"Barack Obama is my n—-a," was the way one Iowan voiced his support for the Democratic Illinois senator to a campaign volunteer, a friend of mine, before flashing a genuine smile and thumbs-up. As one may (or may not) expect, this particular supporter was young, male and ... white. Similarly, I have heard supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), particularly those of the male persuasion, crudely opine on her sexual activities without daring to do the same about other men in the race. I am sure that these anecdotes are not unique and are, perhaps, relatively commonplace across America. Which begs the question: What truly is the significance of electing a black or female president?
Both Obama and Clinton have argued that their mere presence in the White House would be a significant moment in American history. Most recently, Clinton asserted in the New Hampshire debate that having a woman in the Oval Office would be a "huge change." Certainly, it would be inspiring to any black or female American to see someone who looks like them reporting on the State of the Union. This fact, in and of itself, is significant.
Yet, when Democrats finally settle on a nominee and if, God willing, this nominee is elected president, there will be a temptation by many Americans who genuinely believe in equal rights for citizens regardless of race or gender to sit back with satisfaction and say that their job is done. This effect can already be seen on our own campus. Many assume that sexism is not an issue because President Tilghman and Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel are women. Others assert that racism cannot exist in a school where religion professor Cornel West GS '80 is one of our most prominent scholars. We, however, along with the rest of America, are wrong for believing that symbols at the top represent real change at the bottom.
Both the Obama and Clinton supporters who, at best, unintentionally malign their candidates, represent the challenge facing America at large. Even if a person feels comfortable voting for a black man or a white woman, this does not mean that they do not cling to and advance sexist or racist notions. Does anyone seriously believe that the mere existence of President Obama would fill corporate boards with black Americans or the appearance of President Clinton would fill the corner offices with women? Barriers of poverty and prejudice still exist in America.
Now that the country is reengaging in politics, and more particularly the politics of hope and change, it is time to take the next steps in the equal rights movement. As a country we have been all too willing to simply assert that racism and sexism disappeared in the '60s, and move on. Both Clinton and Obama should use their moment in the spotlight to highlight these latent issues in society and force us to discuss how best to rid ourselves of these plagues. Unfortunately, they seem unwilling to do so, thereby allowing an often shallow media to dictate the terms of this discussion.
Clinton, of the two, is the worse offender. She asserts her gender only when it is convenient for her, such as when she tried to rally women to her side by saying "us girls." Yet, she never discusses the issue of sexism in America during her speeches. As First Lady, she spoke out powerfully on the issue. Now that she has the spotlight all to herself, why doesn't she do so again?
Obama, though better than Clinton, is not perfect. He always makes mention of the civil rights movement and correctly asserts a "claim on Selma." Though his skin color is obvious to anyone watching him on television, and he clearly feels connected to the history of black America, he never explicitly and prominently challenges us to think about the role of race in today's America.
I recognize that it would be politically unwise, and potentially harmful to the nation as a whole, for either Obama or Clinton to make their campaigns solely about the issues in society that divide us. One of them, however, is going to lose the battle for the nomination, and in so doing, lose this golden moment to speak out on behalf of a cause close to their heart. If neither Obama nor Clinton uses their platform to spark a meaningful conversation about the role of race or gender in society, then neither of their campaigns will be as significant as they claim they are. Adam Bradlow is a freshman in Wilson College from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at abradlow@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
