Yet it seems that some at Princeton feel Obama has a special obligation to the current student body and her fellow alumni. In an open letter, Molly Alarcon, an opinion columnist for The Daily Princetonian, requests that the First Lady come to Princeton for the sole purpose of instructing audiences at her alma mater on how to address issues of race and diversity:

“Just as your ascension to the White House has given our country cause to think about race in America, your comments as the Class of 2010’s Class Day speaker on May 31, 2010, could encourage our campus to look inward at our racial problems. While racial dynamics here have improved since your time, we still have much work to do. It’s one thing if I write a column about racial issues on campus and quite another if you come tell us what we need to hear.” [Emphasis mine.]

Assuming that a person of color should do the work of teaching others (read: white people) about racism is an expression of racial privilege. After all, it’s not a subject that Michelle Obama speaks on very often in public, yet she’s been called upon by a white writer to “tell us what we need to hear.”

In a post on the popular blog Stuff White People Do, guest writer Belinda pointed out that

“… the irony and insult of that dynamic is that so many [people of color], now and throughout history, have already written and published extensively on the topic. These writers have effectively volunteered to educate white people, or to share their experiences of racism, or to further the ideas, language, and dialogue needed to combat racial privilege and disadvantage.”

She also noted that, “These authors are academics, activists, historians, journalists, artists, etc, etc. There is a vast body of work out there.” One wonders if the writer had made good use of Princeton’s abundant resources – libraries, professors, community groups – before calling upon Obama to further her anti-racist education.

It’s clear from the open letter that Alarcon already recognizes many of the challenges for racial diversity, education and tolerance which Princeton continues to face. Affirmative action policies, while progressive in nature, haven’t done much to increase the overall diversity of Princeton since Obama’s days as an undergraduate. The nonprofit organization Questbridge reports the racial diversity of Princeton undergraduates as overwhelmingly Caucasian (49%), with Asian-American student enrollment at 16%. Latinos and African-Americans each represent only 8% of the student population. Native-American students are less than 1%. It’s not too surprising to realize that thorny issues of race are swept under the carpet on a predominantly white-washed campus.

After all, this is the same university where Jian Li, a 2006 undergraduate applicant, filed a lawsuit claiming that his admission had been rejected because he was Asian-American. His lawsuit brought national attention to his case, sparking fierce debate about race and the college admissions process.

Rather than address Li’s charges through thoughtful commentary, The Daily Princetonian, as part of an annual Joke Issue, published an op-ed mocking Li’s complaints under the guise of “satire” with racist phrasing such as, “I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me.” In an editor’s note, the publication defended the piece by claiming, “We embraced racist language in order to strangle it. At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity.”

And Princeton needs Michelle Obama to show students the way to anti-racism? Something tells me they’ll require a lot more than a speech on Class Day to change attitudes on campus. But perhaps some hard-won wisdom can be gleaned from her legacy.

In Obama’s senior thesis, “”Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” she featured interviews with African-American alumni, analyzing how their perceptions of both the university and the African-American community evolved during their education at Princeton. She also wrote about how her time at Princeton had lead to feelings of intense alienation from her majority-white professors and peers. In her introduction, Obama observed that:

“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘Blackness’ than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.”

The last lines echoes powerfully in this context: once again, she has been seen as a woman of color first, positioned to educate others about issues of race, rather than as an alumna of distinguished accomplishment who could speak to the issues on which she has built her political platform as First Lady. It’s admirable that a member of the Princeton community expresses a need for more conversation on racism, but there are already many existing resources which could be utilized to spur campus dialogues.

Read books. Take classes. Seek out activities and groups which coincide with fostering conversation and change. But don’t ask Michelle Obama to do the hard work for you. She has enough on her plate.

