Is Cosby Right? Some Thoughts on Black Youth Underachievement

     Fast forward fifty years. I am surfing channels and come across a music video station. Who cares if it is MTV or BET; the visuals are the same: Vapid-faced, scantily clad young women mindlessly bumping and grinding to canned rhythm while the "artist" chants about getting over. All the trappings of wealth – or what passes as having "made it" – are there: the custom Mercedes, wads of cash, tons of garish gold jewelry, even more gold in the teeth, two-hundred dollar Nikes, and Tommy Hilfiger clothes.
     I watch with glazed yet outraged expression. Is this where we are now? What took us from "Keep on Pushing" to "Get Rich or Die Trying"? Have we sunk so low that all we see are young rappers who seemingly have it all by showing how big that wad of bills is? And how did they get all that cash? Not from any gainful endeavor, that is for sure. Jamal and Antwan obviously did not earn that wad from selling lemonade or mowing lawns. From the looks of things, I would guess the source of their "wealth" is what the old folks called "ill-gotten games", namely illicit activities: drug dealing, pimping, hustling, back alley gambling.

     This is what our young people watch and imbibe on a daily basis. It is with what teachers and employers have to compete to gain youths' much-needed attention. The cult of celebrity, rampant consumerism, and mass media have circumvented those time-honored values necessary for academic and life success. The negative images paraded constantly in contemporary music videos (and not just rap and hip-hip – rock and pop are just as guilty) tell our youth that it is okay to hustle, that getting over is better than working hard. Owning over-priced, status-conscious material goods is by far preferable to feeling good about learning something new or doing a job well.

     It is my contention that the combined forces of excessive consumption, overtly invasive marketing techniques, and mass media have contributed greatly to lowered academic achievement, and not just for African American youth. However, given Black youth's penchant for keeping up appearances and showing the wider society, "Look! I can have it all, too!", the market and media's mixed messages carry a double whammy. It is understandable young people want to have what their parents' generation did not. It is also understandable youngsters want to fit in with the crowd, to be part of their peer group. Such is natural and part of growing up. However, when one lives in poverty, receives free or reduced-priced school meals, yet wants to be part of the crowd, that young person cannot fully comprehend why he or she has to do without. Throw in serious family dysfunction, inattentive parenting, and absence of anything that smacks of good, sound moral character, then you have a recipe for disaster. In this second part of my thoughts on the current state of academic underachievement, I will address those issues I feel are detriments and hinderances.

    At the heart of school success, especially at the secondary level, is responsibility and self-reliance. Parents at the time instilled in their children responsibility, something that is sorely missing from today's students.
Self-reliance and personal responsibility were the hallmarks of our parents' generation. If you screwed up, it was your fault – turn your mistakes into life lessons. A lost book meant replacing it at your own expense. Too little or no lunch money? You made do; of course you temporarily relied on the kindness of your classmates or school administrators. Note that I said temporarily. Accepting help from others was not to be a lifelong habit.
     Then there was the ever-present influence of television and contemporary music. However, during the late 1950's into the 1960's, the majority of network offerings could hardly be described as "youth-oriented." Granted, there was the usual parade of youth-oriented programs such as American Bandstand and Shindig, but programs as these were few and far between. Television viewing at that time was a family affair. For the most part, what your parents watched was what you watched. That meant a steady yet eclectic diet of sitcoms, quiz shows, variety shows, Westerns, cop dramas. Still though, even the most violent of shows could be deemed wholesome by today's standards. While we were, to be sure, bombarded with commercials hawking everything from cereal and candy to cigarettes and beer, the invasive, intrusive advertising we see today was virtually nonexistent.
     Even back then, when most TV programs, especially situation comedies, presented an idyllic suburban lifestyle, far from my own urban experiences, the term "conspicuous consumption" had yet to be coined. Material excess was not that evident, even in those shows where the family lived comfortably, dressed in the latest fashions, or owned numerous household gadgets. Such was not that important, at least not to my family.

     In contrast to today's families, one television set was sufficient. Many of today's households boast a set in nearly every room, even the bathroom. One cannot escape television's insidiousness, the relentless advertising, the mixed messages young people get from programs rife with sexual innuendo and gratuitous violence.
     What today's television programs sell – and this includes many other forms of popular entertainment – is lifestyle. I do not mean just showing unmarried persons, straight or gay, living together in committed relationships. That is a entire subject in itself. What I mean by "selling a lifestyle" is such that is based on mass consumption – "conspicuous consumption" is a more apt term. Whether it is the latest situation comedy, daytime soap, music video, or movie, we are shown a lifestyle unlike the idyllic suburban existence of programs thirty to fifty years ago.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Copyright © 2006 by P.R. Parker. All Rights Reserved.