It has been more than 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ruling that racially segregated public schools were unconstitutional. Over the years, the judgment has had its share of challengers but, with a few exceptions, the decision has remained on solid ground. Things may be changing, however.

The high court has agreed to consider two separate lawsuits filed in Seattle and Louisville. The white parents involved in each suit say the public school systems in their area unconstitutionally discriminate based on race. These will be the first race-related constitutional cases for President Bush’s recently appointed, conservative justices, John Roberts and Samuel A. Alito. With the court stacked in favor of the conservatives, these cases have the potential to upset the landmark Brown ruling, forever affecting the educational opportunities available to our children.

For more of this story, click here.  

Today, I’ll be appearing on Atlanta’s WAOK radio at 2:00 to discuss my recent piece in the Black Commentator.
The show will be aired through the internet at: www.waok.com

For a variety of reasons, I’ve been in a pretty bad mood all week. Today is no different. I chose this week’s poetry hoping that it would both reflect my mood and cheer me up. This week’s featured poet is the legendary Langston Hughes.

Since I posted my entry about Malcolm X’s sexuality, I’ve received numerous e-mails from people around the country. Many of the posters questioned Bruce Perry’s scholarship, the significance of the information, and my intentions. Allow me to respond to all three points.

First, I have yet to read any work that empirically disputes Perry’s findings. I am not saying, however, that such work doesn’t exist. In fact, if anyone has any scholarship that challenges Perry’s findings, please send it to me. I am genuinely interested in reading any and all work that has been done regarding Malcolm.

With regard to the “Why are we wasting our time with this?” questions, I’m a bit more confused. When I posted about Janet Jackson’s weight, the NBA Finals, or Pat Robertson’s leg presses, no one questioned the value of the information. Suddenly, when it comes to Malcolm X’s sexuality, people are asking why it matters. This blog is called “The Barbershop” because we discuss a wide range of issues, some serious, some not-so-serious. Of course, I’m not naive about the differences between a real barbershop and a blog read by tens of thousands of people. I didn’t write the piece in spite of the venue but because of it.

In my opinion, a discussion about Malcolm’s sexuality is both interesting and useful because it allows us to reconsider Black sexuality and the possibilities for Black manhood. For me, the “Was Malcolm Gay?” question, in and of itself, is largely inconsequential. This isn’t about biographical excavation or voyeurism, it’s about “biocriticism.” In other words, I’m interested in determining the lessons and insights that this part of Malcolm’s life provides us.

Undoubtedly, as many people have reminded me, there are enormous stakes attached to such public analysis. To be sure, one of the greatest dangers of constructing Malcolm as queer is that it will hurt his hero status among Black people. To me, such an outcome would reflect our collective homphobia and narrow conception of heroism rather than the corrosive effects of psychosexual analysis.

Lastly, many peope have asked if I have an agenda that prompted me to raise these questions publically. The answer is yes and no. As a public intellectual, I am committed to various forms of truth-telling that I think will yield redemptive possibilities for the world. As a straight Black male and LGBT ally, I am particularly invested in reimagining the world in ways that allow Black people, irrespective of sexual orientation, to live their lives without the limited and limiting conceptions of identity and that are prefigured for people based on their sexual desires and practices. In that sense, yes, I have an agenda. As far as “trying to bring Brother Malcolm down” as one person put it, I have no such desire. If anything, in exposing his contours, complexities, and contradictions, I genuinely believe that Malcolm becomes an even more fascinating, important, and heroic, and human figure than ever before.

Last Friday, DMX was cited for carrying a concealed handgun outside of a Scottsdale, Arizona nightclub last Friday. According to police, DMX was stopped near an Arizona nightclub after he was seen taking a handgun and placing it underneath the front seat of the car he was driving. DMX, who was not arrested, was cited for a misdemeanor charge of not having a permit to conceal the weapon in the vehicle.

Since he was not arrested, it’s safe to assume that DMX is legally allowed to own a gun. In the last decade, DMX has been arrested and jailed for drugs, guns, car theft, drunkeness, and impersoanting a Federal officer. What state in the free world would allow him to possess a firearm? Additionally, and perhaps more fundamentally, at what point do grown rich people just stop doing dumb shit?