This is what Smith had to say:

“Wanna tell me I’m too wide for the sky? Totally cool but fair warning folks: If you look like me, you may be ejected from Southwest. I know I’m fat, but was Captain Leysath really justified in throwing me off a flight for which I was already seated? Hey @SouthwestAir? F*ck making it right for me just ’cause I have a platform. I sat next to a big girl who was chastised for not buying an extra ticket because “all passengers deserve their space.” F*cking flight wasn’t even full! F*ck your size-ist policy.”

The age of social media means that corporations are no longer able to put a spin on incidents like this. Once a story goes viral, it gains a life of its own. Had this occurred to a passenger without celebrity status, it would simply be chalked up to (largely acceptable) prejudice against amorphous fat people, and forgotten about.

Kevin Smith is a man with over one million Twitter followers, however, and suddenly, the human element in this story was brought to life. Kevin is funny, successful and engaging, and is the opposite of the stereotypes attached to fatness. Many were able to quickly realize that the way he was treated was unacceptable. It is much harder to discriminate against someone once we have come to like them as much as we like Kevin Smith.

are the low prices even worth it?

Overall, though, fat-shaming is everywhere we turn. It happens in the erasure of fat bodies from the media. Women who are average weight are routinely photo-shopped to appear slimmer. Fat people earn less than skinny people, even though there is no substantial evidence that they are less competent. Doctors routinely ignore the medical complaints of fat people and assume that every illness or complaint is weight-related, even when the patient and medical evidence indicate otherwise.

We have been socialized to believe that fat is always the problem. If you cannot get a boyfriend, the answer is to lose weight. If you want to be successful in life, lose weight. The answer is always “lose weight.”

Michelle Obama recently announced the Let’s Move Campaign with the goal of eliminating childhood obesity within a generation. The New York Times quotes her:

“The truth is, our kids didn’t do this to themselves. Our kids didn’t choose to make food products with tons of fat and sugar and supersize portions, and then to have those foods marketed to them wherever they turn. There is a place in this life for cookies and ice cream and burgers and fries, that is a part of childhood. This is just about balance, about really small changes that can add up, like walking to school when you can, replacing soda with water or skim milk, trimming portions just a little.”

The initiative started by the Obama administration reifies the idea that fat should be a marker of our status. Though the administration claims that the initiative is to improve overall health, the fixation on fast food and portion size as the cause of obesity is highly unscientific. The greatest predictor for body shape, size and ability to fight disease is genetics. Just as it is possible to be fat and physically fit, it is also possible to be skinny and unhealthy. There are many that regularly consume diets high in fat and sugar, and yet their BMI falls within the so-called healthy range.

The First Lady’s platform is being run alongside of president Obama’s attempt to overhaul the health care system. When the anti-childhood obesity campaign is placed next to the healthcare debate, it helps reinforce the notion of what as a disease. High blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes are constantly mentioned in the two conversations, with a connection always made between these health issues and fat, thereby marking fat bodies as problematic and a drain upon society.

On a state level, the Mississippi legislature has considered a bill to ban obese people from eating at restaurants. Bill HB,282 specifically states:

“Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor.”

A person is considered to be obese if their BMI measures 30 and above. Of course, it was never made clear how the restaurants would decide if a patron should be banned from eating. This bill has been promoted as a way of “helping” fat people deal with their weight issues, when all it would do is isolate and humiliate them. It is nothing short of an attempt at legalized discrimination.

When discrimination becomes law, where do we draw the line? If fatness can be criminalized and legally understood as deviant there is nothing to stop the government from deciding tomorrow that people who are old, gay, transgendered, of colour, etc., are also in need of segregation to ensure their own development.

Meanwhile, Southwest has apologized for inconveniencing Smith, but its discriminatory policy remains unchanged, which means other, not-so-famous people will continue to suffer.

Like all news stories, this too will slowly lose its momentum, to be replaced by some other shocking example of discrimination, even as fat-shaming continues to become a systemic part of our society. Kevin Smith is just one of many people who have been thrown under the bus in this brave new world.

