an open letter to Dr. Boyce Watkins
A little personal background...This political process supports an hypothesis that I have submitted to students in classes for nearly 20 years while doing adjunct faculty work. Among other social science coursework, I teach social welfare policy and urban politics. Naturally, the current political culture, with respect to recent history, results in spirited discussion and interesting papers. I also speak as a brother; a baby boomer and; a resident of an almost exclusively black and not too prosperous suburb of Cleveland, Ohio.
The above mentioned hypothesis...It has been apparent to me for some time that African-Americans, for good reasons (and some not so good) do not understand the fundamental differences between electoral politics and protest politics. But, this election due to its duration and complexity, is becoming a graduate course for the community. Friends and colleagues are redefining themselves with respect to the manner in which they and other black folk should demonstrate civic participation. We are volunteering thoughts and feelings to each other unlike anything I have seen since the "rap sessions" of the early seventies.
Rather than applying the "conventional wisdom" that so frequently results in myths and derogatory conclusions, I believe we need dialogue and research that addresses the relationships between black civic/political participation and the existence (absence) of the types of institutions that engineer and support political participation. All the while remembering that African Americans are a minority people and the blueprint for these institutions generally reflects the dominant culture.
Today's political process, at least as we view the percentages of black voters who support Obama, indicates the utility of electoral politics as a factor in creating cultural bonds that offset social and economic divisions. (sounds like another hypothesis in the making)
I hope that of African American academics like yourself and Michael Dyson can assist us as we negotiate the political, cultural and social learning curves related to blacks taking on leadership responsibilities in electoral politics. This is not to place an unbearable onus on you. That would be unfair. The often amorphous, but real, "black community" must become engaged in every respect, by all forms of media to overcome the habit of ignoring its scholars. Your website is so important in that regard.
Barack Obama is living the "Jackie Robinson Syndrome" as he negotiates the dominant cultures' institutions in the absence of black institutions designed to support and strengthen him. Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton forewarned us 40 plus years ago in the classic book Black Power about the need to develop political institutions that are reflective of the culture. Again, I believe there is a a basic assumption to be considered...politics, whether they be electoral, protest or those politics associated with specified public policy, can and will define culture.
Additionally, Black Power's thesis was, in some regards, old wine in new wineskins if the messages of DuBois, Garvey and some others are carefully examined.
So now that we have all been caught unprepared by the politics of today, the leadership of academicians who still have a semblance of a resonating voice, is "so welcomed". We must support you and dialogue with you just as we make every effort to do the same for and with Barack Obama. I hope Obama's organization functions so that he can be reasonably receptive. I worry because I do not see the strong black institutions required to support this idea.
Personally, I cringed twice-over at Obama's politicizing of black fatherhood just as you expressed on your website. I heartily agree with your sentiments about that. I also believe that Obama, as a politician needs the fuel for more cogent commentary and that must come from all of us...ie black educators, researchers, teachers, social workers etc.
In addition, that unfortunate commentary was an example of the need for social science to provide us all with knowledge that countervails the current diatribe that currently prevails about black folks.
Again, I highlight the merits of your website as well as Michael Dyson's book that answered Bill Cosby . I just wish I could receive your beautifully thought out sentiments directly. I will sign on again.
Very Sincerely,
Justin White
Showing posts with label black parents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label black parents. Show all posts
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Black Familes, Child Support and Bill Cosby: Black Scholars Debate the Issue
by Jimi Izrael
Singer Sean Levert, serving a 22-month term for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support, is dead after being found unresponsive in his jail cell. The family is asking the FBI to investigate, but Levert should have never been in jail in the first place—men shouldn't be put in jail for non-payment of support.
