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.

Regular commenter PrairieCelt has taken the time to transcribe Martha Ross’s comments at the end of Monday night’s school board meeting. I’ll let her words and the words and those who spoke after her speak for themselves.

Ross: I have a few words to say to the Board and the public – whatever public there might be, it really does not matter. I am going to name this It Is Time.

It is time to come together around what it going to take place and how we are going to move forward in educating our children in this district.

It is time that I came to terms with the fact that there is always going to be a divide based on black and white in this community. Nobody wants to talk about race but that is what it is about – it is about race. We know that because it was set up over 300 years ago.

And it is time also, that I realize that making all the Board meetings and making all my committee meetings over the last seven going on eight years, going to all the Board meetings and doing what I am supposed to do, is not going to make a difference in the way I get treated, and I feel I have been really slighted by some of my colleagues in giving me the opportunity to serve. It would not matter – it is not because I don’t have the education because I think I have more formal education than many of my colleagues and it is not because I don’t have the abilities to fulfill the presidency, particularly because I have served on local, state and national boards, sometimes in the presidency role or the chair of the committee role.

So I say it is time, in my opinion, for African Americans especially to realize that this plan to divide us has been put into place over 300 years ago. And we have to look at this and come to terms with this and see how we are going to address this.

A few of us have been provided privileges, meaning African Americans have been provided privileges, to get ahead, and what did it cost us to get there?

For my tenure on this board, I have expressed over and over why I don’t vote for expelling children, yet my colleagues choose to denigrate me in public because I voted the way that I voted.

And you have a Code of Conduct that talks about each persons vote should be respected – I would think that would include me.

During my tenure on the board, I have voted based on how I felt about the issues relating to the students in this district based on information I have received from the administration and research I have done myself.

During my tenure on this board, I have tried to ask questions at the board meetings that would inform the public. Some people say they are stupid questions or dumb questions or silly questions however you want to term that. But I have tried to ask questions so that it gave the public information about our business which is their business – the taxpayers.

I am unclear why members of the board find it necessary to attempt to degrade or deface my character to make themselves feel good about their own free-will decisions because whatever you decide to vote on is your free will.

I dont think you have to – and I brought this up last year – I don’t think you have to degrade another person to justify the decisions you make.

I am not happy with people doing that – you don’t have the right, it is not fair – again, you do not have the right to do that. That, to me, could be illegal or at least unethical.

But people who say that this is not about race – I cant think of it being any other way except that it is about race. We can cover it up, we can avoid it but when you tell people that these are the reasons why I am not going to vote for this person, I think you are degrading my character and I don’t appreciate it.

I am fully capable of being president and maybe you, Dr. Gorenz, don’t want to be in a team role – maybe the only way you can function is in a leadership role – I don’t know. I don’t know what the reasons that many people think that I am not capable of leading this board are, but I am capable and nothing anyone is going to say is going to make me feel that I am not capable.

There has always been a division and will always be a division and no matter how many hoops you jump through or how good you are, you will always going to have that divide.

But somehow – if we sign a Code of Conduct or an agreement – we should at least look at that agreement and say, okay, lets live by it – not just on paper.

So I don’t need to be in a presidents or a vice presidents role to do what I do or what I have been doing all these years, whether you think what I have been doing is valued or not, I think it is valued. I spend my time.

And, again, I just wanted to make that statement that I really don’t appreciate it and it is not fair and I will not accept it.

Gorenz: Any other comments? Mr. Stowell.

Stowell: Well I have to take exception because if she is saying her colleagues have done – I certainly don’t feel as I have done anything. I chose tonight the best leader who I thought was for this board. I meant no personal affront to it Mrs. Ross and I meant nothing, there is not a thing in me that made race an issue in this, and you smirk.

Ross: Yeah.

Stowell: There is no thing at all that I brought into this . . .

Hinton: Let me say this right now. Let me say this right now

Ross: Excuse me . . .

Hinton: Well wait. Let me finish, let me finish.

This is – I need to refocus us, everybody has their right to make their comments and say what is in their hearts and in their minds. But there is an outside entity that would love to see this board and this effort be fractionalized and I returned to this district to see to it that that did not take place because this is about the children. This is about the children.

I am so proud of this board in the sense that so much effort and focus has come about because this board being willing and more than able to stand up and make some changes and do what needs to be done for the children.

Now the only way, the only – where – this place where this conversation is going to go is a place where it becomes a controversy for the next 6 months, which is going to take us away from our focus and our direction.

