Sometimes we split hairs too microscopically.  Not every angel on the head of a pin is 
dancing.  Anyone reading what Ron has written in his book, his bi-weekly columns or 
his daily web log knows he continually says closing the gap is the issue, not the 
person or the color of the person who is superintendent (as earlier quotations by Doug 
bear testimony).  And in the referenced web log entry he doesn't advocate that the 
person has to be either White or Black.  No where does he either suggest or recommend 
that.  He is merely agknowledging the obvious that people have preferences and for 
Blacks to want a Black Supe is no different from Whites wanting a White supe  anymore 
than Ds wanting a D or Rs wanting an R or Greens wanting a G (which was heavily called 
for by advocates of each of these points on the political dial).  At the Dome, 
everyone wants a good game, a game considered even better if the Vikes or Twins win.  
Ron is agknowledging that it is OK to be proud, Black or White.  Its OK to cheer.  No 
racial identity preference was stated or implied nor was any discrimination of any 
kind implied or intended.  Indeed, in his "7 Solutions" piece racial identity or 
preference is never  mentioned, only closing the gaps in the seven areas discussed.   
He is merely stating that in the op ed, the true context is the one most people 
operate by: "all things being equal my preference is" (fill in the blank depending on 
the subject and topic) and that the problem comes when a default setting is allowed to 
rule, in this case the advocacy of color first.  His warning was and continues to be 
when preference is elevated over process and qualifications.  He clearly does not 
advocate color as the default setting.  To suggest Ron has dipped his toe in the 
racial identity or racial discrimination waters in the selection of the Supe is unfair 
to him and to the body of work he has developed in his 40 plus years as a community 
advocate.  He has merely pointed out the problem of disengenuousness when consistency 
on one point (saying yes then no on preference for color) undermines other points 
(saying yes to process and qualifications this time for a White person in the 
selection process when it was ignored the last time in the selection of a Black 
person).  Ron's "thing" is the "common ground" all can stand on.  It exists.  But it 
can't be found if people keep changing their definitions of the common ground and the 
ground surrounding it.  Closing the gap was, is, and will be his theme, as any reading 
of his book, his bi-weekly columns, and his daily web log attest to, over and over 
again.  So lets all be proud of who we are  but not make the mistake of believing that 
who we are is the default setting/litmus test for everything else.  He makes clear 
that his defaul settings, his litmus test, are the desired YESes and undesired NOs 
listed in Chapters 5 and 17 of his book, neither of which have anything to do with 
color or racial preference.  I believe most on this list would agree with his YESes 
and his NOs, regardless of their color or party.  It is when people let their color or 
party block closing the gaps in the seven areas that causes problems to continue.  For 
some, color and/or party is more important that closing the gaps.  Ron is arguing 
against this and is saying that as proud as you are of your color or party, both must 
take a back seat to closing the gaps.


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Choosing a new superintendent


Ron Edwards writes,  www.theminneapolisstory.com  web log #194

"Too many of those wanting to be spokespersons for the Black community refuse 
to be honest: they refuse to stand up and say “Hey, this is my city too, and 
I want my Black face on it too.” Whites do it all the time. There is nothing 
wrong with saying we want it too. The error is in denying we want it or denying 
we said it, for no one believes it, Black or White. It is not racism for the 
White to want a White Superintendent nor racism for the Black to want a Black 
Superintendent. This is why Staten and English erred when they say the issue 
with the schools is not the color of the Superintendent but the qualifications 
and process (see their The Strib op ed at 
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4160619.html), because at the community forum 
where Jennings was roasted, 
they made it clear color IS the issue: “When you start looking for a permanent 
superintendent, you've got to look for an educator, preferably, and let me be 
very clear, a black educator," as quoted in City Pages (see 
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1193/article11581.asp). Let me repeat: nothing 
wrong with 
that. And given the results of the previous Black superintendent selected by 
the same process as Jenkins, they lose even more credibility." 

[Doug Mann] Supporting a candidate for superintendent on the basis of their 
racial identity is racial discrimination, regardless of the race of the 
discriminator and the race of the beneficiary of the discrimination. If your 
strategic goal is to "close the learning gap" between blacks and whites, it's probably 
going to a mistake to support any candidate that the board comes up with, no 
matter what the race, because the board, which doesn't care about "closing the 
gap," is going to chose someone who doesn't care much about closing the gap. 
If the board members actually wanted the next superintendent to close the gap, 
they would invite public input and conduct their deliberations out in the 
open, and they would stop complaining about how everybody else isn't pulling 
their weight.

-Doug Mann, King Field
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
before continuing it on the list. 
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to