The NAACP turns 100 today, and John McWhorter asks if we still need the organization:
Upon which we must ask: Are the kinds of things the NAACP pays the most attention to these days really worthy of the organization's history? [Julian] Bond and other powers that be insist that the outfit remain focused on protest against discrimination, rather than social services--in fact, Bruce Gordon left the presidency in 2007, after a mere year and a half, on seeing how implacably wedded the NAACP top brass are to this posture.The mainstream press just does not care about the internal politics of the black community unless it involves some kind of scolding. I find the advocacy vs. services debate somewhat mystifying, because I don't hear anyone else suggesting that the NRA should stop fighting for gun rights because Heller was decided in their favor. The NAACP does a lot of lobbying and contributing to legislation, but they really only make the headlines when they're putting out an annoying press release about the lack of black characters on prime-time television.Minorities and women are the only political interest groups whose need to be an organized part of our political culture is constantly being questioned.No one asks whether we still need the Corn Refiners Association now that high-fructose corn syrup is in everything we put in our mouths. But we're always asking whether organizations like the NAACP still need to exist. It's really not a question of racism, it's a question of whether black people still retain shared political interests as a group. It's fair to ask, as McWhorter does, whether the NAACP still represents those interests the way it should, but I don't think I agree that there's no longer any need for black advocacy organizations.
At any rate, going back to McWhorter's comment, the services vs. advocacy debate is important, but it's not the entire reason Gordon stepped down. Gordon was a particularly poor financial manager, some of the NAACP folks I've spoken to said that he spent money like a corporate executive, but he didn't raise money like one. The NAACP's tax filing from 2006 show the organization running a deficit of about $4 million -- ideology or not, that kind of fiscal management would probably make anyone lose confidence in a chief executive.
In any case, I have a feature story about the NAACP and its new president, Ben Jealous, in the March print issue of TAP, so you'll get to read my take soon. Of course, if you subscribe, you'll get to read it even sooner...
-- A. Serwer
