THE CONTROVERSIAL CONTEST FOR

BROOKLYN'S 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

On a rare non-musical note, I want to weigh in on this controversy, which has been brewing for months but today landed on the front page of the New York Times. Briefly, here's the background. The boundaries of the 11th district were established by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, legislation that was designed to empower minority voters. The region encompassed a large swath of Central Brooklyn (including areas of Brownsville, Flatbush, East Flatbush, Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights), as well as part of Park Slope. In the 90s, the lines were redrawn, expanding into Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and more of Park Slope, all mostly white neighborhoods. But even today, whites make up only 21% of the district, blacks 59%.

The 11th seat has a fabled history in that it was originally held by the first black woman elected to Congress, the much-revered Shirley Chisholm (who passed away last year). And since the district's inception four decades ago, its majority black electorate has been represented in the House by one of its own -- first Chisholm from 1968-1982, followed by Major R. Owens, who has been in office ever since but is retiring this year.

There are four candidates vying for the rare open spot: City Councilman David Yassky, City Councilwoman Yvette D. Clark, Rep. Owens' son Chris Owens, and State Senator Carl Andrews. Yassky is the only white candidate, and he has spent much more money on his campaign than his three black opponents. One likely outcome is that Clark, Owens, and Andrews will splinter the black vote, and Yassky will win. Unsurprisingly, the Brooklyn Heights resident has been criticized as opportunistic and out-of-touch with his non-white constituency, and some black politicians have demanded that he drop out.

This is not a simple case of right and wrong. I don't think Yassky is an evil dude or a racist. He seems to have done pretty good work as a City Councilman. And he is at least somewhat aware of the complexities of the situation. In the Times article, he claims that he thought long and hard before deciding to run about whether he was honestly going to be able to represent Brownsville as effectively as Park Slope.

But it was his choice, and now he's gotta take the heat for it. Of course race is going to be a huge issue. He would be naive to expect otherwise. In a perfect world, it wouldn't make a difference what race Yassky was. But the truth of the matter, as Rev. Al Sharpton has pointed out, is that blacks are so underrepresented in all spheres of state and national government that it would be a huge loss to give up this important seat, not to mention one with such an historic significance in black politics. "We can't afford not to keep a voter-rights seat in the hands of who it was designed for," says Sharpton.

I live in the 10th not 11th district, and I am not black (for the record, I am Jewish, as is Yassky), so the outcome of this race is not going to affect me directly. But I think Sharpton's argument makes a lot of sense. I like Yassky, and he'd probably do a fine job -- but I refuse to dismiss his black critics as tunnel-visioned or reverse racist simply because they are making race an issue here. Agree? Disagree?

Ps: Since this is a musical blog, after all, here's a related musical question. Name the artist and song: "Reagan is the prez, but I voted for Shirley Chisholm."