http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/200...-or-just-blunt/

 

The authors – Clark Atlanta University political science professors Keith Jennings and William Boone – say that electing a white mayor in Atlanta would be as historic as the 1973 election of Maynard Jackson, the city’s first black mayor. The election became a mile marker in the South’s civil rights struggle.

 

In that light, they say, the need for blacks to band together today to elect a black mayor – or at least someone highly sympathetic to black issues – are equally important in order to forward a “black agenda.”

 

“Time is of the essence because in order to defeat a [Mary] Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout in the general election,” they wrote in the proprietary memo, which was written for the city’s Black Leadership Council.

 

more at link.

I think the most important parts of that story are the following:

 

But the authors said their observations are grounded in fact. They pointed to a Pew Study that lists Atlanta as one of the most segregated cities in the country, and noted that 60 percent of Atlanta’s young blacks grow up in poverty.

 

Arguments can also be made that black mayors haven’t been able to make significant gains for the black community, and that race has moved from a primary to secondary qualification among the city’s voters.

 

It's not a black or white issue, as Atlanta's politics have been dominated by black politicians for a significant period now. Its a socioeconomic issue. The status quo (black, white, or whatever) hasn't served the community in a way people want. It's too bad these two professors feel that race is a more important factor than actually fixing problems in the city.

It's ok to be racist if you aren't white.