Chicago Tribune from Chicago, Illinois • Page 2-11

showed them that it can be bought by wealthy blacks. A similar racial divide followed death. There was no cheering, to the best of my knowledge, in black barbershops or beauty salons, but there also was not a lot of weeping. Many believed that Reagan played the race card himself when he announced his 1980 presidential candidacy in Philadelphia, three civil rights workers were slain 40years ago. Many believed his attacks against social programs and affirmative action were code words for a halt to black progress.

Although I used a lot of ink criticizing Reagan in the 1980s, I take a more charitable view of his motives. At best, I think his image adviser, Michael Deaver, was right when he said Reagan was about race. is painfully ironic to me that the death of President Ronald Reagan came so near to the 10th anniversary of the O.J. Simpson murder case. Both tragedies polarized Americans along lines of race, but also demonstrated how much the races still need to learn from each other.

There were not a lot of black faces among the crowds who paid tribute to the 40th president, certainly not when compared to the multihued masses that turned out for the funerals of Presidents Franklin D. F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. And 10 years after the June 12, 1994, deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, a recent NBC News poll found that today 87 percent of whites and only 29 percent of blacks think O.J.

Simpson is guilty. Both tragedies dramatized how differently most black and white Americans still view the world, with Latino, Asian, American and other non-white opinions gravitating toward one pole or the other, depending on the issue. verdict produced shockingly different reactions between the blacks and shocked were caught by television cameras. Suddenly whites and blacks who had been working and socializing in seeming harmony were made aware of the continuing gulf between them. For the record, I thought Simpson probably was guilty but that the prosecution had not fully proved its case.

But nuanced views like that did not get much attention in the media at the time. The worst consequence of that ugly episode, in my African-American view, was its cost to black innocence. Just as Harper Kill A classic wins great sympathy for the historical victimiza- tion of innocent blacks by all- white juries, the Simpson trial transmitted to many minds an image of a guilty-but-rich black celebrity freed by a nearly all- black jury and a black lawyer who the race Some of my black friends, by contrast, told me that they cheered because they were relieved to find a rather perverse form of racial progress in the controversial verdict, that after years of believing that not even money and celebrity status could buy the kind of justice that rich white men usually get, Simpson I could hear that in voice when he said during the 1980 GOP convention that his party respected people as not As with other issues, Reagan seemed to see only warm, engaging anecdotes, not cold, hard statistics. Black folks, by contrast, have always been discriminated against as a group and made most of their progress as a group. view called on blacks to give up an important resource, their community bonds, for no immediate reward.

Yetit is part of legacy that he made the world safe for black conservatives like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and others who follow the tradition of Booker T. Washington, the preeminent black conservative of the early 20th Century. Washington believed that conservative values like education, hard work and self-reliance could work for blacks as well as anyone else, despite the pain of lynchings, segregation, voter disenfranchisement and other abuses. His views were far more popular with whites than blacks, who gravitated to W.E.B.

DuBois and the emerging civil rights movement of the NAACP. Some things have not changed. Yettoday we also hear seemingly conservative values echoing in unusual places, like Bill recent bracing and controversial comments about the need for low-income blacks to work harder to help themselves, even as upper-income blacks, like Cosby, try to help them. While many blacks criticized him for sounding like a snob, many others, like me, applaud his candor. Cosby was only expressing in public the frustrations many blacks feel in private about the limits of the traditional liberal agenda.

I hope his candor will lead to a new dialogue among blacks about which liberation strategies will work best in this new century. If it does lead to a new dialogue, history may show this to be another unexpected legacy of the Reagan years: He made conservative values safe for blacks to express in public again. Clarence Page is a member of the editorial board. Email: cpti Our great racial divide Illustration by Roman Genn From O.J. to Reagan, race looms large Clarence Page 123456 SECTION2CHICAGO TRIBUNE 11 COMMENTARY: Manuscripts may be submitted to the Op-Ed Page by mail, e-mail or fax (312-222-2598).

