An Open Letter to Colby Bohannon

[Author's note:  Colby Bohannan is the president of the Former Majority Association for Equality, a Texas-based, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing financial aid to white males, whom they consider to me a minority in today's America.  The following is a letter I am sending to Mr. Bohannon about my opinions of their premise and the organization that supports it.]

Dear Mr. Bohannan:

                Let me start this from where we do agree:  private groups endowing whatever they want to whomever they wish, however they feel the need, don't necessarily take away from everyone else not applicable to that entity or the group it comes from.  Hopefully, everyone who comes across your organization and seeks to contrast it to the Boy Scouts, the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, or any other charitable organizations that primarily benefit women, Asians, and the physically impaired will see that regardless of if it's based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or political special interest, none of these groups are inherently discriminatory towards anyone who is outside that particular spectrum, and shouldn't be seen as such. In that vein, I feel that if it's perfectly acceptable to have such groups further their own interests, than the same can be said for the Daughters of the Confederacy (more on them later) and the National Council of La Raza as well; so as an African American male, I take no umbrage with the premise and mission of your organization. 

               

The problem I do have is that, in promoting the advancement of educational opportunities for white males, I believe you grossly overstate your point.

                See, here's the thing:  you say that white males are now the minority in America, and that somehow is reflective in America’s colleges and universities.  You say that other groups have benefitted from financial aid programs that cumulate in white males finding themselves at some sort of competitive disadvantage.  What you fail to realize, however, is that the racial pendulum shifts both ways.

                Former North Carolina Governor Mike Easley is an alumnus of NC Central University's law school, and the late Christa McAuliffe (space shuttle Challenger) earned a master's from Bowie State in Maryland.   Fayetteville (NC) State University enjoys a large white population for a black college, and Bluefield State University in W. Virginia is now predominately white.  So are the baseball and golf teams at HBCUs like Bethune-Cookman, Texas Southern, and South Carolina State, and the NCAA-champion women’s bowling team at Maryland-Eastern Shore.  Yet in the face of these and other examples too many to mention, your organization and its supporters still believe that you’re not getting your fair share, or that somehow you are being denied a chance to flourish.  Yet HBCUs have long boasted white scholars, athletes, etc.; Hampton University had a white pageant winner a not too long ago, and Morehouse had a white valedictorian. Yeah, I’m certain more than a few people complained about it, but so what? They earned it fair and square.

This leads me to assert that The Former Majority Association for Equality makes for a fine premise, but bad execution. Let me state again that I have absolutely no problem with its existence or its mission. Like the Southern Baptist Convention, GLAAD, the Council of Conservative Citizens or the KKK, they are a private group, and as such can give their money to whomever they want. It's no skin off my nose. Where you will always go wrong, however, is your insinuation that white males are the minority in this country. Bullshit. Perception aside, Whites still dominate the population in nearly every state. And even when they become a numerical minority in about 50 years, there's more than enough empirical and anecdotal evidence to assume that they will remain the political and economic majority well into the century.   The benefits of white skin privilege are alive and well; and even as an obsolete notion, the aforementioned examples illustrate that when opportunities are given, whites, and particularly white males, thrive. 

You are not a minority in any sense of the word. 

But to be fair, and to stay on topic, as far as college funding is concerned, many states (including mine) offer minority presence grants to aid people from underrepresented groups (i.e. Hispanic students get it if they attend any state school, blacks would get it at majority-white colleges, whites would get it at HBCUs--and they take it in spades!).  Southern schools (Clemson, West Virginia, Sewanee) routinely give preferential treatment to rural and Appalachian applicants in both admissions and scholarships.  Groups like 4-H also grant aid, and the majority of the recipients (just happen to be--not saying it's racist, it's just that way) are white.  So if you look hard enough and with some diligence, there's no reason that whites can't get race-based aid.

BTW, as an OIF veteran, which qualifies you for the GI Bill (the very thing that built the modern—and largely white--middle class), doesn’t that mean YOU WERE GIVEN FINANCIAL AID?   And since many schools offer increased benefits to certain military personnel (guardsmen and reservists, ROTC scholarship winners, disabled veterans), should taking advantage of any of them (if you so choose) not put you far ahead of many of his peers to begin with?  And, for good measure, aren’t the majority of enlisted Servicemen who take free college courses via tuition assistance, and their officers also predominately white?    So although I truly believe that you mean well, doesn’t your premise sort of fly in the face of reality?  Can you not see how your organization’s worldview weds itself to intellectual dishonesty?   

