirring up voters at Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Push Headquarters. I voted for Obama at the Winter Park Public Library during early voting.

That said, I do not support Obama because of his politics. As an independent, I disagree with certain aspects of several of his policy positions, including those on abortion, immigration, gun control and the preemptive use of force, and I seriously question his appointing so many Clintonians to his administration, which contradicts his campaign paradigm of change.

I would be lying if I told you that I voted for him because we are men of the same generation with racially diverse family backgrounds; lawyers who served as law professors in Chicago at the same time; husbands to African-American women from the South Side of Chicago; fathers to precocious and beautiful girls; and Christians heavily influenced by a Baptist liberation-orientated philosophy. I admit, though, that these were very persuasive factors.

I voted for Obama for my African-American daughter and Caucasian and Asian nieces. I voted for Obama for all of the white children who live, attend and pray in exclusively white communities, schools and churches, respectively, and whose only contact with African-American men are through mass media and the entertainment industry. I voted for Obama for all of the black children growing up in single-family homes without a father figure and those without role models outside of athletes and entertainers. I voted for Obama because his family radiates love in a country where divorce is the norm and not the exception.

I voted for Obama because I was keenly aware that his victory would be the single greatest civil-rights achievement in American history, one spawned by a multiracial, multigenerational and multiclass American electorate. Obama’s ability to unify, empower and mobilize people from diverse backgrounds with a singular vision of hope and change has arguably amounted to the most significant political “movement” in the country. His election signals a positive shift in America’s sociopolitical and racial landscape that will help perfect our union. I voted for Obama for America.

Obama’s inauguration as the 44th president means more to me than any action he will take or policy that he will implement while president. Why? Because Obama is an African-American who happens to be brilliant, not a brilliant man who happens to be African-American. He is not a “magical Negro” or an exception, but rather a symbolic representation of hundreds of thousands of exceptional African-American men whom America must learn to embrace.

Jeremy Levitt is associate dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando.

Former NFL superstar Michael Vick deserves to spend time in prison for the “uncommon law” crime of gross stupidity rather than federal dog fighting-related charges. I guess “Bad Newz Kennels” was far more prophetic a name than Vick could have imagined. On December 10, 2007, Vick was arguably unfairly sentenced to 23 months in federal prison for conspiracy in a dog fighting ring infamously known as “Bad Newz Kennels” and for helping to brutality kill pit bulls. While I believe that a 23 month sentence for crimes against dogs is a bit harsh, I would support a longer sentence for aggravated stupidity.

Vick has lost his freedom, an extremely successful NFL career, and squandered away the most lucrative football contract in history. The NFL turned its back on him and the Atlanta Falcons have been shockingly disloyal. His NFL jersey and posters have been removed from homes, shops and restaurants, and once adoring fans scorn him. He is no longer the envy of NFL enthusiasts but rather the prototype poster-child for animal cruelty and wickedness on the one hand, and a shining example of the notion that money cannot buy class, consciousness, or culture on the other. The lesson here is that African-American men must understand that rational choice is the fault line between fame and fortune and penal sanction and perversion.

The Vick scandal highlights four important issues about race relations in America and our criminal justice system. First, it is a misnomer that rich and famous African-American men have the same freedom as others. Irrespective of class status black will always come-up against the color line in America. Second, white people have always had closer relationships with their dogs than black people. This is why they have historically referred to dogs as man’s best friend and black people as, well, you know. This is not a racial jab but a hard reality in a country still struggling to deal the cultural legacy of segregation. Third, African-American men who engage in criminal behavior should expect to receive disparate treatment in the criminal justice system especially with respect to sentencing. If you can’t do double the time don’t do the crime. Last, fame and fortune are not synonymous with class and civility. You can take the NFL player out of the hood, but he is ultimately responsible for shedding hoodlum-like behavior. There is nothing gangster about being imprisoned with men for dog crimes or any other.

Vick’s case presents the multiple paradoxes of Negritude that too many African-American men fail to understand. For several months the various sports experts, media psychologists, public intellectuals and average Joe’s have pontificated about the causes and consequences of Vick’s dog fighting scandal. Whites, dog lovers and conservatives have been quick to condemn Vick for being immoral and uncivilized. In their eyes Vick represents yet another example of an arrogant young African-American professional athlete unable to handle fame and fortune. African-Americans, liberals and perhaps cat enthusiasts have sought to psycho analyze Vicks economic, social and cultural background and heritage to explain his dog fighting behavior drawing eerie links between urban black culture and dogisms. Some have even foolishly argued that dog fighting is an African-American pastime or that it is a by-product of hip hop culture. I will leave the psychological hugabaloo to others.

