Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, October 7, 1995 TAG: 9510090031
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The local chapter had as much right to unwelcome Kay Coles James, the state secretary of health and human resources, as it did to welcome her in the first place. James' voice hasn't been officially suppressed. Indeed, she has plenty of opportunity to air her views - more than most people enjoy.
Nor is it that James' feelings might have been hurt by the violation of etiquette. We don't know if they were or not. But she is a savvy government official accustomed to rough-and-tumble politics and well aware that her policies and views, a number of them rather extreme, have made her less than popular in some quarters. She'll survive the insult.
No, what we find regrettable about the NAACP's move is that it casts the organization in a bad light. It was a bad decision.
The chapter withdrew the invitation apparently under pressure from the NAACP's state organization. A few days after the Richmond office wrote to the local president, the Rev. Charles Green, a few Roanokers delivered a protest as well. "On numerous occasions," said their letter, "Ms. James has publicly shown a lack of sensitivity for African-American interests, as well as families struggling in today's economic and political environment."
Speaking of political environment, the missive was signed by Onzlee Ware, an NAACP member who happens to be 6th District Democratic Chairman. The other signers also are Democratic Party activists.
Hmmm. Might partisan politics have played a role here?
The letter said as much. Providing a platform for James, it warned, "gives the appearance that the Republican Party has quietly and smoothly used the local branch to legitimize the governor's agenda . . . ."
Hmmm. Did it occur to NAACP officials that the Democratic Party may have quietly and smoothly used the local branch for its purposes?
The NAACP is a great organization with a long tradition of fighting for people's rights. It should not fear, or appear to fear, what James has to say.
The state office has problems with the welfare overhaul overseen by James. Fine. We won't get into a discussion of welfare here (except to observe that, while some of the Allen administration's policies are mean-spirited, the status quo wasn't doing much for black communities, either). Our point is that inviting someone to speak at a banquet doesn't constitute an endorsement of her views.
Indeed, we think James was a good choice for keynote speaker. Welfare reform is on the minds of many these days. NAACP members and guests might have been challenged by what she had to say, and could have had an opportunity to challenge her back. That's what dialogue is about.
Is the NAACP leadership too deep in the Democratic Party's pocket to see this?
by CNB