I understand that these are trying times for some, but it's really that way for all. Increased competition for diminished resources will do that to anyone.  It's all a natural part of having a free society, and you can't expect to skate by anymore just because you are (or once were) a member of the privileged class.

(And here's what kills me: whenever we have a talk about why there exists a ‘this or that,’ it's always in the context of BLACK PEOPLE.   Why? How is it that everybody has something to say about BET--not TV ONE, but just BLACK Entertainment Television; everybody gets in a snit over a Black Enterprise or a Miss Black Swashbuckling Grapecrusher Pageant, but you will say little to nothing about any other group's entities? Jewish youth centers? Cool.  Telemundo and Univision?  Muy bueno.  Hispanic Business Journal?  OK by me.  Asian Heritage Magazine?  How cute.  Indian casinos? Show me the money. But American Legacy magazine?  Separatist all day long. WTF, people?  How come it's gravy that everybody else can do their own thing but we can’t?)

                Told you I feel your pain.  But I digress.

So as I appreciate how your perceptions may have come to shape the FMAFE, I question whether that appreciation is mutual.  I would hope that this is part is unnecessary and superfluous, but the reason why you have your ______ history month, your Miss____ America Pageants, and your (insert ethnically-themed media here) is that without them, those interests would never be known beyond the periphery. You also have to account that for years upon years, people who were not WASPs were locked out of those avenues (and FYI, many if not most of America's HBCUs were founded by WHITES), so the only way they could be see was for them to do it themselves. And be honest: ABC, CBS, NBC, Forbes, Money, Newsweek...if you wanted a White__________, there you go. That's not saying that any of them are inherently racist; it's a reflection that white America's collective dominance is understood.

Ask a person of color about his or her supposed collective dominance, and expect to be laughed at, if not your feelings hurt. 

I don't understand the mindset that something that's rooted in a certain group translates into "For them only." If I want to get a better understanding of the socioeconomic progress of Native Americans in the southeast, I'm not going to Vanderbilt before I look at historically indigenous UNC-Pembroke first.  That doesn’t mean they only care about Indian affairs.  It’s just saying that the school might be a better resource than Vandy.  Again, I digress; if a white group wants to create a Miss White _____ pageant, or create an all-white basketball league (the ‘All-American’ Basketball Alliance), then as a private organization it's their right. However, I would say again that they--and you--overstate your point. This nation is saturated in white culture. What is considered 'Southern Heritage" OMITS the contributions of blacks, Cubans, Mexicans, and Native Americans.  Whites themselves divide themselves ethnically, whether they claim Scots-Irish, German, Nordic, or Italian heritage, and so on. Quite a few I know lived white their whole lives until it came time to apply for minority scholarships, when that one drop of Guatemalan blood came in handy. Even when whites become a numerical minority, they will still command the majority of options and opportunities that are still kept at arm's length to other people. When you have banned women of color from fully participating in America’s bounty for a century, it's kinda hard to feel left out of a Miss Vietnamese America pageant that only existed for some 20 years. You almost never hear about the issues and interests of Laotian women, Appalachian children, or Hmong men, and if not for the media and organizations that focuses them, groups like black and Hispanic small businessmen, or concern themselves with the plight of disabled veterans, few would know and appreciate that such people exist.  White males have never had that problem, and for the foreseeable future likely never will.   

So while you may feel inclined to consider yourselves endangered species, I have submitted to you my reasons for believing that the competitive dominance of white males is still a factor in all of our lives, and will never completely go away. Personally, I don't get caught up in what other people have, because life to me isn't a zero-sum equation. Their gain doesn't mean my loss. So, I vehemently disagree with your assumption that white males outside of rural America need some sort of handout (and if that’s the case, perhaps we should take a closer look at the white working poor, and stop putting a brown face on the welfare state!).  I think to support financial aid based on assumptions of racial disparity in favor of nonwhites is rather unfair, because it reinforces the premise that 'white is right,' which automatically invalidates the contributions, aspirations, and concerns of everyone else. It’s as if you are afraid that every dark person in the world is going to foist some sort of racial payback for all the crap their people had endured. Using South Africa as an example, I find that stance laughable.

