Starting the Dialogue

(Author's note: This post is dedicated to the memory of the late Rotan E. Lee, Esq., lawyer, educator, philosopher and friend. His spirit continues to encourage us to talk to, instead of about, each other.)

It's now noon Thursday, April 12, 2007, and the Don Imus public execution is in full swing. Imus, in case you've been in a cave for the past week, is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who made cruel, unflattering, and racially offensive remarks last Wednesday about the young women of Rutgers University's basketball team.

While showing footage of the previous night's championship game, which Rutgers lost to Tennessee 59-46, Imus and a sidekick referred to Rutgers' team as "hardcore hos" and "nappy headed hos". Noting the girls' toughness and numerous tattoos, Imus also compared them to the Memphis Grizzlies, an NBA team. Also mentioned was a comparison of both teams players to the Jigaboos vs. Wannabees from the Spike Lee movie "School Daze."

The fallout from Imus' comments was a bit slow in coming. Scattered complaints and protests prompted an on-air apology from the longtime host on Friday, but over the weekend, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had picked up the banner calling for Imus' ouster, and by Monday morning the "Crucify him!" tsunami was flooding the offices of MSNBC, which simulcasts the 5 AM to 9 AM show for television. Calls for Imus' firing were also made to CBS and Viacom, the parent company of the show's radio syndication.

Imus went on Reverend Sharpton's radio show Monday afternoon, still apologizing profusely and vowing to change the tone and tenor of his on-air banter. Contrite and chastened, the 67-year old Broadcasting Hall of Famer spent the next 48 hours sincerely kissing the butts of any and all who could have possibly been offended, especially the Rutgers team and their coach. If he though the act of penance was going to save his position, if not his standing, he underestimated the depth of ill feeling generated by his comments.

Both MSNBC and CBS made the decision to suspend Imus' show for two weeks, seeking to quiet the discontent while giving themselves a chance to re-evaluate how they'd go forward. That evaluation was made for them, and rather immediately, by the show's sponsors, who pulled out in droves starting Tuesday afternoon. Once Staples, Proctor & Gamble, SmithKline, Geico and the other advertisers informed the network of their intent to abandon their sponsorships of Imus' show, MSNBC's course was clear. Imus was removed from the network immediately. Reverend Jackson has vowed protests of CBS until the network follows suit. So far, CBS has promised to wait until after the two-week suspension to make a further evaluation, but the situation is changing minute by minute. Perhaps between the time this post is written and published, new developments will have occurred. One interesting side note is that on the very day Imus was given the boot, all charges were dropped against the three white Duke University lacrosse players accused of raping and assaulting a stripper hired to entertain at their frat house. The stripper's story finally unraveled, and while the college students' lives were returned to them, their reputations can never be fully restored. There is little doubt that these stories will be linked for the next several weeks.

The situation, such as it is, is a lot bigger than Don Imus, or one crude and unkind comment from a radio host who has made a long and lucrative career out of crude and unkind comments.

The hope, expressed by most people who have made their opinions known on the subject, is that Imusgate will produce a long-needed national dialogue on race relations in America.

A few questions white folks have been asking in the wake of the Imus uproar: Why is it that African-Americans, from comics to rappers to the guy in the street, can denigrate black women in public forums while other races must constantly censor their language for even the most unintentional slight? Does not this degree of hypocrisy call on the African-American community to take steps to clean up its own house in regard to the use of derogatory language? Does equality mean acceptance of a double standard of public behavior when the subject is race?

African-Americans, on the other hand have a few questions of their own: How is it possible that in 2007 we're still dealing with the same ridiculous matters of simple human dignity that were called for (and mostly won) 40 and 50 years ago? How long will the still-overwhelmingly white media bombard the airwaves with the Imuses, Limbaughs, and Savages without providing a forum for the other side? When will the majority accept and admit to the institutional racism that has become the subtle replacement for Jim Crow?

So today, on television and radio stations all over the country, the clarion call goes out for a national dialogue on race and race relations - members of races talking to each other instead of at or about each other. A serious dialogue among critically-thinking adults, as opposed to a Jerry Springer-like shoutfest, which is a lot easier to pull off.

Can we do it? Should we? Are white people prepared to face serious truths about their continued, if subconscious, role in the subjugation of minorities for fun and profit? Are black people willing to hold up a mirror to their own communities, admitting that for years they've been complicit in their own destruction? Can the races ever view each other without suspicion, and what would it take just to get to that point? Is honest dialogue even possible?

It's a huge undertaking. There will be more hurt feelings, and more anger. Is America ready?

Daryl Gale
Ross Associates, Inc.