Interview With Randall Kennedy
Introduction
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University. He is a member of the bars of the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the American Philosophical Association. His book Race, Crime, and the Law won the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. His newest book, Sellout, was published on January 8, 2008.
For those who haven’t read your book, can you define the term “sellout”?
When a Black person calls another Black a sellout, he means that that person has betrayed the Black community. All sorts of conduct may give rise to the allegation that one has sold out—marrying someone who is not Black (especially a white person), an alleged failure to give back to the Black community (which is seen by some as tantamount to failing to pay one’s taxes, one’s racial dues), or assisting persons or forces deemed to be enemies of the Black community.
Another term for “sellout”, you say, is “race traitor”. That’s very harsh. Would you say that all this concern about Blacks leaving their blackness behind is really, perhaps subconsciously, intended to foster race hatred? Or does it simply come from fear—fear, perhaps, that the Black community will be fractured and ultimately lost?
The sellout indictment stems mainly from fear of abandonment and betrayal. These are anxieties felt by members of any and all groups—a church, a union, an organized crime family.
You urge (p. 10) that indictments for racial betrayal be drawn more cautiously. Why, in this individualistic, aspirational society, should there ever be any excuse for such indictments?
Every group must police its borders and require some degree of contribution and loyalty from its members. Those are imperatives of group existence. I think that in a large, divers, freedom-loving group, the boundaries should be far, far, far out, giving members plenty of space for free-ranging thinking and disputation.
Should Black high achievers in sports and entertainment be called “sellouts”, or should the term be reserved for those Blacks who are high achievers in more “intellectual” pursuits like medicine and the law?
No one should be called a sellout unless there is very clear evidence that he or she has intentionally or with gross negligence acted in a way that is, beyond sensible dispute, profoundly harmful to Blacks as a whole.
You say (p. 194) that the “sellout” epithet is “more a bane than a benefit” to Blacks. Assuming that that is true, how would you erase it from the vocabulary of Black America?
I don’t urge erasing the sellout label. I urge using that label much more carefully. If you call someone a sellout and are unable persuasively to substantiate the charge, you should pay a steep cost. After all, accusing someone of betrayal is, or should be, a grave matter.
There seems to be a high degree of demagoguery involved in the name-calling that you describe. Do some Blacks call other Blacks nasty names in order to promote their own agendas—rather than to protect the solidarity of Black America?
Yes. An important ill effect of sellout rhetoric is its tendency to attract and nurture demagoguery. A vivid example was the way in which the former mayor of Newark, Sharpe James, used the sellout indictment against his rival Cory Booker (who fortunately rebounded and is now the mayor of Newark).
Why is the term “sellout” not used in the Asian-American community?
The sellout indictment or something analogous to it does surface among Asian Americans. Some Asian Americans who date or marry non-Asian Americans are condemned for having abandoned their group.