Some Good May Yet Come of This

By RANDALL KENNEDY Professor of law at Harvard University and editor of Reconstruction

Considerable good is likely to flow from the outpouring of attention on the Nation of Islam and its relationship to the black political establishment. First, Khallid Abdul Muhammad's notorious, hateful speech at Kean College and Louis Farrakhan's affirmation of its substance (though not its style) demonstrated anew that racism resides at the core of the Nation of Islam. Bigotry is not one of its peripheral features but is instead a central element of its identity and appeal. Second, an issue of fundamental importance has been raised: Should racism expressed by African Americans be openly repudiated by other African Americans?

Some argue that at least with respect to whites, African Americans cannot be racist because, as a group, they lack the power to subordinate whites. Among other failings, this theory ignores nitty-gritty realities. Regardless of the relative strength of African-American and Jewish communities in New York City, the African Americans who beat Jews in Crown Heights for racially motivated reasons were, at that moment, sufficiently powerful to subordinate their victims. This theory, moreover, wrongly ignores the plain fact that African Americans -- as judges, teachers, mayors, police officers, members of Congress and army officers -- increasingly occupy positions of power and influence from which they could, if so minded, tremendously damage clients, co-workers, dependents and, beyond, the society as a whole.

Others deny the need for African Americans to repudiate openly other African Americans who express antiwhite or anti-Semitic sentiments. They maintain that public repudiations of this sort undermine African-American unity, sap the group's morale and consequently weaken it before a hostile society. They are mistaken. At the moment, an excess of conformity is far more dangerous than an excess of dissension to the well-being of the African-American community. A paucity of searching, highly public scrutiny of African-American leadership has had a disastrous effect on the tone of African-American political culture, rendering it vulnerable to the moral slackness that often develops when people feel free of accountability.

At the same time, there are others for whom the latest controversy has provided an opportunity for distancing themselves from Farrakhan and reaffirming publicly their allegiance to humane values. Reacting thus is not only morally correct; it also makes good, practical political sense. African- American leaders suffer enough without compounding the difficulties they face by besmirching -- as some seem intent upon doing -- one of their diminishing but still important assets: a widespread sense that they continue to occupy the moral high ground as custodians of the civil rights revolution.

Many have noted that while writers and political leaders resolutely denounced Muhammad's ravings, few initially paid any serious attention to Senator Ernest F. Hollings' demeaning slur against African diplomats in December when he alluded to them as cannibals. The Senate unanimously condemned Muhammad, who is highly unlikely ever to exercise any appreciable amount of governmental power. Yet, when called upon to react to the nasty aspersions of one of their colleagues, many Senators sought refuge in all manner of evasion. The exposure of this double standard will, unfortunately, be used by some as an excuse to avoid confronting Farrakhanian bigotry. But for others, the exposure will spur them to be more demanding and evenhanded in their response to unjustified prejudices of all sorts.