Strange Bedfellows: The Case of Tavis, Wells Fargo and the NAACP (Guest Post)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 11:10AM 
Tavis Smiley hosting 2009's State of the Black Union. Behind him is a curtain with the names of his sponors, Wells Fargo and Nationwide, one recently accused of discriminatory lending practices.
By Genma Holmes
While I was reading over the lawsuit filed by the NAACP for predatory lending practices, my eyes kept returning to Wells Fargo. My something-smells-funny nose kept sniffing until I looked across my desk and saw the program guide from the recent State of the Black Union (SOTBU).
In large font was the Wells Fargo logo. They were the title sponsor of the event.
I wondered if the NAACP had any dialogue with SOTBU founder and organizer Tavis Smiley prior to the lawsuit being filed? After all, the bank being sued for institutionalized racism sponsoring a think tank for black folks? You cannot make this stuff up.
(More after the jump.)
Wells Fargo has sponsored the SOTBU for several years, Smiley's brainchild, birthed from his weekly commentary on The Tom Joyer Morning Show. Last year Smiley quit the TJMS claiming it was to move on to other pressing projects in need of his attention.
One of those projects is to hold President Obama accountable for his political record and campaign promises made as outlined in Smiley's recent book, "Accountable."
During the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, while I was still the resident political commentator on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, I caused quite a stir among the listeners, who are largely African-American, by insisting that we hold then Senator Barack Obama accountable for both his political record and his campaign promises. I wasn’t singling him out, but rather applying the same standard to him that we should apply to all.
I feel now, as I did then, that it is our responsibility as engages citizens to expect now-President Barack Obama to live up to the promises that made him an appealing candidate… As Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail reminds us, ‘Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes from the tireless efforts of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.’
So, let us take Dr. King’s lead… and go forth and make real the promise of our democracy.” -- Excerpted from the Foreword (pages xii-xiii)
In addition to this, the SOTBU Website states that the symposiums purpose is to gather "(s)ome of the most influential thinkers, entertainers, and political leaders of our time gather each year" to discuss issues affecting the black community.
The site states the event is meant to "educate, enlighten and empower America by bringing people together and engaging them in thoughtful dialogue, leading the way to constructive action."
Here is the man who has written a book titled Accountable, who has accepted sponsorship for years from a bank that is being accused of forcing blacks into subprime mortgages while whites with identical qualifications got lower rates.
Class-action lawsuits were filed against Wells Fargo and HSBC in federal court in Los Angeles this month and Los Angeles was the host city for the State of the Black Union.
My words may come off as harsh but this is equivalent to a child molester opening up a neighborhood daycare center. It is this type of irony in the black community by leaders and organizations that keeps people from making progress. Here we have "leaders" who play nice and accept money from the very organizations that cause the most harm. This happens in many communities but it is perverse in the communities of color.
Does this means Tavis is going to turn his journalistic intuition on Wells Fargo and hold them accountable? I hope so. These are serious charges being leveled at a time when bad banks are receiving TARP bailouts. Is he going to compile and research the number of loans that were given to blacks vs. whites and present it to the board of directors of Wells Fargo? Will he ask for their resignations? Their explanations? Will he demand action?
Will he help them be a better bank by calling for an examination of how they conduct business with people of color? Will he turn down their sponsorship next year and take their logo off his Website with a link to their mortgage department? Is this not what several of the panelists often ask when others accept sponsorship or advertisement from organizations that do not toe the line when allegations or perceived racist misconduct occur?
It happens all the time.
Tavis has always asked his listeners and viewers to be watchful and test everything and everyone. How did Wells Fargo alleged predatory practices go unnoticed by Tavis who would not allow then Senator Obama to campaign without a thorough scrutiny of the issues and his character? President Obama who has been on the national political scene less than ten years is being examined microscopically by Tavis, while SOTBU, Tavis and the same panelists who appear year after year have held meetings with very loud megaphones on radio and television, sounding the alarm on many issues, yet remaining silent regarding the business practices of Wells Fargo and others, practices that have gone on much longer than President Obama has been in the White House according to the NAACP lawsuit.