What I do know is that Vick treated pit bulls, the fiercest and most reviled canine, like white Americans treated blacks during slavery. He owned, bred and neglected them, forced them to fight for entertainment, brutally disciplined them when they did not perform well, and killed them when they became weak or rebellious. His niggardly treatment of pit bulls reveals a sick thirst for violence and a reckess disregard for life.

Whatever the case may be, any person who in the prime of their life pisses off a 10-year, $130 million deal to play professional football, and willingly imprisons himself for dog fighting is patently stupid, insecure and lacking basic social graces. What every young African-American male should take away from the Vick episode is that while the baller or gangster-like lifestyle seems attractive, the real American gangster is America’s criminal justice system.

Jeremy I. Levitt, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law and Distinguished Research Scholar, Northern Illinois University College of Law

Biggest sellouts are blacks who destroy their communities
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/411072,CST-EDT-levitt02.article)

June 2, 2007

BY JEREMY LEVITT
How do we as African Americans define selling out? Is it dating outside of our race? Is it the shuck-and-jive entertainers? Is it the black Republican? Is it the overly ambitious, material-driven civil rights activist? Or, is it the well-spoken and studious black child?

I believe we need a new paradigm of selling out. Today’s sellouts are blacks who perpetuate violence and destruction in the black community and participate in the globalization of negative stereotypes and images of African Americans.

Not long ago, I was eating lunch at a restaurant near downtown Chicago, and a young black man walked in with a scantily dressed white woman on his arm. They were both in their early 20s and dressed the part. I saw a few ‘’sisters’’ sigh as they entered. Yes, the brother—smiley gold teeth and all—looked real proud to have ‘’Becky,’’ and she seemed even prouder to be on a safari with her African guide. They sat down near me and spoke very loudly, apparently wanting all to hear. I overheard a young black woman say, ‘’It’s bad enough that he is a sellout, but do they have to be so ignorant, too?’’ I gave her a nod of approval.

Then, as I gazed at the local newspaper, I read an interesting story about hip-hop and its alleged misogynistic and materialistic culture. This caused me to ask: What is selling out? According to Wikipedia, it refers to ‘’compromising one’s integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, success or other personal gain. It is commonly associated with attempts to increase mass appeal or acceptability to mainstream society. A person who does this is labeled a sellout. Selling out may be seen as gaining success at the cost of credibility.’’ This is a pretty good definition. In the context of race relations, sellouts compromise racial solidarity and group identity and integrity for perceived societal acceptance, adventure or mere escape by dating outside of their race or ethnic genre. To many, love gives no amnesty to selling out.

However, given the poor state of black America, I believe we should redefine if not expand the term. African Americans rank at the bottom of nearly every social, political, economic and health indicator in the country. We are among America’s poorest, financially in debt and illiterate. Proportionate to the population, we comprise the single largest racial group in prison and are disproportionately the unhealthiest.

Based on this reality, perhaps we need to redefine selling out to castigate blacks who enable this condition. I mean blacks who are destroying our communities: the real terrorists. I mean those who murder, rape and molest, sell drugs, and gang-bang; those who keep our communities looking pillaged. I mean blacks who perpetuate and celebrate violent and destructive culture. I mean blacks who reinforce the global pathology of violence against black women. I mean black entertainers and athletes who sell out to corporate America and consciously pimp a materialistic, misogynistic and violent culture to our youth. I mean black media that are raising a generation of young dummies on a diet of racially disparaging music and sleazy reality television.

Today’s sellouts are individuals who wreak havoc in the black community through various forms of violence, including degrading imagery, and those black-owned institutions and corporations that exploit the consumer strength of African Americans by overfeeding us with niggardly products.

It’s time to quit blaming others; to call a spade a spade, not a role model.

Jeremy Levitt is a professor of law at Florida International University and distinguished scholar at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

Perhaps all of the racial, ethnic, gender and religious diversity featured in the new 110th Congress is the best indicator that America is more open than ever to having an African-American president. Obama has leaped from relative obscurity to national icon almost overnight, and while he has vital and unyielding support from blacks, his largest constituency is whites.

