By Phillip Bailey

In case you missed it, the editorial in the Dec. 6 issue of The Louisville Cardinal called for an honest dialogue about race. While the timing was off – the newspaper sat ignored on tracks during finals week – the request was commendable considering America has attempted to deny the role of race in society at almost every opportunity.

U of L and Metro Louisville would be a great place to start correcting that phenomenon. No one wanted to confront the stabbing of a black teen, Lamartez Griffin, two summers ago by five suspected skinheads as a hate crime. Only now has public attention on the dearth of black jurors in Metro Louisville raised eyebrows. And let’s not even review once again the litany of incidents homegrown at Belknap campus.

However, the editorial mishandled a delicate topic by perpetuating a bias common to contemporary discussions of race. The editorial says, “most white people are afraid to talk about race.” The suggestion that white people have something to fear is reminiscent of the Willie Horton campaign ads used to support Bush the Father in the 1988 presidential election. It reeks of the stereotype that people of color are unruly heathens that will rip their white counterparts to shreds.

Besides fear-mongering, the statement is misleading. U of L is host to some of the most voluble white students and faculty on the subject of race from both sides of the spectrum. Among the “John Brown clique” (a fond reference I give to those who are the ideological descendants of the great abolitionist) we have faculty like philosophy professor Dr. David Owen and history professor Dr. John Cumbler. Representing the student wing are comrades like Josh Jennings and recent graduate Ken L. Walker, who have shouted down racism even when black students, faculty and organizations were silent or apologists. Unlike so many liberals, these brave thinkers vociferously and actively smash racism. Where The Cardinal’s editorial errs is that readers should already be well acquainted with the campus right and its many backlashes against forums and diversity course requirements. No need to spill more ink in their favor.

Here’s the reality: attempts at discussing race are hard. Discussing a topic with such a brutal history, high emotional octane and wide disagreement associated with it requires adding a spoonful of courage to your intellectual diet. People of color are allowed to respond to fraternities dressing in blackface, neo-Nazi marches and “ebonics” editorials in conservative newspapers without the approval of white public opinion. Fear of their scrutiny is no excuse to dart into a hermetic cocoon.

But I’ll admit as I’ve gotten older my interest in race discussions has faded. Not out of fear – I’m not known for being the timid type. My fatigue has risen because the model by which we measure and discuss racial progress in the post-Civil Rights era is seriously flawed. For starters, the model only recognizes overt individual racism and allows us to easily overlook the persistent gaps of life expectancy, prison sentencing, income, social mobility or graduation rates along lines of race.

I’m open to suggestions on finding an authentic dialogue, even conceding that there are a few degenerates plaguing inner-city communities in desperate need of personal transformation. But at least make the discourse substantive. And don’t forget the courage.