Good News. Really.

By | October 17, 2009
13 Comments

It just doesn’t sound like it at first:

AP) NEW ORLEANS A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Yes, what possible chance does the “offspring of such relationships” have of finding acceptance in American society in this day and age?

obama-wins-birmingham.jpg

Okay, fine, but not everybody gets to be president. And there’s no question that some people who come from a mixed-race background have a very difficult time of it. So I guess it’s perfectly reasonable that this guy would come to the conclusion that such people should simply therefore not exist at all. And that he should be the one making that decision.

My wife comes from a mixed-race background; my baby daughter, even more so. If people like Keith Bardwell were calling the shots, neither of them would ever have been allowed to be born.

However, I said there was good news and there is. Leave it to James Taranto to spell it out:

Bardwell’s protest that he is not a racist is laughable. Nonetheless, the inevitable hand-wringing about the persistence of racism in America is bunk. This story underscores the immense racial progress America has made.

Within living memory, this would not even have been a news story. As recently as 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, including Louisiana. Today Bardwell, for voicing views that carried the force of law a little over 40 years ago, is viewed by almost everyone as an outrageous freak. Bardwell is just a guy with a stupid and crazy idea who decided to make a personal statement rather than do the job he was hired to do. He is not a symbol of inequality in America.

Absolutely. We are rapidly evolving away from this kind of bigoted, narrow-minded ignorance. The good news here is how utterly shocking this story is. Such attitudes simply no longer have a place in American society, thank God.

Things really are getting better all the time.

  • http://NotionsCapital.com Mike Licht

    Tangipahoa Parish has another claim to fame: It was the filming location for In the Heat of the Night, the TV show about race and the law.

    See:

    http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/not-in-tangipahoa-parish/

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    “I have piles and piles of black friends…”

    Even his whining about not being a racist because he has black friends is dated.

    I think this guy woke up that morning, forgot to put his glasses on, and misread the calendar by 40 years.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    Okay Phil, you win. This embarrassing story about my home state beats this story by a mile:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/colorado.balloon.boy/index.html
    :-)

  • Rangiroa

    The funny thing is, Keith Bardwell is black.

    Or he certainly could be black, since many ordinary blacks hold the same point of view.

    The mistake Bardwell makes — black or white — is to introduce his personal views into his professional judicial role. That is improper.

    Unfortunately, the corruption of official roles by personal views is common all the way to Congress, the Supreme Court, to the White House.

    That is the point of this story, not any moral about racism or the lack of it.

  • Sally Morem

    Bardwell must not be a fan of the theater, or he would know that the late playwright August Wilson’s father was German-American and his mother was black.

    He must also not be a golf fan. Tiger Woods is not bi-racial, he’s multi-racial. His father was mostly black, with some Irish and Native American ancestry, and his mother was of Thai and Chinese descent.

    Hmmmm. “Those people” sure can’t make it in America, I guess.

  • Sally Morem

    Perhaps what Americans now consider bizarre and offensive is actually a measure of societal progress.

    I guess that sums up the commentator’s point.

  • https://blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Rangiroa –

    White or black, the racism is wrong. Sure, it’s wrong for him to impose his personal views, but we also get to have an opinion on those views. And we’re entitled to make up our own minds as to whether the act of imposing the views or the views themselves represent the greater moral offense.

    Stephen –

    Actually, the Colorado story is a bit scarier in that it might be indicative of something we’re evolving towards, rather than away from. I honestly hope it turns out to be a hoax. Otherwise we’re left with the reality of parents who, fearing their child is in mortal danger, call the FAA, then 911, then the local TV station.

    And maybe that was the right thing to do, but I ask you — would that be your response? I wouldn’t have been mine. And you just can’t help but wonder how much of the thinking was “Hey, we need to get the word out” vs. “Hey, here’s an excellent opportunity to get back on TV.”

    [Inappropriate sarcasm has been removed from the Rangiroa section of this comment. Sorry, this topic gets under my skin a little -- or could you tell?]

  • Anonymous

    Bardwell’s parents were first cousins, because they didn’t want to get any outsider cooties in the bathrooms.

  • http://www.blog.speculist Stephen Gordon

    Rangiroa:

    “The mistake Bardwell makes — black or white — is to introduce his personal views into his professional judicial role. That is improper.”

    I disagree. Show me a judge whose sense of justice and how they rule is not informed by personal views and I’ll show you a really good AI system – not a person.

    Its important for the public – or the official appointing a judge – to knows a prospective judge’s personal views before they are appointed.

