The Harry Reid Controversy

As is probably well-known, Harry Reid privately told two journalists in 2008 that Obama was more electable because he's "light-skinned" and lacked a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." (This description is based on the story posted at the Root: http://www.theroot.com/views/was-harry-reid-right). Since that has been revealed by the journalists, there has been considerable discussion about Reid's comments and whether he should resign his position as Senate Majority Leader.

I am not going to address whether he should resign, but I do want to try to clarify (a key critical thinking step) about the issues swirling around his comments. It seems like there are a number of key points here:

1. Reid used an extremely dated term to refer to African Americans.
2. Reid identified that race mattered in the election of Obama
3. Reid identified that intra-racial differences matter and they can affect interracial communication and perception.
4. Reid identified that cultural practices, specifically language patterns, can change depending on the audience.
5. Reid noted that shifting and controlling one's linguistic patterns can affect people's perceptions (and in turn affect electoral success).

I think that we should hold our political leaders accountable for their language. While perhaps it is understandable that Reid might employ a racial term frequently used in his youth, Reid clearly made an error in his language usage. Again, I leave it to others about what the consequence of this should be, but he definitely should have apologized for that error.

As for the remaining issues, I think the distinction that needs to be made is whether Reid is making descriptive statements or prescriptive ones. From what has been reported, he appears to be describing reality, not promoting his wish for how things ought to be. Based on my assumptions as a professor, telling the truth or trying to tell the truth is not in itself of objectionable. If his descriptions are wrong, bring evidence that they are wrong. (I am happy to see that some folks, like those at the Root, are doing precisely this!)

While he may be wrong in his descriptions of contemporary reality, it seems like the outrage, especially from conservative media, over his comments has stifled a discussion about his observations about contemporary America. I think the controversy reveals, among other things, that white America is still so obsessed with colorblindness as the only strategy to approach race that any reference or discussion of race makes folks cringe. It seems like some of the uproar results from the fact that a white person appears to be acknowledging that race and culture matter.