When the Obamas visited the Vatican, as a sign of respect, Michelle Obama donned a veil. The veil is no longer necessary to attend mass, however; it is seen as a sign of respect if one is in the presence of the Pope. Each first lady that has visited the Vatican has honoured this sign of respect by donning the veil, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

The veil is a very complex article of clothing, because it is filled with meanings that are both religious and secular in the sense that it promotes the patriarchal oppression of women. The leaders of the faith, regardless of denomination, have historically been male. Feminists have battled hard to reclaim the divine feminine in Christianity, however, such attempts continue to meet with great resistance.

The Bible is considered to be of divine inspiration and therefore its texts that address gender in a purely hierarchical sense are used to defend the role of man as ruler. For example, I Corinthians chapter 11 verses 8-9 state: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. In this, we can clearly see that the order of importance is God, man and then woman. Each gender is given a specific role to perform.

Though the Western world has a foundation that is based in the Judeo-Christian church, attendance has been dropping for decades. In an effort to appeal to younger congregants, to infuse the church with vitality, some compromises have been made. Many denominations have eliminated a strict dress code and it is not uncommon to see people arriving for Sunday worship in jeans and t-shirts.

The Catholic Church has been slow in keeping up with the modern construction of the world. It still advocates abstinence and is strictly against any form of birth control other than the rhythm method. While these prohibitions apply equally to male and female, because women are the ones that bear children, they form the basis of genderized oppression.

When one understands that the position of the Catholic Church is based in texts that are necessarily anti-woman, it is clear that any and all traditions serve to promote the proliferation of patriarchy. The wearing of a veil in the presence of the Pope promotes male headship. The Pope is an authority figure and has historically been male with the exception of one female (note: the existence of a female Pope is still hotly contested today). The Pope represents a direct ambassador to God and if woman is forever denied the ability to perform this role, and is forever placed in a submissive position, womanhood can never be understood as an equal being.

Michelle Obama certainly had the choice whether or not to follow tradition and wear a veil. However, as a woman who is under the constant attention of the media, a decision NOT to wear the veil would immediately have brought about censure.

Unlike his wife, Barack had no such decision to consider. Again, I Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 7 states, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Therefore, though the Pope is a religious figure and Obama is a politician, they could meet as equals. This relationship is further complicated by the fact that neither one of the Obamas is Catholic. The famous saying is “when in Rome, do as the Romans do,” however, should it really apply when conformity means debasement?

In the West we tend to understand women’s physical liberation as the ability to reveal the body, and yet this can be just as restricting as social pressure to veil. Until women are given the choice to do either without the decision being stigmatized, both options are repressive.

Michelle is not inferior to her husband, nor does she hold a second place standing to her husband in their marriage, but donning the veil to comply with tradition symbolizes the opposite of this fact. We have become so accustomed to honouring hierarchy that we do not realize that in so doing we expect each person to pay a personal cost for the categories that we have legitimized. The Pope may be considered a religious figure but in actuality he is nothing more than a man; a corporeal being that will one day return to ashes from whence he was created. In physicality, though male, he is deserving of no greater human respect than Michelle Obama or any other woman walking the earth. If respect entails the diminishment of a fellow human being, then the concept that we are all children in the eyes of God is truly false.

We are all somewhat uplifted by the Obama family however, overstating their ability to radically change the understanding of racialized bodies and in particular that of women of colour is indeed problematic. Even though they exist with a large degree of social power, they have continued to be assaulted by race-based attacks. Obama was most recently featured as a chimpanzee by the Post and it was only after a huge uproar that Rupert Murdoch finally apologized for the cartoon.

The ascension of the Obamas to the very pinnacle of power in the US has given many grounds to posit that we have moved into a post-racial world, but those claims can only be supported if we ignore the ways in which people of colour continue to be disenfranchised.

