Reverse Racial Inequality

We all know that racial inequality exists in all of life’s compartments, including the workplace.  To most of us, ”racial inequality” means whites having unfair advantages over African-Americans.  The Civil Rights Act was passed to correct this inequality, and it has made a difference.  Race discrimination still exists–as traditionally defined–but the nomination of Barack Obama for President is evidence that meaningful progress has been made.

What’s harder to discuss is the racial inequality that gives blacks unfair advantages over whites.  We saw that recently in the case of Detroit’s black mayor.  If the mayor had been white, he would’ve been run out of office for his serious misdeeds long before the 18 or so months it took to remove him.

We’re now seeing this play out in the case of  Charles Rangel, 19 term congressman and chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.  Rangel has been accused of various ethical breaches involving rent-stabilized apartments, donations for a  school of public service that will bear his name, failure to pay taxes on–or even report–rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic over the past 20 years, failure to disclose that the seller of the villa had given him an interest-free mortgage on the property, and more.  As this tale continues to unfold, Rangel (whose political base is Harlem) has been forced to admit there are more errors and omissions on his financial disclosure forms than initially indicated.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t initiate action against Rangel and has accused Republicans who say Rangel should give up his chairmanship of attempting to politicize Rangel’s problems.

Charles Rangel was one of Newt Gingrich’s biggest critics of his ethical lapses.  Gingrich was forced from the Speaker’s position in the House (as he should have been) and eventually resigned his congressional seat.  Few congressman have politicized the problems of people on the other side of the aisle as vigorously as Rangel.

If Rangel were white, this matter would be at a different place.  Conventional wisdom says that allowing a powerful Democrat under an ethics cloud to keep his chairmanship will hurt the party’s presidential nominee.  But Rangel is black.  The nominee is black.  In order to win, the nominee must make sure that the 90% plus of black voters who say they will vote for him do.  Removing Rangel could upset this political and racial applecart.  Congressmen aren’t employees of the House of Representatives, so the fact that a black congressman is receiving more favorable treatment than a white congressman did has no legal consequences.  It would in a traditional workplace, however.

Racial inequality is wrong.  Race discrimination–at least, at work–is against the law.  Each time a white or black person is favored because of his race, racial equality is less likely at work or anywhere else.  For now, Charles Rangel, co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, is bullet-proof because he’s black.  He’d be the first to express outrage if someone in his position were bullet-proof because he’s white.

1. 

   Ritaanz says:

   September 24, 2008 at 9:49 am

   Now what am I to do with this information? Although I agree with your post, the issue will not go away soon. Are we so terrified of being politically incorrect that we sit on our little buns and say or do nothing?
2. 

   John Phillips says:

   September 25, 2008 at 4:21 pm

   Ritaanz,

   Thanks for weighing in. Political correctness is still a powerful force. A workplace should be where you can say what you think, as long as you’re being respectful in expressing your opinion, without having to worry about it. Most workplaces aren’t quite like that, however. Hopefully, there is someone in your workplace with whom you can share your views and engage in a meaningful discussion.
3. 

   tremerpeftobe says:

   November 18, 2008 at 6:06 pm

   All lay load on the willing horse