I mention these things, not out of malice, but out of my intimate knowledge that we can do better. My beloved grandfather started the NAACP in our town in Mississippi. He stepped out on faith and held meetings when it was considered a death wish to do so. He stood by his principles and gained the respect of everyone including his critics. Not one sponsor paid for meetings that enlightened, encouraged and empowered his fellow man. He received numerous awards and accolades for his work in the field of civil rights.
Daddy received letters from Presidents, Governors and other notables as well as those that made a difference that wore no title at all. "Fair is fair," he said often. "Don't have a rule for one that you can't have for the other." Daddy's motivation for working hard to ensure others had the right to vote was based on his love for mankind. Daddy was all about fair play, even if it meant ticking off folks who sat on panels.
I learned from the best.
I like Tavis and his work. My critique is exactly what Tavis asks of the public. I will be the first to say he has done much for many, but those precious sponsorship dollars have a way of making folks look the other way. Demands cannot be made of one person when the rules are not applied to all.
That includes corporations who sponsor think tanks regarding accountability.
As "engaged citizens," we need to hold each other accountable, seek transparency and make sure we are doing due diligence with everyone. Since Tavis has rightly challenged everyone to hold our President accountable for promises made, let us make sure Tavis does not stop with the President who has resided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue less than three months.
I do hope Tavis will get back to us with any research on Wells Fargo and the outcome of the lawsuit by the NAACP. I hope his findings would be included in the next State of the Black Union.
I'd suggest getting Jon Stewart from The Daily Show to be host. Now that I would pay to sponsor, no questions asked.
--------------------
Genma Holmes is the author of the blog Genmaspeaks. Based in Nashville, she is a mother, entrepreneur, writer, activist, philanthropist, model, actress, speaker, political watchdog and news junkie.
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (49)
Without going into Smiley's ties with Wells Fargo, I simply question his motives in his self-appointed role as watchdog of the Obama administration. While I used to appreciate Smiley's commentary, I now find him a self-serving and untrustworthy person who seems to enjoy tearing at Obama's reputation. It turns my stomach to see him on TV.
Well, let's take the positives from this first:
1) Tavis was right for holding Obama accountable and other elected officials
2) It doesn't bode well for the SOTBU that it was being sponsored by Wells Fargo (but we do need to realize black folks wouldn't put up no money to sponsor this).
I don't think it's best to be pointing fingers at Tavis, it comes off as hatin' on the alleged hater. And it elevates Obama to some god-like status as though he's above reproach.
http://uppitynegronetwork.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/the-state-of-the-black-union-and-other-uppity-negroness/
Interesting post Gemma, thanks for the thought. Contrary to what he may have said, Tavis Smiley did not leave the TJMS because he needed to move on to bigger better things, he left because Tom Joyner hurt his feelings by implying (rightfully so) that it was utterly ridiculous of Tavis to get an attitude because President (then Candidate) Obama would not attend the SOTBU. His self appointment as Obama's watch dog comes more from hoping and waiting for a 'gotcha moment' that will can Tavis feel he gained retribution for being slighted (in his eyes, as if he was ever a serious consideration) by Obama.
I think it is quite hypocritical of Tavis Smiley to accept sponsorship from any corporation without applying the same standard of accountability to them as he implores us to apply to Obama. As you said, the rules need to be the same for everybody. I hope Tavis doesn't try to brush this off as if we won't notice; he likes to run his mouth about everything else, so he needs to address this too.
Sorry about the typo in your name Genma.
My sister is one of those closet conservatives who spent last year complaining about Obama, finding fault in him, calling him a empty suit, etc.. I don't pretend to be anything but a biased liberal. If that's construed as hate, then perhaps someone is projecting his own personal attitudes onto me. Obama is nothing but a man to me, and I don't expect anything from him. I admire his principles and ideas. He won't disappoint me. I ain't waiting for the Messiah. He's not coming.
Tavis is self-serving. And I say pot meet kettle. No one is saying that Obama is the Messiah, I am just saying that Tavis' ire was raised when he felt Obama snubbed him. Period. I can be real vigilant about people who snub me. Trust me on that. He didn't want Michelle Obama to come in his stead. He felt slighted, and you can't tell me that doesn not have any bearing on his message.