For those unfamiliar with the law, men who are $2500.00 or more in arrears in their child support payments (based on approximately 15% of the man's gross income) can have their driver's license revoked, their property sold at auction or in some cases, be put in jail. Sure—there are a lot of irresponsible fathers out there who don't want to be responsible for their children. More often than not, fathers become unemployed. And if you happen to get a job making less money, child support agencies are not inclined to lower your obligation. Some men pay what they can, but if you are obligated to pay $490 a month in support, and can only pay $200, the $290 gets tacked on. So the following month, you owe $780 smackers, but can still only pay $200.
See how easy it is to get behind?
Child support agencies enforce a woman's right to money but not a man's right to see his kids. Women are not obligated to allow the father to see his children, and are rewarded with public assistance for having as many babies as possible, to the extent that it's become a hustle of sorts and a strain on resources.
When Sean and I talked for an article I wrote, he very pointedly didn't mention his children on the record. Off the record, we talked and laughed about our respective baby-mama drama. I went to school with Sean, and I'm going to miss his big, Levert laugh and sad to see him go under such undignified circumstances. He should not have been in jail.
I'm not saying that men don't need be held accountable, but the child support solution has to be fair to all parties involved.
Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?
Response to Jimi Izrael from Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University
Melissa,On Friday, I read an interesting and provocative blog post by our Root colleague Jimi Izrael. In his post, Izrael argues that the current child support laws are disproportionately stacked against the interests of men. I agree with Izrael that we need to reform current child support laws. In the current moment, as William Julius Wilson notes, child support laws serve as a “labor tax” that dissuade Black men from working traditional jobs. This is particularly true for previously incarcerated men, whose wages can be garnished up to 66 percent in order to repay outstanding support.
Unfortunately, the popular notion of the “deadbeat dad”, like the welfare queen of the 1980s, obscures the more fundamental problem: structural barriers to gainful employment. For this reason, we need to develop more realistic and humane approaches to child support for economically disadvantaged people.On the other hand, I disagree with Izrael’s argument that men should never be placed in jail for not paying support. Take, for example, Sean Levert, who died tragically while serving a 22-month prison sentence for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support. While Izrael says that he shouldn’t have been in jail in the first place, I can’t imagine any alternative for someone who so wantonly ignores his responsibility.
Perhaps I’m biased because I pay child support every month while many of the brothers I know go to extravagant lengths to avoid taking care of their kids. Are some of these men experiencing financial trouble? No doubt. This is why I support government subsidies and debt forgiveness for people who truly need it. But many of the men I know, even those who earn solid middle class wages, are simply unwilling to make basic sacrifices in order to ensure that their child has food, clothing, and shelter. Would they let their children live on the streets? Probably not. But anything short of that means that it’s the mother’s responsibility. What do you think Melissa?
Is Jimi Izrael right that the law is too tough? Am I having a Bill Cosby moment over here in the way I’m critiquing men? Also, Jimi Izrael concludes by asking “Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?” How would you answer that question?
Response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University
Marc,I am having a little trouble responding to your call because fire is shooting out of my fingers and smoke out of my ears after reading Jimi’s blog.
I am not even a little bit objective and detached on this issue. I am a divorced mother and my solidly middle class, ex-husband has consistently paid half of his court ordered support for years. I don’t want to lock him up, but I wouldn’t mind kicking him in the leg with my best stilettos.
From where I stand irresponsibility is not the only possible explanation for single parenting. I did everything “right.” I dated my ex-husband for five years, finished my degree, got married, bought a house and then got pregnant and had my daughter. Still, I find myself living as a single parent. Life is complicated, none of us is fully autonomous and even good choices can lead to tough circumstances.
The law is not about punishing a parent for irresponsibility. The law is meant to protect the best interests of children. I am firmly convinced that in the vast majority of circumstances children’s best interests are served by ensuring that the non-custodial parent provides substantial financial support.
Paying this support will require discomfort and sacrifice. I assure you that being the custodial parent requires discomfort and sacrifice of all kinds.
