Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan writes:
If the confrontation plays all the way out, George will lose his job. That will not be good, and I say that not just because I like George. Firing him would be racially divisive. A lot of people in the black community see the dispute as a matter of respect. George is the chief. Where’s the respect?There has not been much in the tone of the mayor’s rhetoric. It’s almost as if the mayor thinks history started yesterday. I mean, come on, this is about race. George came through the ranks when the association was pretty much a white guys’ club. Nothing unusual about that. My dad was a union electrician in Chicago and I remember when his union was that way. Those fellows felt that they were protecting what was theirs.
I remember the business agent talking to my father. “If your son wants to get into the union, he’s not going to have to wait in line behind any blacks,” he said, although he used another word for blacks. It’s a word we don’t use any more. Times have changed, and thank goodness for that.
But it’s easier for white guys like me or the mayor to say that times have changed.
Click here to read his insightful column.
Kristen Hinman writes on the Riverfront Times blog:
Bryson, who has worked in Mayor Francis Slay’s office for just shy of seven years and has a background in social work, brings an additional new perspective to the director’s office –- that of an African-American. “One of the reasons the mayor chose me is so that we can work on race relations,†says Bryson.Race has long been said to be a factor in the tenuous relationship between George and city hall. “If you talk to clergymen on the north side,†points out Bryson, “they will suggest that part of the problem in the past between the public-safety director and the fire chief may have been race.â€
Bryson says he and George already have “a good working relationship†from having made the rounds at various public boards and commissions over the past few years.
As the new public-safety director puts it: “My race will not be an ace in my pocket. It will be a different way of looking at things.â€
Click here to vote for PubDef.net in the RFT’s “Best of St. Louis” Poll
Loading ...
September 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am
George’s decision not to make promotions is based on race, so it’s not like he’s been operating from a race-neutral position. Saying Slay is the first to play the race card is therefore incorrect.
So long as the City has a hiring quota based on race and there is a demonstrated racial disparity in scores in the hiring examination, there will also be a disparity in promotional examinations.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
George’s decision to not promote is NOT based on race, but on his belief that the tests do not provide an accurate assessment of firefighting skills.
FIRE’s position is based on race, George’s is not. A most important distinction.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Who said Slay was the FIRST to play the race card? I think what is being said is just that race IS a factor in this drama.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Sylvester Brown had a great column today—with substantive insights about how firemen were evaluated back to 1997.
When I said something to McClellan about Slay’s racial attitudes regarding the slps situation last year, he categorically dismissed any possibility that Slay could be affected in that way—his track record was too strong. I am wondering if his views have evolved.
It seems to me that in St. Louis, some of the most prominent black voices—educated, respected people with records of accomplishments—often hold more conservative political views than a lot of St. Louis voters. It is tricky, but not necessarily inaccurate, to accuse a white politician of underlying institutional racial bias.
By the way, Antonio, thanks for the excellent medical advice to back away from my computer for a few days. I played more music, mowed the lawn, and kept a wary eye on the Cardinals, the Rams, and General P, not that it did any good.
But i still wish i had something more than Steve G.’s sketchy report of last Thursday’s slps board meeting.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Would someone please point me to an article (or write one) that explains the history behind this dispute, and how race came into play? Every article I find on this talks about how racially charged it is, especially now that the ACLU is involved, but none explain what, over the past 3 years, has occurred to bring us to this point.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Also useful listening is this interview with Mayor Slay one day after Chief George’s interview:
http://paulharrisonline.blogspot.com/2007/08/fired-up-mayor-slay-responds.html
Call me naive, but if Mayor Slay and Chief George are really friends, like they claim to be, perhaps Mayor Slay is making these big motions so that he can help Chief George show publicly that he’s doing everything he can to placate those who don’t want the promotions to be made, before he goes ahead and makes the promotions.
I dunno… maybe I’m giving them too much credit, but I would like to think that everyone is doing what they sincerely believe is honest and good.
Of course, now that the ACLU is involved… hard to say where this is going to shake out. Did Chief George actively seek out their involvement, or did they invite themselves into the situation?
September 12th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Racial bias in tests is a serious issue and it has been found that tests do have bias as certain questions, or the wording of them, simply do not relate to the experiences of the poor or people from different cultural backgrounds.
Here is an article: