Yesterday Burris showed up at the Senate building in Washington and was denied entrance to the building by the Secretary of the Senate, who cited some minor discrepancy with his credentials – a move which may actually have been illegal. Blagojevich, whatever the outcome of the scandal may be, is still currently the governor of Illinois, and is entitled to make a senate appointment. Therefore, the Senate seemingly has no right to deny Burris access to the floor.
Now, as dramatic as all of this is, it becomes even more so when you find out that Roland Burris is African-American.
It seems to evoke Jim Crow-era symbolism that an African-American appointee would be denied entrance to the Senate, which currently has zero African-American members. But the controversy here isn’t that an African-American wasn’t allowed access to an all-white club, it’s that race was introduced as a factor at all. Burris was not turned away because of his skin color, but because he represents the defiance of Blagojevich.
Now, there is no question that Burris was chosen at least in part because of his ethnicity. Because the Senate is losing its only African-American senator (nevermind that that Senator will go on to become the next President), it was mostly a foregone conclusion that the replacement would also be African-American, in order to maintain the status quo.
But Blagojevich had more in mind than the status quo when he appointed Burris. He anticipated exactly what happened – that any denial of Burris to be seated would evoke the race issue. Not only that, but Burris has the unique distinction of being first African-American elected to statewide office in Illinois – when he became the comptroller in 1979, which puts even more weight behind his appointment.
It may be true that some U.S. Senators have ideas about maintaining Senate exclusivity as an “all-white” club, but at the risk of great political fallout, I cannot imagine that any of them would voice those ideas, let alone act on them. So there is little doubt in my mind that the rejection of Burris has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with pride, the Senate attempting to demonstrate their sovereignty – at least within their own ranks.
I am wary of situations where race is injected into matters where it shouldn’t – and actually doesn’t – belong. Every time this happens, it only strengthens the case made by those who like to use troublesome words like “hypersensitivity” or “race-baiting”, and sets back every attempt to truly identify the significance of race within the American social dynamic. It dilutes all of the very real and quite prevalent instances of racial discrimination.
While many people – mostly social conservatives – are in denial about the role that race continues to play in American society, they are right in condemning those instances were race is used as a political tool, or by the media as a way of drawing more readers and viewers. The Roland Burris situation is one such case.
In the end, Roland Burris will be seated, as a matter of legality. Hopefully at that time, or sooner, this race non-issue will be put to rest. That is, of course, until 2010, when the question of Senate exclusivity will probably be raised again in electing a replacement for Burris, who has already decided not to run.
As much as I believe that the Senate should be an all-inclusive body, at least to the degree that it represents the multicultural demographics of the country, I do not think that Illinois or any other state should be held to the expectation that they elect an official of any particular ethnicity. After all, if it were as simple as maintaining a status quo, then we might as well select someone like Alan Keyes or Larry Elder, who have very little interest or personal stake in the plight of African-Americans, and who for their purported ideology would serve in the same ideological capacity as a white counterpart.
«