That’s the question everyone is debating around the water cooler. I’ll rush in where angels fear to tread and posit my opinion. I was going to leave this as a comment on my previous post, but decided to just post it separately due to its length.

The way I see it is this. First, we have to look at the possibilities.

Is it possible that racism was a factor in this vote? I think we have to say yes. We have to acknowledge that racism could be a factor. Why? For a few reasons. Ross has the education and experience to be president, but has been passed over twice now — this time by a president who ran for an unprecedented (I’m told) third term. The vote for president was along racial lines. And the school board has a history of strained race relations, resulting in lawsuits and mediation. I think there’s sufficient cause to suspect some degree of racism.

Next, is it possible that racism was not a factor? Well, from the standpoint of personal racial prejudice, I would have to say yes. As someone pointed out, we don’t know the hearts and motivations of the board members. I think in fairness to them we have to take them at their word (unless someone can provide hard evidence — not hearsay — that they had racist motivations) that race was not a factor in their vote. To accuse someone of racism (personal prejudice) is a serious charge, and it should not be leveled lightly. It attacks the character and motives of a person. I don’t think that voting for a white guy for president of the board is intrinsically a racist act. It would be incumbent on those making such claims to prove (a) Ross was better qualified and (b) the white board members voted against her anyway on the basis of her race. I think it’s clear from comments on the previous post that there were numerous reasons why a board member would vote against Ross — reasons that have nothing to do with race (e.g., voting record, lack of participation in important discussions, etc.).

But there’s one other thing to consider, and it’s called “structural racism” (also called “institutional racism” or “cultural racism”). This doesn’t get talked about much, but it should be. I think it’s the key to understanding what’s going on here. I found a good definition at, of all places, About.com:

The term “institutional racism” describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. […]

Examples:

• Opposing public school funding is not necessarily an act of individual racism; one can certainly oppose public school funding for valid, non-racist reasons. But to the extent that opposing public school funding has a disproportionate and detrimental effect on minority youth, it furthers the agenda of institutional racism.
• Most other positions contrary to the civil rights agenda–opposition to affirmative action, support for racial profiling, and so forth–also have the (often unintended) effect of sustaining institutional racism.

The idea here is that racism manifests itself in cultural norms that can’t be reduced to a single act or the result of personal racial prejudice.

In the case of the school board, we have to ask ourselves why all the white people on the board perceived Gorenz as the better candidate while all the black people perceived Ross as the better candidate. If you took race out of the equation, one could make a compelling case for or against either candidate. I think the answer is cultural, and not the result of intentional personal racial bias. Take a look around Peoria and look at how little integration there is in our neighborhoods. The result of that is that black people grow up predominantly around other black people and white people grow up predominantly around other white people. And this leads to certain cultural and value differences. Generally speaking, for instance, white culture places a higher value on individualism (and, in religious circles, a secular/sacred dichotomy), whereas black culture places a higher value on community and integrity (i.e., “the state of being whole or undivided”). I realize these are simplifications, but hey, this is a blog, not a doctoral dissertation. 🙂

So, when it comes to two candidates who are equally qualified for the job of president of the board, the white people don’t think “I’m going to vote for Gorenz because he’s white,” they think about what they value in a leader, and Gorenz fits those values, so they see him as their best choice. The black members of the board don’t think, “I’m going to vote for Ross because she’s black,” they think about what they value, and Ross fits those values, so they vote for her. And thus, all the board members can legitimately claim that they voted for who they thought was the “right” or “best” person for the job.

And this is where structural racism comes to a head. Because blacks are still a minority in the city and on the school board, the white guy wins under this scenario. And that’s why I think racism is in play to that degree in this decision.

When someone says that the vote of the board was racist, most people (I would wager) immediately think that such a claim is a personal attack on the motives of one or more board members. And it could be (there are still racist people among us, and there are those who play the “race card” unjustifiably). But I think we should consider the possibility that it might also be a reference to institutional racism — a racism that isn’t directed at anyone personally, but is directed at cultural norms and structures that can disadvantage minorities just the same.