I don't know what fair is, and I won't pretend to claim that everything in the world is. But I’m not above going against the grain to put my money where my beliefs are.  So here’s twenty dollars in the hopes that the guy who benefits from my money never has to carry the stigma of having to account for his entire race and gender, or to be seen as ‘white’ first before anything else; that he will never endure Benjamin E Mays’ ‘soft bigotry of lowered expectations;’ will never have to be work twice as hard to be seen as just as good; will never know what it means to be labeled an affirmative action hire;  and, God forbid, never be looked at as someone who prospered off the backs of other people—those ‘other people’ being those who do not look like him.  Hopefully you’ll post what your graduates are doing for the country after they graduate.  I’d be quite interested to see.

                                                                Respectfully,

                                                                Therren J. Dunham

Ronda Holder and the Tale of the Embarassed Slacker Son: When keeping It Real Goes Right

“Solve the problem yourself, or accept a fate you may not like…from this perspective, the ethic of personal responsibility gains appeal.”

--Noel M. Tichy

So often do we read about how our children are failing in life (and all too little of how we, as parents, are complicit in that), it’s refreshing to actually stumble upon stories of parents actually being parents.

Take this story I read on AOL (“SmackDown:  Would You Publicly Punish Your Child?”, by Jessica Samakow and Mary Beth Sammons).  These women offer differing viewpoints of what one woman, Ronda Holder of Florida, did when she got tired of her son’s lack of effort and decided to get him back on track. 

You see, Holder’s son is 15 years old, and I assume he’s a high school sophomore.  He currently rocks a grade point average of 1.22.

You read that right.  1.22.

So, after trying in vain to get through to him that a (barely) D-average isn’t where you aspire to have in life, Ms. Holder took the remarkable step of forcing him to face his situation, by way of making him face the citizens of metro Tampa.

On a street corner.  Holding up a placard that reads, “My GPA is 1.22; honk if you think I need an education.”

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!

Now, one would think that parents like Ronda Holder would garner some semblance of praise from a nation already wary of black underachievement (and the connotations attached to it), or at the very least elicit some sympathy from the masses.  That would be incorrect. 

I also said in the beginning that the authors hold opposing views on the story:  Samakow sides with the parent, Sammons believes that Holder should be reported to Child Services. 

Personally, I don’t give a shit what these bitches think.  Here is the truth as I know it:

There are a lot of people in this country who go out of their way to bitch and moan about the state of our public education system, but do nothing about it, especially with their own kids.  We extol the virtues of personal responsibility and limited government interaction, and yet go out of our way to prosecute people when they actually try to do it by themselves.  We want to hold young people accountable, but somehow feel (erroneously) that we must somehow protect their feelings in the process.

For many people, this is simply a matter of education and work ethic.  For families like the Holders, it’s about life and death.  Literally.  And when it comes to ensuring that someone’s child grows to be a functioning, productive member of society, fuck little Jimmy and his feelings. 

Now I know that the concept of public shame went the way of Curtis Mathes TVs and Betamax VCRs a long time ago, but you know what?  It works.  It’s old-school.  It’s timeless.  And for the record, I’m not too big on the concept of “tough love” either:  most people don’t appreciate the meaning of the term, and hide behind it as a convenient excuse to inflict unnecessary trauma on other people.    But when used properly, shame can be an effective motivational tool.  Not because it’s an easy thing to endure, but when you have a 1.22 GPA, you SHOULD be fucking embarrassed!  You SHOULD be ashamed!  And I have no sympathy for anyone who suffers the consequences of such meager efforts.

But you can’t convince some people of that, unfortunately, because a lot of people, including Hillsborough County Children’s Board member Arlinda Amos, feel that what Holder did was cruel.  “It definitely would fall within the category of emotional abuse,” she says. 

Bullshit. 

What idiots like Amos fail to appreciate is that emotional abuse would apply if the Ronda Holders of the world didn’t exhaust all necessary avenues through the system to fix their problem.  Emotional abuse would be a valid argument if she wasn’t at her wit’s end.  I cannot completely render her blameless—after all, she IS the parent, and responsible to a large degree for her son’s education (and a 1.2 average doesn’t just come out of nowhere) --this clearly was a woman who understood what’s really at stake here, and she was going to do whatever it takes for her son not to grow into a statistic.  If he’s scarred by the experience, well, he put himself there.  It’s HIS grades that got him there.  Actions have consequences, and he has no one to blame for himself.  But sure, feel free to criticize why she never got involved so much before, if you must.  But also be grateful that she’s getting her point across NOW, instead of having the system (welfare, penal, whatever) do it for her.