Tavis critiquing Obama is like Monica Lewinksy talking about modesty and virtue. whateva!
Or Bill Clinton talking about being faithful.
It wil Never happen.
Brava, Mrs. T. I agree with you. Does Smiley think all black people are simpletons?
NO, the PRESIDENT is not above anything, but, who is TAVIS to be nit picking! he has a personal problem with the PRESIDENT, and he let's it be known, TAVIS has been around for a long time, when the PRESIDENT was unknown, TAVIS SMILEY was up front, as long as TAVIS is trying to call BARACK out, I will not support him, now if it was AL SHARPTON, it would be different, AL has been in the trench's with AFRICAN AMERICAN'S, TAVIS SMILEY is a SNOB! i have seen him in action, and forget about HUMILITY, the word PRIDEFUL suit's him best!
Grammatical correction: "An empty suit." I hate when that happens.
I am sorry but I can't help but question his motives. He is so darn sanctimonious. And I just don't like sanctimonius men. Maybe "I" and being unfair to Tavis. However, Tavis is like most people I know. We all have double standards. I write reviews of companies. I never badmouth them because I want the freebies and the giftcards. So tavis, I see you. I will give positive reviews of the products, unless they are straight up horrible, but on some things I can't compromise. I will not write a positive review for bad literature, bad music, or bad movies, or bad education initiatives. Pick your line in the sand and stay behind it.
@ All
While I know it's tempting to turn this into a "What is wrong with Tavis" thread, what I found interesting about Genma's article was the ethical question she posed:
Can you speak from the moral high ground if you are taking money from entities who may be benefiting from the suffering of others?
To me this situation is no different from how for decades black publications like Ebony and Jet relied on money from liquor and cigarette companies to stay in print. Now their advertising is much more diversified, but historically cigarette and liquor companies have been the ones to "support" black media. The only problem is black people disproportionately suffer from problems with cigarettes and alcohol. Yes, you're getting a quality magazine, but you're also helping a company peddle poison to an overly poisoned people.
Do the ends justify the means? Does it matter where you get your donations from as long as you get them or should there be a better way of pulling off an event like SOTBU without being so overly reliant on corporations who often have different plans/agendas for our community? Their plan is profit. Our plans are usually about healthcare, education and jobs. Wells Fargo is being accused of doing something that holds successful black people back, which is the old bank loan boondoogle. For decades it was hard for blacks to even get a loan. Now that we can we get pushed towards the most unfair ones.
How does that look to take money from a company who has done that from the same people whose issues you want to address?
And why is it that we aren't able to fund more of these things without large corporate endorsements? I can understand smaller endorsements from companies to pay for specific things, like a deal with a hotel for rooms and whatnot, but are there other resources Tavis could have tapped into pull off the event where he could have avoided looking compromised? Is it better to settle for a less "fancy" event if it means your message is clear?
Or was there another way where he could have got what he wanted and the money he wanted and avoided the indictment that he's yet another prominent black pawn that can be bought off and manipulated?
I knew that logo stood out to me when I watched the show. I'm sure the folks at Well Fargo are confused and bewildered by the NAACP's action. I think one of two things could be at hand here:
1) Wells Fargo does in fact target minorities with subprime mortgages
2) The NAACP is just doing making a frivolous lawsuit
Also, both could be true. It wouldn't be surprising that a firm seeks out minorities to make a quick buck, and try to seem like a firm that is helpful to minorities by sponsoring these events.
"Interesting post Gemma, thanks for the thought. Contrary to what he may have said, Tavis Smiley did not leave the TJMS because he needed to move on to bigger better things, he left because Tom Joyner hurt his feelings by implying (rightfully so) that it was utterly ridiculous of Tavis to get an attitude because President (then Candidate) Obama would not attend the SOTBU. His self appointment as Obama's watch dog comes more from hoping and waiting for a 'gotcha moment' that will can Tavis feel he gained retribution for being slighted (in his eyes, as if he was ever a serious consideration) by Obama."
____________________-
This is completely wrong and categorically false. To make this assertion is indicative of the falsehoods that continue to be promulgated. Just because someone says something with conviction (like above) doesn't mean it's factually accurate.