Blacks, particularly Chicagoans, view Obama as a loyal member of their community, having witnessed his evolution as a lawyer, community activist, law professor, state senator and national statesman. While some African Americans believe that Obama has yet to prove himself as a U.S. senator—let alone the president—others believe he can do no wrong. What’s unique about black discourse concerning Obama is that his expected candidacy has blacks and others contemplating issues important to their existence beyond race.

This is also the case for many white Americans who view Obama as a moderate Democrat and advocate for a new America. Their perceptions of him do not seem to be shaped by his race or a careful examination of his politics or even his voting record, but by his carefully crafted image as a bridge builder and his message of national unity, which implicitly offers a type of racial amnesty for a legacy of discrimination and disenfranchisement. Unlike Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford Jr., Obama is so popular that attack ads featuring white temptresses might work in his favor.

To many Americans, Obama seemingly offers the perfect combination of intelligence, charisma, sincerity, humility, diversity and unity wrapped in a pleasant appearance that radiates hope.

But the hard reality is that whether Democrat or Republican, white voters generally do not support black candidates. Whether this is because of overt racial bias or other prejudice is uncertain; however, the outcome remains the same: White men rule. With all of its new diversity, the 110th Congress includes only one black U.S. senator and a measly 42 blacks in the House of Representatives—predominantly from majority-black districts. If America is ready for a black president, why have only three black U.S. senators been elected since Reconstruction?

I question whether a nation 42 years out of Jim Crow segregation and one year removed from Hurricane Katrina has the political and psychological maturity to have a color-blind election. If the most recent national elections are any indicator, race is as divisive an issue as ever. In order for Obama to be elected president, whites must be ready to overturn the racially exclusive tradition of the American body politic.<

This unlikely scenario is compounded by the question of whether the Democratic party is ready to be led by Obama and whether he is ready to lead America.

The Democratic party does not have a strong record of supporting African-American candidates, particularly in majority-white districts. Consequently, it has silently reinforced racially based voting while its leaders fervently sing ‘’We Shall Overcome.’’ There is a dearth of expertise in the party that truly understands how to make African Americans viable candidates in white areas—a reality that Obama must confront head-on.

Obama will need to campaign in hostile terrain on a platform that can redirect the consciousness of the nation in the areas of national security and accountable governance while simultaneously refocusing party priorities to deal with critical issues that white Democrats conveniently ignore, such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic in minority communities; rebuilding New Orleans; rampant homelessness and poverty; inadequate access t health care; protecting affirmative action, and revamping the public education sector.

Whether he can do all of this is secondary to the question of whether 54 years after the lynching of Emmett Till, white America is ready to have a black man hug white women and kiss white babies.

Jeremy Levitt is a professor of law at Florida International University and distinguished scholar at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

January 13, 2007

BY JEREMY I. LEVITT
There has been a lot of hullabaloo about the 110th Congress being among the most diverse in history. What does this really mean? Will a more diverse Democratic Congress increase the quality of life for American minorities?

If we use the categories of gender, race, ethnicity and religion, white women seem to have made the largest gains in the 110th Congress, with Hispanics and Asians also making notable progress. African Americans’ representation, however, did not numerically increase. There were 42 African-American representatives and one black senator in the 109th Congress and the same number in the 110th Congress.

In fact, there are more Jewish members of Congress (43) than black ones, adding 8 percent in the new Congress even though they represent less than 1.5 percent of the national population compared with African Americans, who represent about 13 percent.

Roman Catholics are the largest religious group in Congress (29 percent), followed by Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews and Episcopalians.

The 110th Congress will become even more religiously diverse with two Buddhists—Representatives Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnson of Georgia, and the nation’s first Muslim of African-American origin, Keith Ellison of Minnesota—joining its ranks.

The majority of “diverse” representatives are Democrats, which bodes well given that 87 percent of African Americans, 72 percent of Hispanics and 61 percent of Asian Americans voted Democratic in 2006, while whites were divided equally between the parties. This means that the minority vote won the Congress for Democrats. Catholics, Jews and atheists from across the racial and ethnic divide also overwhelmingly voted Democratic.

Based on these statistics, can we bank on a white female-led, white male-dominated Democratic Party to craft a national agenda that addresses critical issues facing minorities and poor people, or will the rhetoric of inclusion and equal opportunity that too often permeates Democratic politics reign supreme?

