The Buzz: Race is Always the "Elephant" in the RoomNotwithstanding all of the myriad issues associated with the Trayvon Martin case, I want to focus on the claim by Juror B37, the defense attorneys and countless other pundits that race was not the issue.

We are delusional if we really believe race was not the basis for the whole sad series of events. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves as a country if we continue to perpetuate the notion that we live in a post racial, race neutral or color blind society.  We just need to look at the glaring disparities in health, education, incarceration and unemployment rates between Blacks and whites.

When someone looks at me and says, I am color blind (which happens all too often), it means that they have noticed race or why else would they make the comment. By the way, I do not want to live in a color blind society. I think we should acknowledge, respect, appreciate, accept (and all of those affirming diversity type words) racial differences. They are real, natural, normal. I am an African American woman and you can see me as such.

However, Trayvon Martin was absolutely profiled and stereotyped.

This fact was acknowledged by both sides.  But to say it was not about his race is ludicrous in my opinion. Why else was he profiled? No other reason than he was a young black man in a neighborhood that had seen a rash of burglaries committed by young black men. Maybe I am missing something, but Trayvon’s race raised George Zimmerman’s suspicions. If Trayvon had been white he would not have looked like a burglar.

Juror B37 made several statements that suggested she did consider race…maybe it was unconscious…but it was a part of her thinking. She said she could relate to George Zimmerman, empathized with him but did not know anything about “that boy”.  I conjecture that she had preconceived notions about Trayvon and prosecution witness, Rachel Jeantel.  She felt sorry for Rachel who she described as uneducated and inarticulate. I believe that translated in to “not credible” for Juror B37. Trayvon was more likely to be in the wrong because of her perceptions of young Black men. George, even though he used poor judgment, was more likely telling the truth. Why did Juror B37 think that? Was it because the defense made a more compelling case? That’s one theory. However, Juror B37 believed that Trayvon could have walked away. She believed that he was primarily responsible for his death. Why couldn’t George Zimmerman have walked away? Why couldn’t Zimmerman have remained in his car? Why was the burden on Trayvon in her mind?

In the United States of America, race is always one element of any interaction between Blacks and whites. It may not be the main element or it may not even be a negative but it is always present unless the individuals are physically blind. When I encounter someone who is white, it is one of the things I notice, just like I notice gender, age, height. I notice it as a descriptor but I would be deluding myself if I did not also acknowledge that I have biases, some more conscious than others that are also present and lead to snap judgments.

There is a whole body of literature on unconscious bias that would suggest we are very rarely neutral when it comes to difference, and more compelling, judgments about Blacks are overwhelmingly more often negative than positive or neutral.

If my tone seems angry, I think I am.  I would add frustrated, weary, disappointed and disheartened. I have been doing this work for 29 years and it is incredulous that in 2013 where in some areas of diversity we have made great strides, but when it comes to race, it is still diversity’s four letter word.