I suspect that the person does not know either Tavis or Tom on a personal level, so there is no basis for them in which to make such a statement. I know them both personally. That nonsense above couldn't be further from the truth.
I see that point Genma was making, although I see Smiley's ulterior motives overshadowing the ethical issues. Corporation sponsorship is a dirty business. K-Mart uses under-aged kids in Asia to make clothes in sweatshops. PuffDaddy promotes booze in commercials, just like Billy Dee Williams did at one time. Oprah caters to a white audience with bourgeois topics. Hillary Clinton takes big money from drug companies. Our favorite politicians become lobbyists after leaving government. Who's clean? If Budweiser offered you a million dollars to run some ads on your website, would you take it, Snob? Personally, I rather get on Smiley's cheap shots at Obama. Peace always
@ dukedraven
Oh, ethical questions abound whenever you're trying to underwrite a product or service with corporate money, the problem in Smiley's case is that the service he is trying to underwrite is under the guise of public service and activism. It's like "The March on Washington brought to you by Tide."
Traditionally grass roots activists have avoided corporate sponsorship because it can cause too many conflicts or even cloud their overall message. Most things of this nature are underwritten by individuals, foundations, universities and charities to avoid these complications.
If publications like Ebony/Jet or even this blog had any sort of out in accepting dubious advertisers it was based in the fact that none of us were attempting to launch a grass roots movement. The mission is different. The problem I would run into would be self-censorship in the case of not wanting to offend my advertisers, yet wanting to speak frankly, an issue all publications have to work with, around and against if they want to produce unfettered opinions.
The whole point of activism is that you are supposed to only work for the people you claim to represent. Activists aren't known for living lavish lives, making a lot of money or even having a comfortable life. (If you're not kind of broke and miserable, you're not doing your activism right.) I think Smiley wants to have it both ways, he wants to be a producer, an author and reap wealth, but he also wants to fancy himself an author/activist in the vein of historical writer/activists like Ida B. Wells, WEB DuBois, James Weldon Johnson and Langston Hughes. The only things is those individuals wrote primarily in black publications and relied largely on the support of the people they fought for.
I don't know if Tavis wants to live on an actual activist's diet.
I don't think Jackson and Sharpton are crying poverty, and they're self-proclaimed and recognized activists. I'm sure the NAACP is geting corporate donations and it speaks out against institutionalized racism. I don't feeling care personally if March on DC had been funded by Mobil, for instance. I would say great, thanks for helping people get to the location. BTW, some of the favorite spiritual thinkers (Chopra, Walsch, Tolle and Osteen) are very wealthy men. They made huge amounts of money from advice that could have been given freely to people. Does that make their hands dirty?
Also, I think activists may take issue with being regarded as "miserable," Danielle. Cesar Chavez may have fall into your stereotype, but others would disagree.
@ dukedraven
I would argue that there have been times in the modern NAACP's history and in many instances regarding Jackson and Sharpton where they have been accused of compromising themselves as activists because of who they have aligned with and who they have taken money from. They are actual examples of how money does complicate things and cloud focus if you claim to be working for the benefit of individuals.
The danger in an activist taking someone like ExxonMobil's money is what happens when Mobil wants to store the waste from their refinery in a poor black neighborhood where the residents can't afford the move and can't afford the legal council to fight it? Do you turn your back on the people you have sworn to serve because without Exxon's money you can't put together your meetings and programs?
Also, you can't confuse influence and motivating people with actual activism. Some activists are motivators, but not all motivators are activists. Both have their place in inspiring people, but being a writer or philosopher is very different from activism which involves a great deal of sacrifice and in extreme classes, assured unpopularity with at least half the population -- or even within your movement -- because activists tend to be polarizing (see Sheehan, Cindy).
Deepak Chopra makes people feel good and inspires people, whereas someone like Gandhi was deemed a threat because he couldn't be bought and gave up the comforts of life to be married to a movement much larger than himself. From someone who looms large in the world of activism, like Nelson Mandela or Fannie Lou Hammer to a smaller figure like your college kid who goes to Israel on their break to throw things at Israeli soldiers on the border fence, there's zero out of zero dollars in the effort. In fact, you run a real high risk of getting arrested or worse. And if you've ever read anything Cindy Sheehan has written you know these individuals aren't working to make people "feel good," they're working to enact radical change. In some cases they're actively trying to piss people off to get a response. (See almost every protest against the IMF since 1999's historic Battle in Seattle.)