I am no Bill Cosby and I don’t think we can behave our way to racial equality. On the other hand I know that the reason black folks in America have anything at all is because our mothers, fathers, aunties, grandpas and nanas did their very best even within the tremendously difficult circumstances they encountered. For our children we must do the same thing.
I believe that the interests of children are best served by establishing loving bonds with both parents. Assuming there is no abuse, our kids do best when they are allowed to love both parents unconditionally, no matter the failures and weaknesses of those parents. These bonds are nurtured through time, visits, phone calls, letters and even emails. It is the absent parent’s responsibility to initiate these encounters. It is the custodial parent’s responsibility to facilitate them.
We also foster these bonds by controlling the selfish impulse to speak negatively about the other parent. My mouth sometimes bleeds from biting my tongue in my daughter’s presence, but I believe that loving her dad and feeling loved by him are critically important to her sense of self.
That said, I think the courts are a terrible place for conducting the work of parenting. Jimi is absolutely wrong that courts are universally biased against fathers. The stories are too long, ugly and painful to tell, but I have seen the courts allow angry, vengeful parents to use children as tools of harassment rather than as subjects of loving concern. Fathers do this as much as mothers.
Courts care little for the complicated, personal, nuanced circumstances of our lives. Hear this: paying your support makes a hell of al lot more sense that paying a lawyer to get you out of paying your support. The support goes to enrich the life of your child, the court fees just make the lawyers rich.
Many matters of government policy affect the quality of lives for our children. Most of our kids are relegated to shockingly unequal public schools. Many must live in unsafe neighborhoods marked by crime, environmental hazards and daily reminders of hopelessness. Even our privileged kids are constantly navigating landmines of racial difference and anxiety that tears at the fabric of their self-esteem. As parents, let’s stop trying to punish each other and get focused on sacrificing for our kids so that we buffer them from these assaults.
Singer Sean Levert, serving a 22-month term for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support, is dead after being found unresponsive in his jail cell. The family is asking the FBI to investigate, but Levert should have never been in jail in the first place—men shouldn't be put in jail for non-payment of support.
For those unfamiliar with the law, men who are $2500.00 or more in arrears in their child support payments (based on approximately 15% of the man's gross income) can have their driver's license revoked, their property sold at auction or in some cases, be put in jail. Sure—there are a lot of irresponsible fathers out there who don't want to be responsible for their children. More often than not, fathers become unemployed. And if you happen to get a job making less money, child support agencies are not inclined to lower your obligation. Some men pay what they can, but if you are obligated to pay $490 a month in support, and can only pay $200, the $290 gets tacked on. So the following month, you owe $780 smackers, but can still only pay $200.
See how easy it is to get behind?
Child support agencies enforce a woman's right to money but not a man's right to see his kids. Women are not obligated to allow the father to see his children, and are rewarded with public assistance for having as many babies as possible, to the extent that it's become a hustle of sorts and a strain on resources.
When Sean and I talked for an article I wrote, he very pointedly didn't mention his children on the record. Off the record, we talked and laughed about our respective baby-mama drama. I went to school with Sean, and I'm going to miss his big, Levert laugh and sad to see him go under such undignified circumstances. He should not have been in jail.
I'm not saying that men don't need be held accountable, but the child support solution has to be fair to all parties involved.
Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?
Response to Jimi Izrael from Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University
Melissa,On Friday, I read an interesting and provocative blog post by our Root colleague Jimi Izrael. In his post, Izrael argues that the current child support laws are disproportionately stacked against the interests of men. I agree with Izrael that we need to reform current child support laws. In the current moment, as William Julius Wilson notes, child support laws serve as a “labor tax” that dissuade Black men from working traditional jobs. This is particularly true for previously incarcerated men, whose wages can be garnished up to 66 percent in order to repay outstanding support.
