Lee Saw Inequity--and Acted on It

Several years ago, I attended a conference of philanthropists in Atlanta where then-Mayor Andrew Young spoke on issues of equity and justice. During the Q&A;, someone asked Young if, being black, he could really be mayor for “ all of Atlanta.”

I’ll always remember his answer: “Metropolitan Atlanta has a black majority,” he said with a smile. “So when we talk about affirmative action here, we’re talking about guaranteeing the rights of white folks--and I never get any complaints about that .”

Touche.

The Calendar pieces outlining the controversy Spike Lee engendered when he told several publications of his preference to have African-American reporters interview him on the making of his newest film, “Malcolm X,” immediately made me think of that anecdote (“Jewish Group Calls Spike Lee’s Preference Illegal,” Calendar, Oct. 31; “Spiking Back,” Nov. 2). Lee’s request may seem racist on its surface--until you consider the context.

If he hadn’t asked for more black writers, Rolling Stone, Vogue and Premiere might well have assigned the story to white reporters. It was, after all, a plum.

And, face it: Like a lot of mainstream, upscale publications, they have few (in many cases no ) black writers on staff. Nor do they routinely use contributions by black photographers. (We’re just supposed to buy the magazines and be happy when black faces get to appear in them.)

Editorial coverage shouldn’t be ghettoized, but it often is, and it usually goes one way. (White reporters can cover black stories, but it’s often a struggle to reverse the equation.)

Lee recognized the inequity in that and acted on it--and not for the first time. When he was asked to be the guest editor of Spin magazine two Augusts ago, the bulk of his writers were black. It was probably the largest number of black bylines Spin has seen before or since, and that particular month exuded a vitality that has yet to be duplicated by subsequent issues.

In requesting black coverage of “X,” Lee was doing two things: He was increasing the possibility that the people sent to talk to him had an understanding of the subject matter and, hence, some notion of the mission he was attempting. And he was, once again, giving visibility to writers who otherwise might have been shut out of the system, which tends to use people it knows, and with whom it is comfortable. Which usually does not include us.

We’re poised on the threshold of the 21st Century, and there is no plausible excuse for national magazines or major metropolitan newspapers of any stature to employ so few African-American journalists. (The Times is as good an example as any; Calendar, a section that covers popular culture, which is highly influenced by black culture, has a total of three salaried black reporters, having recently added one.)

That the situation exists at this stage in America’s development perhaps says more about the true interest of mainstream publications and our societal evolution than it does about Lee’s alleged racism.

Actually, I’d love it if Lee’s stated preference was the beginning of a trend. Imagine if Denzel, Eddie, Wesley, Oprah, Arsenio and Magic did the same thing for, say, six months. Publishers (and I daresay, white writers) would be furious. But they’d acquiesce--because they would have to. Those African-Americans make news on a regular basis.

And white editors would discover something startling: They’d realize that there actually are non-white people out there who can craft a story and file it on time without any handholding or slack being cut for them--who are, in short, as good as the white people they normally use.

Apparently, it takes something outrageous--like three days of massive civil unrest or a pointed request by one of the country’s hottest young directors--to address the issue. Having done that, it is up to the rest of the publishing world to decide whether or not it is going to, in Lee’s phrase, “Do the Right Thing.”