People criticize Sharpton and Jackson because they are perceived by some to have made compromises. While neither are poor, neither are rich either and Jackson especially still relies on much of the black community for support. Sharpton, on the other hand, has been criticized in the past for his money/tax situation which does involve donations from corporate entities.
Perhaps we have different interpretations of what constitutes activism. My statement about "misery," wasn't so much about martyrdom or that these individuals are joyless, but true activism is a hard thing to undertake due to the level of commitment and sacrifice. From Mother Teresa to Martin Luther King Jr. to even your basic minister who runs a homeless mission or a person who volunteers with at-risk youth, when you are dealing with some of the most extreme and painful cases in life you do go through moments of personal struggle and doubt. Especially when you believe there is a huge crisis and most people would rather look the other way.
If Tavis simply wants to write, inspire dialogue and raise money for his causes, that's fine. There is very much a place for that. I just don't think he should grab the activist mantel. True activists put themselves on the line, often risking relationships, careers and livelihoods -- even if they do find the work more rewarding in the end.
If Tavis DOES fancy himself an activist my point was that in working with Wells Fargo he has compromised himself in the essence that an effective activist needs moral high ground to operate from. He cannot maintain that ground and take money from a controversial sponsor. But I'm operating from the belief that true activism involves sacrifice and a set of rules very different from those a writer, politician, journalist or social worker might live by.
I'm sure Smiley views himself as an activist and sees no wrong in having corporate sponsorship and, likewise, many people would agree with him. Danielle, it's your right to challenge his position, although many people like me don't have a problem with allowing Smiley to wear the activist label and taking corporate sponsorship. Having Wells Fargo as a sponsor doesn't sit well for some, but for me, that's the least of Smiley's sins. His relentless pursuit of Obama is what I question.
When he was at Georgetown, we weren't allowed to ask him any questions about this ties to the bank (or Big Healthcare and Big Pharma and Big Oil)hat; either as faculty members OR especially since I write for the Root.com (and our senior editors were there...he definitely didn't want to talk to them). He had the place packed with bammas (who had no affiliation with the university) who asked this church-themed questions.
But how to press him on it? The churchfolk need to hear it on Steve harvey and Tom Joyner (their version of the blogsphere).
@ dukedraven
I think my passion in regards to pseudo-activism by folks who don't actually sacrifice anything at the alter of progress probably would match your distaste for Tavis' brand of criticism regarding the president. I understand that. It's just one of those things that drive me crazy as most activists, by and large, work with little-to-no media coverage, don't make much money, but believe very passionately about their work and it drives me batty when people confuse punditry and book writing with actual physical involvement in pushing for radical change.
I have a similar beef when people apply the label "hero" to people who haven't actually done anything. Because then the word means nothing if everyone is a hero.
But OBVIOUSLY I could go on and on as it is such a pet peeve of mine. Mostly because I admire actual activists who do the heavy lifting on my behalf, don't get near the publicity others do (and to be honest, some prefer it that way wanting the focus to be the issues and not them) and I realize I don't have that kind of fortitude or dedication to drop everything and dedicate my life to something like literacy and poverty in rural Mississippi or fighting for health care in Haiti.
@ Chris
That is such bollocks. I hope you write about it. The man is supposed to be a journalist. How does it look when someone who asks questions for a living can't handle the questions of others? It's a legitimate critique, especially if he is claiming the "Accountability" mantel. As I mentioned earlier, it's hard to claim the moral high ground to judge others from if the ground you're standing on looks a wee shifty.
He should just address the mess head-on and take the flack. It's not like it's going to kill his symposium. No one is going to sic Jon Stewart on him and make him the poster child for "dubious relations with a corporation."
BOLLOCKS, I say.
Kudos, Danielle, for trusting someone to take the wheel for awhile. I know it must feel scary but also relieving. It's risk. It's growth. It's letting go.