The high visibility of the Obamas has created new opportunities, but those only translate into new opportunities for those who already existed with a degree of social and economic privilege to begin with. As the staunch Washington insiders searched for blacks to include on their guest lists, those most likely to be approached for inclusion were already considered part of the Afro elite; celebrities and those belonging to old black sorority families quickly found themselves in high demand. It is not enough to say new opportunities for blacks without asking the question of opportunities for whom.

Even before the emancipation of blacks there has always existed a group that were elevated. They either possessed skills that were not common in the community, i.e. the ability to read, or had amassed a degree of financial comfort relative to the rest of the community. Some members were even granted increased opportunity due to hueism, i.e . the preferencing of those with a lighter skin tone.

Looking at the early photos of sororities at black colleges it is not uncommon to see them largely made up of light skinned blacks. Prominent families were known to openly prevent the marriage of their children to darker skinned blacks fearing a devaluation of social power for succeeding generations. Gradations in blackness became common place and the ability to achieve even marginal success quickly came to be associated with skin colour, and social circles.

The fact that many have fixated on the dark skin that Michelle Obama possesses only serves as proof that African Americans are well aware that even in this day of so-called increased equality, pigment still is very much an issue within the black community. The desire to praise Barack for choosing a dark skinned black woman as a wife, despite her obvious intelligence and beauty, speaks to our own internalized racism.

We have a tendency to congregate in, in-groups and out-groups and therefore, increased opportunity for some does not readily translate into increased opportunity for all. The basis of our society is hierarchical associations and it is this artificial ranking system that continues to trap generations in poverty. As a group, blacks very much need to believe in the idea of meritocracy even though we have shown by our own work ethic that the transfer of wealth is far more complicated than the ability to work hard.

The inability to own and transfer property down through generations has been a large stumbling block to the ability of blacks to accumulate capitol. Blacks have been working hard since the first of us stepped onto the western hemisphere however, unequal or no pay, racist loan officers, and the terrorist activities of various white power organizations, has clouded our ability to even purchase a family home.

It is not at all accidental that even blacks with good incomes and good to above average credit ratings were targeted in the mortgage fiasco. Black women were specifically directed to these loans adding a genderized element to the way in which the economy functions. If we do not believe that we can through our individual efforts pull ourselves up by our figurative boot straps, what hope is there to carry on? The lie is essential to our social health even though it wrongly places responsibility on the individual rather than the community.

The rise of the Obamas has quickened many social myths and we need to be weary of who is capitalizing and how this reifies our unequal social discourse. In particular the black community needs to hold our leaders accountable to ensure that those that have always existed with a degree of privilege relative to rest attempt to be more inclusive in their organizing efforts. The movement for change cannot be separated from class. Having an oppressor that looks like you is not very different from staring into the face of a white overseer. A change cannot be realized as long as we continue to employ the masters tools.

Though Michelle has openly stated that her job is to be “mom in chief”, she cannot be oblivious to the terrible burden that she carries of representing black womanhood to the world. Every step, every word, and every expression that she makes is carefully scrutinized in an effort to cast her, and all African American women, back into the role of social obsolescence.

Never has the world watched the actions and the decisions of a black woman the way that it has watched Michelle Obama. We have had our share of sheroes that deserve acclaim, and recognition, but none have been forced to play representative of a race, and a gender, in the way that Michelle has.

Michelle is the quintessential “mystical negress,” and whether she likes that role or not she will have to play it. As a BUPPIE she is a figure that white people of privilege can relate to with a certain amount of ease. It is only when she reveals her blackness and questions the systemic inequality that makes her experience the exception rather than the rule, does discomfort begin to enter the equation.

Imagine if during her interview with Barbara Walters, Michelle had talked about serving collard greens, how this would have altered the conversation.

To remain the idol of all, Michelle must deny, or create as invisible, any aspect of her identity that is uniquely African American. For acceptability to be maintained she must keep the conversation on a level that whites can feel comfortable with at all times; otherwise she will be reduced to an “exotic other” in an effort to discipline her into performing.

