Reflections of a Morehouse Graduate : A conversation sparked by the recent controversy at Morehouse College - by Dr. Elfred A. Pinkard, Class of '74

The Making of a Morehouse Man


Recently, the president of Morehouse College took the bold move of instituting an Appropriate Attire Policy for the young men who matriculate at the college. The resulting controversy suggests that the policy struck a raw nerve. The strong reaction was clearly fueled by the comments of a college official who suggested that the policy was developed to respond to five young men at the college who were “living an openly gay lifestyle” as evidenced by their dressing in women’s clothing. This statement was issued despite the fact that a reading of the policy reveals the prohibition of the wearing of women’s attire as the ninth point of an eleven point list of prohibited attire. Few subjects will impassion black folks more than the mention of homosexuality. The prospect of Morehouse College teeming with cross-dressing young men set the radio waves, blogs, emails and internet chat lines on fire. This, subsequently, became the headline and the resulting discussion generated more heat than light which obscured the real understanding of and rationale for the dress code and its broader implications for Morehouse College and the education of young African American males.

For those who attempted to get beyond the cross dressing and engage in an intelligent discussion about the policy, a recurring theme expressed by those critical of the policy was the belief that standards of decorum and dress should be taught at home and should not be the province of the college. This is a sentiment about which we can all agree. The reality, however, is that this kind of old-fashioned, time-honored home-training no longer occurs in many homes. The popularity of hip hop and the ascendency of casual, carefree dressing as an acceptable cultural norm have resulted in sloppiness in dressing and behavior among many young males and young black men are no exception. The critics of the policy have further suggested that this focus on a dress code is superficial and misdirects the important attention on education. However, it is dangerously naïve to think that dress does not offer important clues about a young black man’s value and potential. There are rules of engagement in civilized societies and we make immediate and lasting assumptions and judgments about young black men based on appearance and their public presentation of self.

In a culture which has historically and continues to criminalize and marginalize young black men based largely on stereotypes perpetuated by violent, disturbing and degrading images, can we afford to allow our best and brightest to appropriate attire that is associated with the most unsavory images of contemporary young black men? There is nothing redeeming or uplifting about looking like a thug, appearing in public in pajamas, do-rags, sagging pants or sporting gold “grillz” over perfectly healthy teeth. Furthermore, men simply do not wear women’s clothing under circumstances which approximate acceptable social engagement.

Without apology or explanation, the Morehouse College campus should be distinguishable from the “hood”. Critics have noted that on predominantly white college campuses, young men wear what they want. To that I would assert that under no circumstances should the unacceptable behavior of young white men be modeled by young black men! Despite our desire to have it otherwise, the fact remains that young men dressed in attire associated with thugs will be treated like thugs. Clothing which suggests a sloppiness and disregard for decorum usually results in undisciplined, thuggish behavior. In preparing Morehouse students as leaders and social change-agents, Morehouse must equip them with an arsenal of skills and habits that will facilitate and not disadvantage. Requiring young men to think more critically and intentionally about how they behave and present themselves is a legitimate part of a Morehouse education. The college experience should be transformative; moving a young man into manhood while expanding and refining his intellectual repertoire, world view, perspective, and presentation of self in a world that is most often skeptical about what he has to offer.

Having declared that Morehouse men will be renaissance men who are “well read, well spoken, well traveled, well dressed and well balanced”, the president of Morehouse College has every right to expect a standard of dress and decorum at the institution over which he presides. He would have been irresponsible not to address this issue. This is clearly not about a few young men who choose to flaunt convention and test the boundaries of tolerance by choosing to wear women’s clothing at an all male college; but is instead about the larger more profound issue of what we will require of our young men as they craft personal definitions of self and what is acceptable in their journey to honorable manhood. Indeed, clothes don’t make the man, but they are an introduction.

