Concerns about 'Prince' coverage of Black History Month

So there was this seven-part series about race that the 'Prince' ran in December. It was modeled after the acclaimed New York Times series that searched for new levels of racial honesty — or at least tried to. So the 'Prince' underwent the task of telling these stories on race (because you can't go wrong with the New York Times, right?) not with the hopes of finding a solution, but to generate honest discussion on campus. Accompanying that was the commitment to making their general coverage more relevant to the lives of Princetonians, to produce content that could better reflect the diversity of the University and, last but not least, to better relate to those who are not part of the mainstream undergraduate community. So you can imagine my befuddlement when the 'Prince' got a little amnesic about their new found promise of "coverage, not complacency" when there has been a lack of coverage concerning the university's celebration of Black History Month.

Say what?

Black History Month. You remember. In most elementary and high schools, it's made up of those 28 days devoted to telling that part of history which is so often left out of our textbooks. Black history is American history, and it's not a matter of 'ghettoizing' it but rather to tell the stories that haven't been told. Who would leave the accomplishments of African-Americans from an American textbook? What purpose is served by making it appear as if black people and other minorites have done little or nothing to contribute to our country?

This month has a way of sneaking up on college students, hiding behind Martin Luther King, Jr., Day in January (especially since in college we, for the most part, don't have to take part in anything). And how are newspapers, both college and 'real-world' journals, supposed to handle this month — or any month dedicated to a specific racial or ethnic group — without appearing to trivialize it? As for Black History month, whether one agrees with it or not is not the point. I do have a problem when February becomes the only time blacks are recognized for their rightful place in history. But to ignore Black History Month completely is, well, ignorant. Until last week's short and sweet question-and-answer with Twerrampon, a Ghanaian drum and dance troupe, there wasn't a word written in the 'Prince' about this year's celebrations. That couldn't be all for Black History Month coverage, could it? Twenty-eight days summed up by an African dance troupe?

Newspapers usually run several articles for their coverage of Black History Month. Sure, college journalism is different, but what about the paper's responsibility to the campus? And don't tell me there are no stories to tell on campus. How about the article on activist and author Randall Robinson who spoke last Thursday on the touchy issue of reparations to African Americans for their years in slavery and the racism that followed?

Or, the one on the Ivy League's celebration of black athletes' achievements in Ivy League athletics and their institutions? Or even the upcoming one on the black women's spiritual narratives symposium? The lie of history is not what people say, Robinson said, but what they leave out. Robinson was referring to the snippets of mistold history we sometimes hear about African-American history. What's left out of our books, newspapers, etc. says a whole lot. I'm not exactly sure how the 'Prince' expects to earn the trust of readers, when it doesn't cover events and activities that are considered important to students of color.

Officially, there are still some 10 days left. Coverage doesn't end there. Let's go back to that commitment against complacency.

Show me the stories.