The complexities of the situation are something I highly expect to only reveal itself as more problematic as the Obama presidency moves forward. Her husband has pitched the lie to the American people that there is “no white America and no black America”, even though division clearly exists.

The death threats against his person certainly attest to the fact that the US is not a nation that has reached a place of racial harmony. The press has further preoccupied itself with dissecting Michelle’s body. If no true division existed between the races, the need to paint the Obamas as triumphant heroes would not exist.

To some degree those in the public eye must always wear a mask. What they truly think, or feel about any issue is usually weighed against the personal cost to their careers. Even the most affluent people of colour will admit that there is a way that we speak to each other, and a way that we speak when in a room with people of various ethnicities. Colin Powell has spoken at length about the experience of shifting. Michelle Obama alluded to this very same disconnect in her thesis.

Even though there is no concrete identity that is specific to blackness, there is a unique culture that is specifically African American. Part of being successful is having the ability to shift as necessary to accommodate your surroundings.

Historically those that have fallen into the owning class, or bourgeoisie, have been white. Class is more than the ability to purchase or consume certain commodities; it is also a way of behaving. It is more complicated than selecting the correct fork at a formal dinner.

Many patterns of behaviour can directly be traced to class. It is about achieving a level of functionality within the group one associates with. Behaviour is disciplined and those that fail to conform are often cast aside. The treatment of the “nouveau riche” confirms that class location involves more than just wealth. It is performance in addition to possessions and knowledge.

The whiteness of wealth in America often means that class and race become conflated; thus when you hear the charge that someone is acting white there is an unspoken link to class-specific behaviour. When someone is charged with acting ghetto it is a commentary on class, but the unspoken element is race. As BUPPIES, Michelle and Barack were already assuming some of the behaviour that is typically linked to whiteness due to their rise in class status.

This is where the disconnect begins; to prosper and function one must necessarily adopt the behaviour patterns of those that are most able to help you succeed, but the cost is losing a true connection to African American culture. It means performing for others and saving your true self for more private moments.

Upwardly mobile of colour routinely deny ghetto culture as legitimate. The apologists like Bill Cosby and Shelby Steele have habitually attacked poor blacks under the guise of uplifting the race, when in actuality it is to define a difference between them and the poor. The functionality of so-called ghetto behaviour, or ebonics, is ignored in the attempt to privilege white bourgeoisie performance.

Though Michelle is now held up as a representative of black womanhood, it is a false designation because her class status will not allow her to publicly display her African American culture without being attacked. She is a slave to the very concept of the post racial world that she and her husband tried so valiantly to declare. Throughout the entirety of her husband’s tenure as President she must remain an enigma; shifting from situation to situation.

What is success? Can someone achieve success while at the same time expressing their connection to African American culture? Can a person of color perform their ethnicity without fear of backlash? Clearly the answer to this question is no. When we examine the ways in which the Obamas have been attacked, it is primarily on the basis of their race.

Michelle Obama uses a chemical straightner to relax her hair, yet when she was depicted on the cover of The New Yorker, she was shown with an Afro. The Afro is a symbol of the black pride movement that originated in the late 60’s. Though the cartoonist claimed this was meant as a mockery of the racism aimed at the family, what it revealed is that blackness in its natural state is unacceptable. If blackness in its natural state is rejected, this necessarily forces those that wish to “be acceptable” to perform to enter into the circles of the white bourgeoisie.

In a post racial world such shifting should not be necessary. While we sit and celebrate Michelle as a black woman, we demand that she carry herself a certain way, dress a certain way, and speak a certain way. Should she slip and revert to what for her might be a more comfortable way of relating to the world, her association with black culture will cause immediate discomfort among those whose support both she and her husband need for continued political success.

Acceptability and representing black womanhood comes at a cost. How can she ever be her true self as long as we continue to deny that there is a difference between Black America and White America? Culture and class combine to ensure that a successful person of color will forever perform on a stage that is not of their own choosing.