And don’t give me that crap about how this boy may have some learning deficiency, or he’s retarded, or how this somehow solidifies the claims that black youth will always be a step behind their peers.  There’s not a damn thing wrong with this kid that a little wall-to-wall counseling (you didn’t read that) wouldn’t cure.  And how would you know whether or not there is a father or male figure in the home? And past a certain point, why is that supposedly the overriding factor?  Seriously, you have to demand things of people in order to get something out of them, and the fact that no one really is willing to do that (including his enablers) is the biggest contributor to his failure.  Excellence doesn’t come out of a vacuum.  It only comes from an environment of tough standards and tougher enforcement.  You will be given all the advantages and chances you are going to get in this world and no one will shed a tear on your behalf if you fail to make something of them.  That’s Life 101.  So stop giving the little fucker a pass because he’s black, or (you think) he’s poor, or because he’s a teen and you think he’ll grow out of it (he might not get the chance).  It’s those attitudes that make it easy for the true bigots out there to continue denying black people.  If he’s a lazy fuck, then call him on it.  Otherwise, you're no better than he is.

But some of you will still feel like Holder is wrong for what she did.  You may not agree with her methods, but to infer that she acted with malice could never be more mistaken.  Malice is letting your kid skate by with inferior grades and no work ethic.  What's cruel is shielding your kids from learning how the world really works (you don’t give, you don’t get).  Cruelty is allowing your kid to be further stigmatized by the reinforcing the stereotypes that continue to hold us down, to feed into the lie that good grades are a “white” thing, by taking a person already hobbled by the soft racism of low expectations and crippling him further by instilling a false sense of victimization.  Not developing a sense of personal value in your child by not defining for him what constitutes value (nor demanding of him the appreciation for such things), that shit is cruel.  Not giving any more of a damn about your kids than how much they bring in public assistance and EIC, that shit is cruel.  I agree with Samakow.  If anybody should be reported to Child Services, it’s the parents and others who enable them who allow this shit to begin with.

There is a difference between discipline and abuse.  Discipline means to teach.  Cruelty teaches as well, perhaps, but affirms nothing.  Ronda Holder stripped her son of some cheap, plastic tokens that can only buy him a trip to diaster, and in doing so gave him a better lesson in life than anything he could read in a textbook.  What this woman did wasn’t an act of maliciousness or unwarranted cruelty.  It was an act of love.

Listen, folks, not all medicine is supposed to taste good.  And too much of a good thing can kill just as easily as too much of the bad stuff.  In that regard, love cannot always gentle and kind.  It is sometimes harsh and abrupt.  It has to be, if you want to fix what’s broken or prevent what might happen with indifference.  As much as I love and treasure the relationships I have with my children, I would hold their asses up for public ridicule in a minute if it stops them from acting a fool.

I still remember growing up in a home where my dad threatened my older brother and me every year that if we didn’t make the grade at school, we’d be wearing the same clothes next year.  And as cheap as my daddy was (I’m sorry, STILL IS), we couldn’t bear the thought of wearing clothes already built to disintegrate in seven washes another year.  This wasn’t (only) because he was a tightwad; it was because he was trying to teach us that new clothes, like good educations, are luxuries that most people never see.  And with certain luxuries (and privileges) come expectations.  If you wanted things in life, you were expected to produce.  If you want to maintain what you have, you must take care of them.  If you do neither, you can do without.

Ronda Holder was teaching her son the same goddamn thing, that obedience is greater than sacrifice.  I say good for her, and all the better for her son.  And better that Holder's kid sacrifices a little pride today, than what little of his dignity is left by the time he’s 30.  At that point, he may still be holding up a sign on the street corner.  Only instead of telling people of his laziness, he’ll be begging them for spare change.   

I’d wager instead that in 15 years, he and society will thank this woman for what she did, and wish that many others loved their kids enough to do the same thing. 

Ms. Holder, I thank you now.