  • MikeD

    Maybe he isn’t racist. Maybe he really believes that mixed race children suffer an identity alienation that he feels he can prevent. I think he should be entitled to that opinion. I think he should also be allowed to stand firmly by that conviction and refuse to marry mixed-race couples. I think a Jewish judge who refuses to perform a marriage between a woman from his Temple and a gentile should also be allowed the right to his convictions. I believe those couples also have the right to find a different judge. I absolutely agree that racism is wrong; however I feel that persecuting people for their thought crime is much worse. If we are “tolerant” then we have to allow bigots the right to exist. I rather respect someone with the determination to have a belief and act according to their principles than to have personal prejudices suppressed and acting covertly to undermine the system with passive-aggressive rules enforcement or other abuse of authority.

    Consider what happens when technologically feasible sousveillance becomes incriminating evidence as the whims of public opinion drive your favorite pastime into public nuisance #1? I say you should have the right to be eccentric and eat your ice cream with a fork. I figure if you are up-front about it, then I can choose to associate with you or not. That’s preferable to building any dependency on your being ‘normal’ only to find out later than you’re a freak. (oh, and vice-versa)

  • https://blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Mike –

    Maybe he isn’t racist. Maybe he really believes that mixed race children suffer an identity alienation that he feels he can prevent.

    Again, the only way he can “prevent” this from occurring is if the couple in question give up and decide not to have children. His position is that mixed-race children are a class of human being that are better off not existing.

    Yes, as a citizen he is entitled to hold this opinion and to voice it with no fear of government interference. I agree.

    Likewise, I am entitled to hold the opinion that his beliefs are deeply wrongheaded and immoral. There is no persecution of thought crime in that.

    The question is this: as a civil servant, is he entitled to implement his beliefs as a matter of public policy? I would argue that he is not. In this case, his personal scruples are in conflict with the law of the land. If he can’t perform his job in good conscience, you suggest putting the burden of that on the couple to go find a more accommodating judge. Well, we can only hope that the next judge they go to is not your Jewish judge –who is just fine with the fact that one of them is black and one of them is white, but can’t stomach the fact that one is a gentile. Or maybe the next judge across town really is an out and out racist. Well what are we going to do, convict him of thought crime if he doesn’t want to perform the ceremony?

    So much for equal protection under the law for this couple as they shop around town looking for a judge whose personal beliefs happen to line up with the fact that in this country, you’re supposed to be able to marry whomever you want without state interference.

    No, the burden does not lie with the couple at all. If a justice of the peace cannot perform his duties under the law in good conscience, then he should find another line of work.

    The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech — it doesn’t guarantee employment. I do product marketing for a software company. Suppose someone in my line of work comes to the conclusion that his employer’s chief competitor actually makes a superior product. Say this individual shows up at the office one fine morning and starts espousing that view — as a marketing manager he could probably write a few blog posts and get the word out about his change of heart to a significant number of industry influencers before being shown the door. But he would be shown the door (probably before the end of that day) and neither the first amendment nor the sincerity of his opinion would (or should) spare him that “persecution for thought crime.”

  • http://www.blog.speculist Stephen Gordon

    The US Supreme Court decided in the mid 50′s (in Brown v. Board of Ed) that keeping people separate in education because of race is not fair. Separate can’t be equal.

    In 1960 Boynton v. Virginia outlawed racial segregation in public transportation.

    In 1964 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States held constitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned racial discrimination in public places.

    And – in the best named case ever – Loving v. Virginia banned race-based restrictions on marriage.

    That last case was decided in 1967. Loving is now the law on this subject. Its a law that’s been tested countless times by people falling in love, getting married, and raising happy, well-adjusted, multi-ethnic kids.

    This JOTP’s failure to acknowledge 1)the law and 2)the reality of happy, functioning, mixed-raced families… that has to comes from somewhere pretty dark mentally. It’s either racism, or a level of obtuseness that makes him unfit for his position.

  • MikeD

    Thank you for putting this into well-defined terms. The judge is refusing to do his job and therefore should be fired. I admit that “thought crime” might have been too extreme (I definitely got it by the third repetition) but my point was that we really should not be concerned about his reason for not doing his job – only that he doesn’t do it. The performance of his official responsibility is measurable and visible. Should his wrongheadedness be ours to judge? I ask because we’ve seen brain imaging advancements show us how the future might include pre-screening for a certain temperament or post-event auditing literally read a person’s mind. I wonder: who retains the rights to the results of that kind of testing?