Elfred Anthony Pinkard
Morehouse College “74


Share

Reflections of Leadership

Yes WE Can

"WIRE"D for Dysfunction

Entrepreneurs From China Flourish in Africa

clipped from www.nytimes.com Entrepreneurs From China Flourish in Africa A Malawian and a Chinese man working in a Chinese restaurant in Lilongwe, Malawi. More Photos > LILONGWE, Malawi — When Yang Jie left home at 18, he was doing what people from China’s hardscrabble Fujian Province have done for generations: emigrating in search of a better living overseas. What set him apart was his destination. Instead of the traditional adopted homelands like the United States and Europe, where Fujian people have settled by the hundreds of thousands, he chose this small, landlocked country in southern Africa. “Before I left China,” said Mr. Yang, now 25, “I thought Africa was all one big desert.” So he figured that ice cream would be in high demand, and with money pooled from relatives and friends, he created his own factory at the edge of Lilongwe, Malawi’s capital. The climate is in fact subtropical, but that has not stopped his ice cream company from becoming the country’s biggest.

US fears grow over China military

The US has expressed concern over China's growing military might.

A Pentagon report given to Congress says Beijing is spending far more on its military budget than admitted and calls for greater transparency.

The report highlights China's greater ability to mount pre-emptive strikes, citing new submarines, unmanned combat aircraft and sophisticated missiles.

China said in March it was increasing its military spending by 17.8% in 2007 but it still lags far behind the US.

The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the Pentagon paints a picture of a country whose growing economic and political power is being mirrored in "a comprehensive military transformation".

The annual report says Beijing is moving towards a more pre-emptive defence strategy with the focus on its border areas.

It would be nice to hear first-hand from the Chinese... we wish there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are
Robert Gates
US Defence Secretary

It suggests that the possibility of US intervention in any crisis in the Taiwan Strait is an important factor in China's military planning.

The report also describes a successful anti-satellite weapon test conducted by the Chinese in January as posing a threat to "all space-faring nations".

As in previous reports, there was strong complaint about a lack of transparency in both China's military spending and its military aims.

"It would be nice to hear first-hand from the Chinese... we wish there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are," US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday, prior to the report's release.

Its publication comes at the end of a week when a high level Chinese delegation has been in Washington discussing areas of economic tension - and is a further sign that the levels of trust between Washington and Beijing are currently not very high, our correspondent says.

'Nuclear forces'

The Pentagon report highlights concerns about China's preparations to deploy a mobile, land-based ballistic missile, with a range that reportedly covers the entire United States.

The development of a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with ballistic missiles with a range of more than 8,000km (5,000 miles), is also cited.

Experts say the Jin-class vessels are capable of carrying 12 missiles, with each one armed with three nuclear warheads.

One of these Chinese-built submarines is currently undergoing tests, and five more are planned, says Andrew Yang of the Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taiwan.

Previously China had just one nuclear-powered submarine, which was so unreliable it rarely travelled far from its base, Mr Yang said.

He added: "The Americans are concerned about whether a gradual build-up of nuclear forces implies China will change its nuclear policy of no first use."

Natural consequence

Over the last 15 years, China has been engaged in a massive military build-up and modernisation programme.

It plans to allocate 350.9bn yuan ($45.9bn) to its military this year, although some analysts say Beijing spends double or treble this amount.

However, the BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says US opinion is divided over the strategic challenge posed by China.

Some see it as an emerging threat that must be countered at every turn - others take a more benign view, seeing China's increased military expenditure as a natural consequence of its growing economic power, our correspondent says.
Story from BBC NEWS:

What US policy initative changed in 12 years?

Submitted by Eldred V. Harris, JD.


In April 1991, after the Gulf War, Dick Cheney, then G.H.W. Bush's secretary of defense, explained why his administration did not continue into Iraq to remove Hussein:

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there....How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the U.S. military when it's there?...I think to have American military engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of a quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."

Quoted by Atonia Juhasz in The Bush Agenda,, p. 174.


So What US policy imitative could've changed so much in in 13 years?
Was it:

• That we could no longer keep GM, Ford etc., on artificially, large SUV, life support by maintaining $1.50 gas for an additional 15 years?

• That we trust the Saudis so little, that we needed to be within spitting range to spy on their new conversations with China?

• That we really would just like to rename Iraq - Exxon, and Iran - Mobil, and create the worlds first two "corporate states" and be done with it?

• That we were running out of fake reasons and strong-arm tactics to continue to force others around the globe to accept our Midwestern farmer's corn, so we created a fake need for expansion of corn based fuel products right here in the US?