Because of the volume of submissions, we acknowledge only those that we intend to use. Manuscripts sent by mail will be returned only if they are accompanied by a self- addressed, stamped envelope LETTERS: We invite readers to share their thoughts with us by writing to the Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Chicago, IL 60611, by e-mail to or via fax to 312-222-2598. Include your name, address and phone number. The more concise the letter, the better the chances for publication.

COMMENTARY By Eugene Cullen Kennedy Rev. John Jay Hughes, a distinguished Catholic scholar, recently reminded me that if we could read the mail that crosses a Catholic desk every day, we would be more sympathetic to them and more understanding of the statements they make and the orders they give. What, then, passed across Cardinal Francis desk or path that convinced him that the very best thing he could do on Pentecost, the greatest feast of the church year, was to order the good priests at Holy Name Cathedral to deny the Eucharist last month to homosexuals wearing rainbow sashes? What theological revelation exploded like old-fashioned flash powder to wash the mind with its light, leading him to decide that taking a stand against sash-wearing gays was the perfect public way to celebrate the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit? He claimed that the order a condemnation of homosexuality, but a declaration of the Even Catholics sympathetic to the daily pressures are hard pressed, not to say puzzled, at how sash- wearers could threaten the sanctity by presenting themselves to receive it. And they may think that the cardinal needs more time away from the office after his explanation that is about Jesus Christ. not supposed to be any other kind of statement.

They can receive Communion, but not by Protesting seems to be the operative word in the insight. He expressed great distress a few years ago that gays were demonstrating outside Holy Name Cathedral and ordered that Communion not be distributed to any of them. Then-cathedral pastor Rev. Robert McLaughlininter- vened, expressing a fairly Catholic thought, deny Communion to anyone at Holy the kind of Christian behavior, according to some observers, that led to departure, by way of a one-sentence letter from the cardinal, some months later. Homosexual Catholics, along with all other Catholics, have a right to the sacraments, according to Canon 213 of church law, and the cardinal, along with all other bishops, has an obligation to provide them.

Gay Catholics wear rainbow sashes to identify themselves publicly as believers who want to practice their faith and to be nourished by the sacraments. These men and women did not roll raucously down the aisle on the floats of a gay-pridepa- rade. Nor did they carry placards, shout, waveor set fire to anything. They did not disrupt the liturgical celebration but only presented themselves, as all Catholics do, as sinners seeking forgiveness, as humans hungry for the bread of the Eucharist. Gays have grounds for protest, of course, especially after a Vatican document claimed that they bear within them intrinsic and Pope John Paul spokesman speculated that homosexuals may not be capable of valid ordination to the priesthood.

Many commentators have tried to make them the scapegoats for the entire clergy sex- abuse scandal, which has brought so much grief in recent years. But they were not protesting or inscribing heretical theses on the cathedral doors. They were being Catholics, like every other Catholic in the cathedral, aware of their sinfulness and also aware that one of the effects of the Eucharist is the forgiveness of our sins. The cardinal may have acted after a bad day to give gays a worse morning, and it is hard to see how his conspiracy theory of protest holds up. Is there, we might ask, a less Catholic thing to do than to give these men and women a handshake in place of the sacrament? How many Knights of Columbus of some papal order have entered Holy Name Cathedral wearing sashes over hearts as hardened and corrupted as any in the history of Christendom.

How many murderous gangsters have been borne down this aisle to have priests bury them with a mass and a last blessing if the most basic thing about Catholicism is not its willingness to face and forgive sinners? How many clerics, wearing sashes of their own on their cassocks, have been more hypocritical than these sash-wearing gays about themselves and their lives? Perhaps we can understand that even cardinals have bad days, but these days should not lead them to demean people who have been demeaned enough already and to make Catholicism seem the abodeof the perfect when it is best understood as a home for sinners. Eugene Cullen Kennedy, a former priest, is professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University of Chicago. His most recent book is Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Tribune photo by Stacey Wescot Dennis Kluge, a member of the Rainbow Sash movement, attended mass at Holy Name Cathedral last month. Even cardinals have bad days Homosexual Catholics, along with all other Catholics, have a right to the sacraments, and the church has an obligation to provide them hen I was a lad, my family spent a couple of summer vacations at a pleasant lake in central Texas called Granite Shoals. But in 1965, during the prime of my boyhood, it was renamed for a local product who had risen to the White B.