Unfortunately, it appears that the first 10 bills introduced by Democrats do not signal a strong desire to address issues affecting American minorities who proportionately comprise the bulk of the country’s poor and historically disadvantaged.

While two of the 10 bills Democrats introduced seek to help working-class Americans by increasing the minimum wage and making college more affordable, they are primarily preoccupied with national security and good governance. The remaining eight bills deal with issues such as ethics and lobbying; lowering prescription drug prices for seniors; implementing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations; expanding stem cell research; energy independence; rebuilding our military, and immigration reform.

Although these issues are important, they do not address the most pressing issues confronting the minorities who elected a Democratic Congress, such as a genuine war on homelessness and poverty; expanding research on and treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer and sickle cell anemia; rebuilding New Orleans; providing affordable health care to low-income families; safeguarding affirmative action, and protecting civil liberties at home.

Homelessness, poverty and HIV/ AIDS should sit atop the hierarchy of issues for any Democratic Congress.

While on its face diversity sounds sexy, in reality, the new Democratic Congress seems to be far afoot from addressing vital issues confronting its most important and loyal constituency: minorities.

Jeremy Levitt is a professor of law at Florida International University and distinguished scholar at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | User Agreement and Privacy Policy

Stopping homegrown terrorists starts with asking why

July 1, 2006

BY JEREMY I. LEVITT

Homegrown terrorism is a reality in the United States, and as one of America’s largest and most famous cities, Chicago will inevitably be a popular target among evil-doers.

The latest alleged terrorist plot, exposed by federal authorities in Miami last week, resulted in seven members of a group called the “Seas of David” being arrested for allegedly seeking funding and support from al-Qaida. The group, supposedly led by Narseal Batiste, sought boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios and vehicles. In return for these items, they allegedly ‘’pledged an oath to al-Qaida’’ and conspired to, among other things, support the network knowing that it has and is engaged in terrorist activities against the United States, work under al-Qaida’s control and direction, conceal and disguise materials for terrorist acts and carry out acts of terrorism. The federal indictment alleges that they plotted to ‘’maliciously damage and destroy by means of an explosive’’ an FBI field office in Miami and the Sears Tower in Chicago. It also contends that the group intended to ‘’levy war against the government of the United States’’ and ‘’oppose by force’’ its authority.

What makes this homegrown plot unique is that it was allegedly orchestrated by seven working-class blacks—a group more concerned with being gainfully employed than terrorism. Five of the suspects are Americans of African-American and African-Caribbean ancestry, one was an illegal alien from Haiti with an expired visa and the other was a resident alien. Hence, the latest alleged case of homegrown terrorism targeted the city that produced Jeff Fort and other El Rukn gang members who in 1986 were the first Americans convicted of plotting to commit terrorist acts against the United States on behalf of a foreign government, Libya, for money.

What distinguishes the El Rukns from the Miami suspects is that the former seemed to be apolitical and religious and only interested in money; the Miami suspects appear to have been politically motivated and belong to a cultish group that mixes pseudo-black nationalism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The indictment also seems to indicate that they lacked the organization, capacity or sophistication to conceive of a credible terrorist plot, whereas the El Rukns were organized, influential and powerful in Chicago, and actually received weapons including hand grenades.

What makes the indictment problematic is that the suspects never met with a genuine al-Qaida operative, but rather an FBI agent posing as one, and never acquired the means to carry out an attack. Perhaps, this new form of “anticipatory law enforcement” is warranted, but the accused will certainly argue that they were entrapped and that the government fashioned the environment that birthed the plot.

This case raises the question whether we need to rethink what we mean by homegrown terrorists. We need to ask why average Americans are becoming homegrown terrorists. What are we doing to cultivate them? Why would five Americans and two immigrants seek to commit acts of terrorism against the United States? Why would seven young black men—historically the least likely to engage in terrorism—become terrorists? We are way beyond the angry black man paradigm.

In the past year, there have been three other alleged cases of homegrown terrorism: in Torrance and Lodi, Calif., and Atlanta. Anticipatory law enforcement may be necessary to combat terrorists, but until we balance this approach with prescriptions that address why and how homegrown terrorists are being bred in the United States, we will not be able to stop it.

Jeremy I. Levitt is a professor of law at Florida International University and a distinguished research scholar at Northern Illinois University College of Law.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.