Salmagundi

BLACK AND WHITE TV: For yet another year, the NAACP has decried the lack of racial diversity on network television shows. In a press release, President and CEO Kweisi Mfume declared: “It appears increasingly likely that the NAACP may vote soon to employ a massive, targeted and sustained economic boycott aimed at one of the four major networks and their major advertisers....Furthermore, the NAACP believes that if there is not a greater forum of opportunities for qualified men and women to compete in without being discriminated then class action litigation must be pursued.” Before Mfume starts the lawsuit and boycott, though, he should probably take a look at not only the number of black characters on network television shows, but how the current ones are portrayed.

Put simply, blacks on nighttime network television fall into three broad categories: funny families, dysfunctional families, and male singletons. In the funny family category, the entire show revolves around the black family, which spends an inordinate amount of time in its house, which probably makes it easier for the show's producers to keep the number of white people to a minimum. This category has had its highs (The Cosby Show) and its lows (everything on the WB and UPN when they were trying to pick up market share points), but it has been difficult for shows in this category to transcend a niche (read: black) audience and stick around for very long. Moreover, it's been hard for these shows to transcend the “aren't black people funny” stereotype, since that's usually the point.

In any case, it seems as if the networks' response to pressure from the NAACP has been to focus on the last two categories instead of the funny family category. It's much easier to sprinkle black characters within already established ensemble shows, especially given how networks have been portraying the relationships between black people on dramas. For instance, poor Charlie on The West Wing has been opening the door for the President for three years now. He did try a relationship, but given that it provoked an assassination attempt on the President (he was dating the president's white daughter) this season he's stuck to hanging out with the president's crazy middle-aged secretary. Also, as the last couple of seasons have shown, it's pretty simple to add black characters to shows with male singletons and create the dysfunctional family. Thus we have Dr. Benton on ER, who used to be the epitome of the angsty black male singleton, date a black woman who contracts AIDS from her husband, father a child out of wedlock with another black woman, fight this woman's family for custody of his child (who is also deaf), and finally leave the show. In Six Feet Under we have Keith the black police officer who takes in his foul mouthed niece after she is temporarily abandoned by her drug-addicted mother. He finally ends up sending his sister to jail over her drug abuse. In a twist, ER brought in two black men to replace Benton, but they are portrayed as mirror images of each other (the dark skinned, cocky, oversexed resident versus the light-skinned earnest and lame medical student) and they can't stand each other.

All of this makes me at least uneasy at the prospect of bringing aboard more black actors in shows-especially dramas-unless certain conditions are cleared up first. For those shows who only have one black actor, it would be nice if that character could at least have a family that s/he liked. Minor conflicts are fine, but calling in the police is a bit much. Also, producers should take a good hard look at the color politics that they are promoting on their shows. In all of the cases that I've cited, the “dysfunctional” black characters were darker in skin color than the other black characters and in the women's cases they all had non-straightened hair. This is not to say that all of the black characters should be of a uniform skin tone, but given the cultural shorthand that the “blackness” = dysfunction equation currently promotes, it should give the producers pause while they are casting for roles. In any case, it would be good if-given that the NAACP has for the past several years has documented the numerical shortage of blacks on TV-it began to take notice of the laziness involved with the portrayal of blacks already on screen.

-Rabia Belt

GOD BLESS THE 9TH: In June of this year, the 9th Federal District Court made a perfectly sound legal ruling: the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Even applying the weaker standards of religious coercion set by the conservative hacks in the US Supreme Court (Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, I am looking in your direction), the use of “under God,” creates a hostile environment for atheists and practitioners of non-Abrahamic religions. It makes unbelievers feel like outsiders by maintaining that those who believe in God are somehow more “American.”

Some have maintained that the words “under God” have no religious meaning in the Pledge. Of course, this begs the question: “Then why would you care if we removed them?” Further, history decisively refutes this interpretation. Congress inserted the phrase “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Even ignoring the fact that we force students in public schools to swear a loyalty oath, it is clear by Eisenhower's language that the phrase was meant as a statement of monotheism in general and Christianity in particular: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” This was meant to establish the United States as a foil to “godless Communism.” Clearly, the phrase “under God” is entirely devoid of religious content…oh, wait.

The saddest part of this whole episode was the utterly craven Democratic response. Dick Gephardt, brilliant legal scholar that he is, said: “I think the decision is poorly thought out. That's why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed.” The vast majority (every senator and all but 5 representatives) of the Democratic Party voted to in favor of a non-binding resolution in support of the Pledge of Allegiance in its current incarnation. They also took a courageous stand supporting “in God We Trust” on our coinage. It used to be that we could say that the Democratic Party at least tried to protect our civil liberties. They were not very good at it, but at least they made the attempt. Now, it seems clear that the Democratic Party is no longer willing to expend the political capital to defend our religious freedom.

-Patrick Taylor Smith

Questions? Comments? Please contact perspy@hcs.harvard.edu