Johnson. It became Lake LBJ. From a distinctive, well- loved name that evoked the natural terrain of the region to a charmless label advertising a major my idea of progress. The change had the odd effect of not only increasing my dislike of Johnson but reducing my affection for the lake. Disciples of Ronald Reagan might consider that before proceeding with their drive to put his name or face on anything they can think of.

The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project has the goal of at least one notable public landmark in each state and all 3,067 counties after the 40th Last week, there was a slew of other proposals to honor him. Among them: replacing Franklin Roosevelt on the dime, John Kennedy on the 50- cent piece, Alexander Hamil- ton on the $10 bill or Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Other ideas include naming the Pentagon after him and even putting his visage on Mt. Rushmore. Some suggestions have already been adopted: Illinois Gov.

Rod Blagojevich quickly named a section of Interstate Highway 88after Reagan. But there are lots of sound conservative reasons to resist the demands. One is that restraint is a virtue. Not everything worth doing is worth overdoing. At some point, an admirable impulse becomes an unhealthy mania.

Another reason for delay is that a tribute should be proportionate to the stature of the person being honored. But accurately judging a achievements requires perspective that comes only with time. Acting in haste often means acting unwisely. Not many his- torians would say Kennedy deserves more recognition than John Adams, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson or Harry Truman. But after assassination, sentiment got the better of us.

Sometimes good sense eventually prevailed: Cape Canaveral, launch site, was renamed for Kennedy just six days after his death, but 10 years later, local residents managed to restore the original, 400-year-old name. Unfortunately, the hauntingly titled Idlewild Airport in New York became John F. Kennedy International Airport, and JFK it remains. Even if Reagan is more deserving of honors than Johnson or Kennedy, which I think he is, the rush? His name has already been attached to more than 60 things, including an aircraft carrier and the main airport in the capital, to ensure he be forgotten. If he looks as important in 2014 as he does today, or more so, Americans will find ways to give him his due.

The policy here should follow the wisdom of the U.S. Postal Service, which bars commemorative stamps for anyone until he or she has been dead for 10 years. The only exception is and even they be honored until their first birthday after they die. What would Reagan do? Well, he signed a law barring monuments on the National Mall until 25 years after the demise. Even the most partisan Republican can hardly claim that Reagan is important enough to usurp FDR, whose imprint sur- passes that of any other 20th Century president.

In fact, liberals could argue that one of chief accomplishments was preserving all the New Deal programs that conservatives once hoped to dismantle. Conservatives might respond that a large chunk of the federal budget could be seen as an extravagant monument to FDR. It would be a shame to evict Alexander Hamilton from one of his few visible perches. Hamilton played a central role in creating the Constitution, giving shape to the presidency under George Washington and erecting the framework for a free economy. His latest biographer, Ron Chernow, says Hamilton was probably foremost political figure in American history who never attained the Reagan might gag at dissing the patron saint of American capitalism.

Some of the proposals answer a question nobody asked. The Pentagon needs a new name like the Sistine Chapel needs a new ceiling. Mt. Rushmore is also perfect the way it is. Reaganites should not have to be told of the conservative maxim: it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to At the moment, they think a great idea to use every means to pay tribute to an accomplished two-term president who was beloved by many.

They might keep in mind that whatever they do for Reagan may someday be done for Bill Clinton. Steve Chapman is a member of the editorial board. E-mail: Restraining the urge to honor Reagan Steve Chapman.