Far from perfection, but the 'Prince' race series gives us a good place to start

At first, I was quite skeptical of The Daily Princetonian's plans to cover race relations for two weeks (and I certainly feel no inherent loyalty to the project because of my position as a columnist). I was skeptical that 10 full days of coverage on race would get redundant, and skeptical about what the campus reaction might be. Now, though, I am prepared to defend the series precisely because of the tangible and, I think, productive response it has generated on campus.

In listening to a variety of lunchtime conversations about each morning's article and about the series as a whole, I have heard many different criticisms. Some argue, as I initially feared, that the series is too long. But it is worth noting that, duration aside, each day's story has captured a different slice of Princeton than those before it and has therefore not been redundant at all.

Others sadly seem to believe that the series over-dramatizes an issue that is neither as pronounced nor as important as the coverage would make it seem — that race is little more than a trendy topic that offers an easy target for provocative journalism. It is for these people, though, that the series is necessary in the first place. Some claim the series offers only a number of snapshots without making any conclusions, to which I say that good reporting gives the reader the facts necessary to reach an independent conclusion. Others argue, to an extent validly, that the articles have focused too much on individuals rather than on broader interactions — but I wonder how else a reporter could tackle an issue this large and still be reporting.

But the most important reaction has come from those who complain that while the series has been interesting and informative, it does not help to solve the problem of racial tension — that the 'Prince's coverage has approached race relations in an unproductive way. I suppose that any time we read about a problem such as racial tension, we hope in the back of our minds for an immediate solution. But what is a solution? What can an individual or, for that matter, an individual newspaper really do to advance racial understanding?

To answer those questions, we need to think about what the problem is. Perhaps at the most fundamental level, it is that we too often lack an honest dialogue about race and about culture, and that as a consequence, different races and different cultures cannot understand each other as well as they should. The "solution," then, for lack of a better word, is to generate such a dialogue. The 'Prince' series, for all of its faults, does accomplish that.

These articles have done all that I think a newspaper could possibly do. When someone at the dinner table asserts there is something wrong with the 'Prince's approach, the natural reaction is to have a discussion about what the right approach would be. And that is one place for honest dialogue to start. Moreover, if part of the problem is an inability to understand other cultures and other races, the snapshot approach that this series has taken begins to alleviate that problem.

Of course, the race series is not and should not be an end-all solution. In fact, it is only a beginning. But as we critique the coverage of the past two weeks, as well we should, let's at least credit the 'Prince' staff with provoking discussion. That dialogue may be as much as a series like this one could ever hope to achieve. If we want more than that, we need to do it ourselves. Alex Rawson is a history major from Shaker Heights, Ohio. He can be reached at ahrawson@princeton.edu.