Unfortunately, the popular notion of the “deadbeat dad”, like the welfare queen of the 1980s, obscures the more fundamental problem: structural barriers to gainful employment. For this reason, we need to develop more realistic and humane approaches to child support for economically disadvantaged people.On the other hand, I disagree with Izrael’s argument that men should never be placed in jail for not paying support. Take, for example, Sean Levert, who died tragically while serving a 22-month prison sentence for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support. While Izrael says that he shouldn’t have been in jail in the first place, I can’t imagine any alternative for someone who so wantonly ignores his responsibility.
Perhaps I’m biased because I pay child support every month while many of the brothers I know go to extravagant lengths to avoid taking care of their kids. Are some of these men experiencing financial trouble? No doubt. This is why I support government subsidies and debt forgiveness for people who truly need it. But many of the men I know, even those who earn solid middle class wages, are simply unwilling to make basic sacrifices in order to ensure that their child has food, clothing, and shelter. Would they let their children live on the streets? Probably not. But anything short of that means that it’s the mother’s responsibility. What do you think Melissa?
Is Jimi Izrael right that the law is too tough? Am I having a Bill Cosby moment over here in the way I’m critiquing men? Also, Jimi Izrael concludes by asking “Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?” How would you answer that question?
Response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University
Marc,I am having a little trouble responding to your call because fire is shooting out of my fingers and smoke out of my ears after reading Jimi’s blog.
I am not even a little bit objective and detached on this issue. I am a divorced mother and my solidly middle class, ex-husband has consistently paid half of his court ordered support for years. I don’t want to lock him up, but I wouldn’t mind kicking him in the leg with my best stilettos.
From where I stand irresponsibility is not the only possible explanation for single parenting. I did everything “right.” I dated my ex-husband for five years, finished my degree, got married, bought a house and then got pregnant and had my daughter. Still, I find myself living as a single parent. Life is complicated, none of us is fully autonomous and even good choices can lead to tough circumstances.
The law is not about punishing a parent for irresponsibility. The law is meant to protect the best interests of children. I am firmly convinced that in the vast majority of circumstances children’s best interests are served by ensuring that the non-custodial parent provides substantial financial support.
Paying this support will require discomfort and sacrifice. I assure you that being the custodial parent requires discomfort and sacrifice of all kinds.
I am no Bill Cosby and I don’t think we can behave our way to racial equality. On the other hand I know that the reason black folks in America have anything at all is because our mothers, fathers, aunties, grandpas and nanas did their very best even within the tremendously difficult circumstances they encountered. For our children we must do the same thing.
I believe that the interests of children are best served by establishing loving bonds with both parents. Assuming there is no abuse, our kids do best when they are allowed to love both parents unconditionally, no matter the failures and weaknesses of those parents. These bonds are nurtured through time, visits, phone calls, letters and even emails. It is the absent parent’s responsibility to initiate these encounters. It is the custodial parent’s responsibility to facilitate them.
We also foster these bonds by controlling the selfish impulse to speak negatively about the other parent. My mouth sometimes bleeds from biting my tongue in my daughter’s presence, but I believe that loving her dad and feeling loved by him are critically important to her sense of self.
That said, I think the courts are a terrible place for conducting the work of parenting. Jimi is absolutely wrong that courts are universally biased against fathers. The stories are too long, ugly and painful to tell, but I have seen the courts allow angry, vengeful parents to use children as tools of harassment rather than as subjects of loving concern. Fathers do this as much as mothers.
Courts care little for the complicated, personal, nuanced circumstances of our lives. Hear this: paying your support makes a hell of al lot more sense that paying a lawyer to get you out of paying your support. The support goes to enrich the life of your child, the court fees just make the lawyers rich.
Many matters of government policy affect the quality of lives for our children. Most of our kids are relegated to shockingly unequal public schools. Many must live in unsafe neighborhoods marked by crime, environmental hazards and daily reminders of hopelessness. Even our privileged kids are constantly navigating landmines of racial difference and anxiety that tears at the fabric of their self-esteem. As parents, let’s stop trying to punish each other and get focused on sacrificing for our kids so that we buffer them from these assaults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
