This is the text of Kevin Comeau’s speech delivered to Hamilton Rotary Club on Tuesday.Yesterday’s solution is today’s problemA number of racial-equity advocates have dedicated their entire lives to the racial-equity cause, continuing to speak out about the problem even though it personally cost them dearly. Their intentions have always been honourable and they should be publicly thanked and praised for the tireless work they have done to make Bermuda a better place.These advocates understand that the racial-equity issue is so important yet so complex and unwieldy that meaningful progress will likely only occur if all Bermudians — blacks and whites — work together to address the problem. Unfortunately, many white Bermudians are no longer listening, and for good reason.That’s because, at present, the racial-equity movement in Bermuda is based on the old construct of “black authenticity” (“I’m black and I have struggled, therefore blacks should rally around me”). In other words, blacks must support other blacks simply because they are part of the same historically-persecuted racial group; hence the rallying cry: “United we stand, divided we fall.”The problem with this method is twofold. It inhibits meaningful participation from the white community and it propagates Government incompetence and corruption.A number of America’s leading racial-equity advocates, including Princeton Professor Dr. Cornel West, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr, and social commentator Tavis Smiley, have spoken at length about the need to shift from this archaic “black authenticity” construct to a “morality-based” construct, which rests on the proposition that we, as a just society, should take action to meaningfully address racial-equity problems because it is morally justified.This is much more than a semantic shift. It means that all parts of the racial-equity issue — the justification for action, the programmes advocated, and the purposes for which advocates and others use the racial-equity issue — must be examined from a moral perspective. The more consistently these essential parts can be placed and maintained on the moral high ground, the greater the chances of persuading members of the public -both black and white — to support the cause.So let’s take a look at how the old “black authenticity” construct has failed to galvanise white support for the racial-equity movement in Bermuda and how the “morality-based” construct can change that.How the ‘Black Authenticity’ construct is now harming the racial-equity movementSixty years ago, before universal suffrage, black Bermudians had no political voice, and so unifying their cause through collective solidarity was their best chance of ending segregation — hence, the need for the “black authenticity” construct.It was only by unifying themselves through black collective action, particularly boycotts and demonstrations, that blacks were able to coerce the white Government into capitulation, ending segregation. Moral arguments alone were simply not sufficient firepower to compel the white elites to end generations of institutionalised white privilege.Today, all that has changed. Segregation has ended; racial glass ceilings have ended; universal suffrage is complete, and black Bermudians not only control the legislature but also hold an overwhelming majority of the senior positions in the judicial and executive branches of Government.Unfortunately, the harmful aftereffects of hundreds of years of racial discrimination are still with us, and over the last ten years the problems in the black community have become significantly worse.The issues — in particular, generational family dysfunction, a failing education system, and gang violence — are serious and complex and, as everyone seems to agree, we are unlikely to dramatically reduce these problems unless the entire community comes together to more fully understand the issues and then work together to develop and implement meaningful programs.The problem, however, is that the “black authenticity” construct that was so crucial to ending segregation is now alienating so many white people that it makes a unified community approach extremely difficult if not impossible.If you look at it from a white Bermudian perspective — and that is the only relevant perspective when we are trying to convince whites to support the cause — that result is not surprising. A racial-equity group that defines itself simply by being black naturally alienates anyone who is white. So it’s understandable that whites have walked away. Who wants to be where you’re not wanted?But the problem for whites is much deeper than that. The “black authenticity” construct requires participating blacks to publicly support other participating blacks no matter what the circumstances. That may sound honourable, but what if the black participant does something dishonourable? What then?That’s not just some hypothetical question. Over the last ten years black Cabinet Ministers have been at the epicentre of numerous scandal-tainted Government contracts that have cost Bermudians many millions of dollars.When members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly asked probing questions about these tainted contracts, the black Cabinet Ministers refused to answer, using racial metaphor as a defence. “That’s a plantation question,” they cried, and even referred to the questioning member of the Opposition as a “racist dog”.Whites, including those in International Business, were stunned. How was it possible that key black Cabinet Ministers could shield themselves from questions about their own possibly corrupt activities simply by wrapping themselves in cloaks of racial indignation?And the most stunning part of all — not one racial-equity advocate said a word.But then how could they? The Bermuda racial-equity movement is still based on the archaic “black authenticity” construct, which requires all participating members to protect other participating members no matter what — remember, “united we stand, divided we fall”. So if a high-ranking elected Government official publicly tarnishes the most sacred issue in the black movement for his own selfish purposes, black racial-equity advocates must remain silent.For many in the white community, that was the last straw. No more would they listen to arguments about a moral imperative to support the racial-equity movement when, from their point of view, the leaders of the movement had tacitly allowed its good name to be used for immoral purposes.Collateral damage to the political systemUnfortunately, the damage caused by the archaic black-authenticity construct was not limited to the racial-equity movement. As I came to find out first hand more than five years ago, a racial-equity construct that bases its support on racial affiliation instead of universal morality can create unintended negative consequences that go to the heart of Bermuda’s political system.In early 2007, I met with a Cabinet Minister (who has been one of the PLP’s key strategists for decades) to discuss a number of policy proposals that I had developed over the prior two years, most of which were designed to reduce the growing gap between the haves and have-nots in Bermuda.It had become clear that the biggest expense for Bermuda’s poor was rent, and the increase in rents caused by the then raging housing boom was causing great hardship to Bermuda’s struggling poor, many of whom are black.I explained to the Minister that if Government would simply ask companies to change the way they structured housing allowances (move to a cash basis to replace the “you-lose-what-you-don’t-use system), we could dramatically reduce upward pressure on rents and house prices, which would not only help the struggling poor but also help retail stores, hotels and restaurants that were forced to pay higher wages because their employees were forced to pay higher rents.He said he loved the idea, calling it truly brilliant. “But, unfortunately,” he said, “we’re not going to do it.”When I asked why, he explained that most of the Cabinet Ministers were landlords, so the last thing they wanted was lower rents. I literally broke out laughing and asked why he was being so candid. He could have simply told me that he would bring it to Cabinet, and then do nothing. He then explained that the opposition UBP was a party in disarray and it would be many years, if ever, before they would be re-elected. “So,” he said, “We can do whatever we like.”The statement was truly appalling. Not only was he effectively saying that he and his fellow PLP Cabinet Ministers were putting their personal financial interests ahead of those of struggling workers and the poor, but he was also making clear that he didn’t even care if I, a member of the general public, knew it.But then again, under a “black authenticity” construct of racial equity, he was right — the PLP could do whatever they wanted without political consequence. It simply didn’t matter if they chose to put their own personal financial interests ahead of their struggling black constituents because under a black authenticity construct, all blacks who support the racial-equity movement were duty bound to vote for the PLP. In other words, Cabinet Ministers were free to abuse their black constituents, and these constituents still had to vote for them.Sadly, the 2007 election proved the Cabinet Minister knew of which he spoke. Even though several PLP Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Candidates were then embroiled in controversies of corruption, the PLP once again used the race issue as a rallying cry for electoral support and won another majority Government. After the election, the political corruption scandals grew exponentially worse, eventually exceeding far more than a hundred million dollars in tainted Government contracts.Sadly, Lord Acton’s words were once again proven true — Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.See tomorrow’s Royal Gazette for the final part of Kevin Comeau’s speech.