Kudos, to Gemma! I have been trying to get Black college students to understand what transparency was as well as people that were kind-of supporting me years ago. I believed they should know where their money went as well as show the world how processes flowed (or not). I found however that most Blacks are so used to being disenfranchised from information, they instantly think it is a burden to know or they are afraid for prying. I realized it was a latent dsyfunction passed along as legacy. I wanted students to start to ask questions of their "beloved" professors and I used myself as model to try to nudge them into feeling authorized to do it of their educators and their schools because I saw the schools had to much power in keeping the students ineffectual to become progressive thinkers.
On my website I used to put up where their donations went. I put up where I went and who I talked to. I remember when It got so bad and I was losing my apartment even when I had inventory, I put up where the daily donations went in me figuring out whether to pay a vending fee, put gas in the car, and foregoing maxi-pads I really needed. I went without pads and used washclothes. It was bad. I put up who fed me and what bills I was not going to pay and which ones I had to pay. I put up what was said and what I held back. I put up who was shitting me and who was triangulating to shaft me. I put up who was supporting and who was wavering. I then got people chastizing me that I should have not opened up because it was too much. I realized our people did not want to be smarter. They did not want the responsibility of knowing what I was going through because knowing then summoned heir cognitive responses in responding to reciprocate in solidarity. People don't want to lead like that in responding the same way they don't want to notice anything suspicious about Tavis or anyone in the Black Esablishment. They just wanted presentation without the messiness of what is real and what manipulates them that really could be their tools for empowerment. They want people they believe in...the celebrity...the heroes...just not themselves...to have to do THE WORK...any work. They will look at Tavis, Tom, and even Obama and Michelle to see what they want to see. Our people have been taught to be loyal to blind-faith of magicians but we will doubt rather the real prophets.
I love how you are asking us to trust in trying to be more courageous in being transparent. We have to have courage to question and challenge our heroes.
I know that anyone in the Black Community trying to put on the same type of event will need sponsors because we will not support our own. However, I posed to a young woman, Monica Mason, an idea of a transparency conference for Blacks as a project of social innovation that I wanted to do when doing Uppity Negro. If I ever produced a symposium, EVERYTHING would be transparent. That is not what Tavis wants. It's his FREE MARKET product and not an altruistic venture. Whereas he is not losing a scent of money/wealth he hoards, he is gaining income and underwriting his celebritydom and access of power. I want people to have more power in seeing everything right down to my anger, frustration, and fears. Tavis does not want you to see but one dimension of himself and that is the Tavis in presentation. Where you are coming from...you are light-uears ahead in rendering concepts our people don't understand in the normalized ways of living. But...seeing that another voice is speaking of it, you are making the "idea" of transparency more probable to stick.
I have a Tavis story that runs deep into understanding his operation but my purpose and obsession has not been to tear him down or see him fail. I rather just get Tavis to do right. I think though from all I have seen of him is that he really is not that innovative and does not know how to get there. The smart people he knows even are stunted. And as much as Tavis produced an evil aura we all see, it's his own ego and selfishness that blocks the brilliant and innovation from someone like you or the people offering ideas and ideology here that does not reach him. It's the problem of being in a self-righteous bubble of echoes telling you what you want to hear.
Tavis would not even understand how to physically challenge himself or any of Corporate America because he believes in them and vouches for them. He can't draw the line. He believes the hype they produce in their messaging. He just thinks there are complications.
It's up to the people to teach Tavis. Here is a great start. Now only if this what you wrote can ripple from the bottom to educators at so many colleges that safeguard and defend his FREE MARKET approaches, that then would make a paradigm shift. Too many educators and administrators are cut from the same cloth as Tavis or they want to be touched by his graces. A decentralized meme would have to permeate in your language like here to get to them who have the ability to saturate messages to their lemmings in their classes and those who look to them as quasi-celebrities in their own right.
Christopher Chambers is always right.
When is Tavis going to be held accountable for peddling Wells Fargo to the Black community? Tavis needs to be called out and questioned for his ties to these folks by Black Radio and media.
@ Andrea--THANKS! I usually am right. LOL