the company we keep

johnny_deeper(Soon this new year I may share my own resolutions. Until then… 🙂 )

My resolution for our leaders is to consistently act with wisdom and integrity. Integrity means their leadership is beyond reproach. It doesn’t mean we always agree with our leaders’ choices, but integrity does mean we don’t question their values, their decision-making process, and the core of their character.

So my mind is wandering somewhat today… looking deeper.  As I examine questions of integrity, how does a person like Al Sharpton have such generous access to the sitting President of the United States? According to the White House visiter log — which was last released in August — Sharpton has already visited 61 times since Obama became President (and this prior to the tragic, racially-charged incident in Ferguson, Missouri). Granted, Sharpton’s been included in certain ceremonies and bill signings. He’s also visited to discuss specific policy initiatives — on civil rights, yes — but also regarding job creation, health care, education, and immigration. He has even been invited to Obama’s birthday party. Sharpton thus seems in close contact with Obama. Such an extensive relationship causes me to question this aspect of Pres. Obama’s leadership, as the company we keep, friends, makes a difference.

According to Politico’s senior staff writer Glenn Thrush, what melded the relationship between Obama and Sharpton was their “shared commitment to racial justice and a hardheaded pragmatism that has fueled their success.” Thrush further elaborates that Sharpton not only visits the White House regularly, but also frequently texts and emails with top aide Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. As said of Sharpton by his colleague, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, “He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House; he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” The relationship between Sharpton and Obama is ongoing and real.

Wanting to be respectful of all yet not in denial, let’s acknowledge that this is the same Al Sharpton that came to fame by loudly and falsely accusing and defaming a white prosecutor in the late ’80’s. He has made controversial, derogatory public comments about Jewish, Mormon, gay and lesbian people amongst others in the succeeding decades. He has faced questions of marital infidelity and also over a million dollars in unpaid taxes and penalties. He currently faces questions regarding inciting unrest directed toward the nation’s law enforcement.

The Intramuralist has long been an advocate of second and third chances, so-to-speak; each of us has something to offer, as we are capable of change. With the extended, inflammatory record of Sharpton’s, however, I find myself seconding the question posed earlier last year by New York Post editorial writer Michael Goodwin: “How is it possible… that he [Sharpton] carries so much tainted baggage from the past, yet still enjoys enormous pull with the political class?… Why isn’t he politically toxic?”

Why does Pres. Obama allow Sharpton such access and influence?

In all fairness, from our obvious, limited vantage point, we cannot discern exactly how much influence Sharpton actually has with Obama. We can’t tell how much he has altered or added perspective or policy on job creation, health care, education, immigration, etc. But that’s the problem: we can’t tell. If we can’t tell, then both the decision-making and hence, integrity are in question.

With the recent racial conflicts, Al Sharpton has been more visible, making louder public statements. He has somehow become the President’s “go to guy” on race. Sharpton has thus been very focused on the behavior of others — on the so-called large “specks in another’s eye.” Perhaps it would be first wise to wrestle with the “log” in his own.

Back to working on my own resolutions… my “specks” and “logs,” too…

Respectfully…

AR

above reproach

So many leadership skills are taught via academia. The most vital, however, can’t be taught — no matter the prominence of the school nor reputation of the professor. An effective leader must be above reproach. Their activity, attitude, and articulations must not be open to censure. They must be blameless. Is that not the problem with so many contemporary leaders? If they wish for us to listen and follow, they must be above reproach. But they are not…

We watch the NFL, a societal mainstay, wrestle with recent events that have attracted significant negative publicity. Note that I choose my words carefully, as instances of legal abuse have long permeated the league; what’s different in 2014 is the public’s increased awareness.