We have overcome major obstacles. Tonight we heard about Skills U.S.A. Today or tonight Mrs. Spangler made the suggestion that is going to save some kids life that we talk about drug testing for athletes.

Tonight we’ve talked about starting a new program, a Math Science Technology Academy that will prepare many of our kids for the future.

Tonight we have talked about major entities like the Ag Lab and universities working with us and collaborating and going forward.

The comments have been made, the statements have been made, and if we need to say anything else then we need to say what is good for our kids, what is good for this district, what is good for this community.

Now it is time to go forward and we are going forward and this does not need to be, so I am very proud and very pleased that the strength and the courage that is in this board to stand up and do some great things.

Now I am just going to close by saying there are some very big highlights that I consider a part of my career and being able to serve kids, parents and teachers tonight is one of those nights in the sense that it does not seem like it is a big thing as far as providing time for teachers to get better at what they do, but I will tell you without a doubt you have improved the lives of thousands of kids and hundreds teachers. Thats what you guys do. That is what you do.

We don’t denigrate and we don’t become contentious, that is not what we are about. We are about doing what is right in this community and for this district.

So with that being said, I mean if there are other comments they can be held until a later date.

Gorenz: I would accept a motion to adjourn.

Stowell: Second

Gorenz: Thank you

Martha Ross has been on the school board for seven years (appointed 2001, first elected 2003) and is now starting her second five-year term after being reelected earlier this year. During that time, she ran for vice president of the board three times unsuccessfully. At that time, you had to serve as vice president before you could be considered for president.

Then the board decided in 2006 to change the rules — they took away the requirement that a candidate for president had to have previously served as vice president. That opened the door for David Gorenz (appointed to the board in 2004 to fill Vince Wieland’s seat after Wieland moved to Dunlap, first elected 2005) to run for president, but it also opened the door for four other board members, including Ross. So Ross challenged Gorenz for the presidency. Gorenz won, 5-2. Only Alicia Butler and Martha Ross voted for Ross for president. Then Butler nominated Ross for vice president. Ross won the vice presidency. In 2007, Gorenz and Ross were elected president and vice president, respectively, once again.

So this year, Ross and Gorenz are running for president of the school board for the third time. The election of officers is on the agenda for tonight’s board meeting. So the question is, who’s the better candidate?

My two cents: I’m not impressed with either candidate, frankly.

During Gorenz’s presidency, (a) $877,500 worth of property was purchased on Prospect Road that the district does not need and can ill afford; (b) well over a half million Title I dollars were spent on items disallowed under federal rules; (c) alarming internal control problems brought to light by independent audit reports have gone uncorrected for two years; and (d) in the face of schools not meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP), Gorenz has supported shortening the school day of primary school students. Not a good track record, in my opinion. Despite all these serious problems, Gorenz continues to support Superintendent Hinton and Treasurer Cahill.

Ross, however, is not much better. She votes against every expulsion. She voted in favor of shortening the school day, which will arguably hurt students in her voting district more than any other. She appears to have an entitlement mentality about being president; when she ran for president the first time, she was quoted in the paper as saying (emphasis mine), “I know I’m qualified to be president, and I would do a good job and just feel like, you know, it’s my turn.” She has exhibited a lack of maturity in dealing with conflict. I’ll cite a couple of examples of that last one: (1) When the board voted for Gorenz for president the first time and she was nominated for vice president, she abstained from voting for herself in protest of not being elected president; (2) When the board decided to hire William Salzman as principal of Manual High School in 2004, Ross walked out of the meeting in protest. This doesn’t instill me with much confidence in her ability to lead or manage conflict.

Despite all these shortcomings, and despite my lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, the bottom line is that Ross does have more experience on the board than Gorenz, she is qualified to be president, and Gorenz has not distinguished himself as any more capable to steer the ship than Martha. I think she should get the nod.

UPDATE: As Emtronics pointed out, the purchase of properties on Prospect happened just before Gorenz became president, around the second quarter of 2006. At that time, Alicia Butler was still president. I stand corrected. Even though it wasn’t on his watch as president, it’s worth noting that it was reported at the time that “Board members Dave Gorenz, Garrie Allen and Sean Matheson said they weren’t uncomfortable with the purchases.”

UPDATE 2: Gorenz was elected on a 4-3 vote. Spangler, Stowell, and Wolfmeyer voted for Gorenz. Butler and Parker voted for Ross. Debbie “It’s Not My Job To Meet With My Constituents” Wolfmeyer was unanimously elected vice president.