According to CNN’s John King, McCain met with Palin only one time before deciding that she was his pick, leading one to believe that he chose her because he believed that one vagina could substitute for another. Clearly his aim was to appeal to the disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Some women will embrace vagina solidarity, and support McCain because he chose a colluder as his running mate, and others will be enraged because Palins political positions are resoundingly anti-woman.

Palin is not a feminist, though she has benefited from feminist organizing. Were it not for generations of struggle, she would not have the ability to vote, much less run for political office. The Feminine Mystique was written with women like her in mind, and yet if she were elected her decisions would lead to a reduction of women’s rights. The irony of this has not been lost to me, nor I suspect on many women who today are asking how a pro-life woman could possibly represent women’s needs.

Palin is not only staunchly pro-life, she is pro-death penalty, and anti-gay marriage. No matter how many images we see of her shooting guns, or rocking her newborn, her record of conservatism is at odds with everything that feminism stands for. Sarah Palin is not only anti-feminist, she is, as I already mentioned, anti-woman.

Now, the sexist attacks have started against her already. There is a website called VPILF, and Limbaugh has referred to her as the “babe” on the ticket. What is quite clear is that until Election Day, the Alaskan governor will come under attack by the patriarchal media. Gender will be used as an excuse to construct her as someone who is unqualified. Despite Palin’s political position the one thing that she can count on is that her race will counter some of the vitriol that will be aimed at her. Therein lies one of the obvious differences between her and Michelle Obama.

Sarah Palin has been on the national stage for less than twenty-four hours and already feminists are rushing to her defence. The rallying cry of the day is, attack the issues not the woman. Shakesville, Feministe, Alas, a blog, and Feministing all have posts attacking the media for its willingness to reduce the Governor based in obvious anti-woman rhetoric and misogyny. Many other feminist blogs have today issued the same sort of rallying statement, whether or not they agree with Palin’s political leanings. Melissa at Shakesville states, “I will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I like or support her, but because that’s how feminism works.”

Seeing this support for Palin should give every feminist a feeling of warmth and solidarity, unless of course you are a woman of colour, or, more specifically, an African American woman. From baby mama, to lynching, to the racist New Yorker cartoon, Michelle has had to combat race and gender stigmatization. Yet, until recently, there has been little defensive reaction from the feminist blogosphere.

The attacks against Michelle have been so scurrilous that one African American woman blogger was inspired to create the Michelle Obama Watch so that the world could bear witness to the ways in which the social construction of black womanhood has come to be used as a weapon against her.

The most constant assault that Michelle receives is the insinuation that she is an angry black woman. I cannot speak on behalf of Michelle as to the veracity of this opinion, however I can state that even if true, especially considering the state of race relations in the United States, why is this a problematic emotion?

Black women have historically occupied the bottom of the race and class hierarchy. bell hooks theorizes that black women have no institutional other. A black man may be oppressed by race in the public sphere but he can still return home and beat his black wife. A white woman may be oppressed by gender but she can still use racism against a black woman. If black women feel a sense of anger at our abuse, exploitation and marginalization it is our due.

It is racial privilege that has stopped white feminists from speaking out boldly against the attacks on Michelle in the media. Though feminism is supposedly a movement about advancing the goals of women the disclaimer is that “woman” has been understood as white. It is this racial privilege that will cause feminists to rally around Palin despite the fact that if elected she will seek to roll back Roe V. Wade, one of the major legal accomplishments of feminist organizing. It is this white privilege that will cause many white feminists to vocally defend Palin, while remaining silent about the treatment of Michelle Obama.

This election has made public the fissures that have existed in feminism since feminist organizing was begun. Black women have cried into the night ain’t I a woman, and white women have answered, “when it is convenient you are.” That Michelle Obama regularly espouses views that are more in line with feminist theory is seemingly unimportant, her body relegates her to that of second class citizen.

There may be 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling but it will never be shattered until all women are deemed worthy of defence. All women matter.