The NFL is led by Roger Goodell. As commissioner, he wants us to follow his lead — yet in the discipline of Ravens running back Ray Rice, Goodell’s honesty is in question. Goodell initially barred Rice for an Intramuralist-perceived, tiny two games, saying he had not seen the video in which Rice brutally knocked his then fiancĂ© unconscious. When the video became public, Goodell suspended Rice indefinitely, saying seeing the video (… uh, not the accompanying public disgust and thus pressure…) motivated him to alter his disciplinary decision. Many say Goodell knew of the video and brutality ahead of time. Goodell’s honesty is unfortunately not above reproach, and thus his current leadership is in question.

We watch the renewed racial unrest, as protestors react peacefully and not-so-peacefully to recent grand jury events. Much of the protest seems led by Al Sharpton. As a civil right activist, he wants us to follow his lead — yet Sharpton’s career was initially propelled into prominence by his fervent support of an African-American teenager 27 years ago. Tawana Brawley claimed she was kidnapped and gang-raped by several white men, including a police officer and local prosecutor. Sharpton loudly and consistently, verbally attacked the men. The case was dropped after a long investigation revealed Brawley’s claims to be false, and Brawley began making defamation payments for her false accusations. Sharpton, however, still admits no fault for his involvement. Sharpton’s pursuit of truth is unfortunately not above reproach, and thus his current leadership is in question.

We also watch our nation attempt to navigate through multiple messy legal scenarios. The leading law enforcement officer in the land is Attorney General Eric Holder. He wants us to follow his lead — yet in the final hours of the Clinton administration, then Deputy Attorney General Holder quietly facilitated what many have called “the most unjust presidential pardon in American history.” Holder recommended the pardon for Marc Rich, an active fugitive who had used his money to evade the law. He was indicted on 65 federal criminal counts of tax evasion, fraud, and racketeering; it was the biggest tax evasion case in U.S. history at the time, and it earned Rich a spot on the FBI’s “Ten Most-Wanted” list. After Rich’s ex-wife gave Pres. Clinton’s Party over $1 million — including $100,000 to Hillary’s then Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation — Holder recommended Rich’s pardon. Holder’s upholding of the law is unfortunately not above reproach, and thus his current leadership is in question.

If leaders wish to lead well — if they wish to be effective — their activity, attitude, and articulations must be above reproach. There should be no question. Otherwise, the rest of us will be challenged to listen, much less follow.

Respectfully…

AR

what have we learned?

NAACP_sterling_awards1After a week of storms — via both the atmosphere and articulation, what have we learned?

That racism unfortunately still exists…

That civil rights can still be an issue…

And that bigotry is not indigenous to any one ethnic group.

Friends, bigotry will only cease to exist when no one fights solely for a single group of people no matter the prudence of a particular situation.

Hence, I find it absolutely ironic that on May 15th, both LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and Rev. Al Sharpton were set to be dually honored by the NAACP in Los Angeles.  Sterling was to receive their “Lifetime Achievement Award” and Sharpton an award for “Person of the Year.”

And yet it was Sterling, who spoke so offensively this week, privately asking his mistress not to bring black people to his games.

And it, too, was Sharpton, who for decades has refused to apologize for publicly, vociferously chastising multiple white men for the cover up of an assault on a black teen girl, that the teen admits making up.

Bigotry will only cease to exist when no one fights for only for one group, all the time, no matter the prudence of the particular situation.  Bigotry will only cease when…

… the guilt or innocence of an OJ Simpson is not presumed by the color of his skin…

… the effectiveness of a President Obama is not gauged by his ethnic heritage…

Bigotry will not cease to exist as long as white, black, Asian, Arab, Jewish, Christian, gay, straight, disabled, etc. … until none of it matters.

Unfortunately, as a society we still seem to hypocritically pick and choose which prejudice to pounce upon.  Someone like Sterling, who for over 30 years has displayed aspects of racially discriminatory behavior, has been banned for life and may actually be forced to sell his property.  Someone like Sharpton remains celebrated on a weekday, evening newscast, even though only 20 years ago, the Rev. Sharpton made this college address:

“White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

We must always remember the prudence of the particular situation.  We must not pick and choose the prejudice.

Hence, I again ask, what have we learned?

Respectfully…

AR