Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls. Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can be respected with difficulty.

The school’s so-called “deference” to women sounds like the condescension that says women are inherently delicate and shouldn’t be allowed to do things like play sports. It’s the same attitude that makes it difficult for women to break into traditionally male spheres. It’s same men-only attitude that contributes to the low number of women as Fortune 500 CEO’s and members of Congress.

If Our Lady of Sorrows were indeed instilling in their students “a profound respect for women and girls,” they would view them as equals and play ball.

See Sultzbach’s interview on PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Follow me on Twitter and Like me on Facebook.

A quick recap: Arizona’s immigration law passed; the NAACP took on Tea Party racism, and the Tea Party came back in a bad way; Andrew Breitbart took on the NAACP and Shirley Sherrod making all parties involved look bad, including Barack Obama; 1/5 of Americans think Obama is a Muslim in spite of factual evidence to the contrary and none to support it; there’s the controversy over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” that isn’t located in Ground Zero and is more of a community center than a mosque; and Dr. Laura used the word “nigger” 11 times to a black caller.

These moments and the lack of any progress on race show the country isn’t ready to engage and have an honest conversation about how race and ethnicity affect Americans. What’s worse is President Obama doesn’t appear ready to lead the country in this matter. This is a shame because he is the perfect person to do it.

First, he’s already done it before. In a 2008 speech responding to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal, Obama spoke brilliantly about race:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams.

That’s what a lot of the racial and ethnic stories that captured our attention this summer are about (except, perhaps, the Dr. Laura rant): Someone different from me is getting something I’m not. These issues aren’t just about race. They’re about class, immigration and jobs, too. They’re about race and money.

Obama is the embodiment of an American who can and has crossed multiple racial and economic groups and this is the second reason he should be talking more about these problems. He is the son of a white American and black Kenyan. He grew up in a working-class family in Hawaii as well as some time in Indonesia. He attended two elite Ivy League schools in the East, and he was a community organizer in Chicago. His life is a range of race and class in America. It’s multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and spans different geographic regions and economic classes.

Race and ethnicity make up part of who we are as individuals. For some, money is viewed as the means to make lives and families better. It’s viewed as opportunity. So, they are very emotional issues. Obama has proven himself to speak intelligently about them. At the same time, he can speak from his own life story to connect to many different American experiences.

In that 2008 speech Obama said, “Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.” Indeed. And getting heated and screaming at the people who don’t look like you isn’t the way Americans should be addressing it. He shouldn’t let political opportunists like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Breitbart take the lead and bring attention to themselves by preying on the fears and insecurities people feel about race and class.

Obama can’t do it alone. Americans will eventually have to talk to each other honestly and calmly about race and class. If anyone can get the conversation going, though, and guide the nation toward a better understanding of itself, it’s Barack Obama.

See Also:
What Did We Learn About The Ground Zero Mosque Debate?
The NAACP Was Right About The Tea Party

Two weekends ago, Chris Brown tried to resurrect his career and redeem himself in the eyes of the public with a tribute to Michael Jackson at the BET Awards. The performance was almost a year to the day since Brown pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting his ex-girlfriend, pop singer Rihanna. The first half of Brown’s performance was a dance tribute to Jackson. The second half was Brown weeping to Jackson’s “Man In The Mirror.” He was supposed to sing the song, but Brown appeared as if he couldn’t hold back his tears. I say “appeared” because there are allegations that the tears weren’t real.

Another redemption story came to an end a few hours after Brown’s performance. Robert Byrd – the longest serving U.S Senator in history – died that Monday morning at age 92. Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940′s, voted against Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court and filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then in the late 1960′s, Byrd had a turnaround on race. He supported the creation of the Martin Luther King National Holiday and endorsed Barack Obama for president. How’s that for a switch? A former Klan member endorsing the man who would become the first black president.

Also that same weekend, the world mourned (again) over Michael Jackson’s death. One year after he died, the media and some of the public rehashed the King of Pop’s life, death and money. Though he was never convicted of anything, the allegations of child molestation followed him for over a decade. Those allegations along with the years of strange behavior  - we all know he did, so I won’t list the incidents here – made the Michael Jackson who died into someone different from the one who made hit records. There was one Michael Jackson who was a megastar performer in the 1970s and 1980s and became one of the most famous performers on the planet. Then from about 1993 until his death, he was another Michael Jackson: the guy who once a megastar, but did a lot of weird things and was accused of molesting kids.

I think one reason Jackson’s death was so traumatic to so many is that it could’ve been fantastic to see him perform in his “This Is It” tour. It had the potential to remind both devoted and casual fans why the world loved and admired him so many years ago. But Jackson never made a comeback. We’ll never know if he could have regained his former respect and reputation had he lived and been physically able to tour.

Sadly, I don’t think he could regain them. The abuse allegations and strange behavior were a big part of his image. A child molester label is nearly impossible to scrub from someone’s image. It would have taken a lot for him to completely separate himself from that second Michael Jackson.

Yet, people still love him. The crowd at the BET Awards was cheering both Brown and Jackson.

Which brings us back to the 21-year-old Chris Brown. He is young enough where he has time redeem himself. He has said he grew up in an abusive household, so he could speak out against domestic violence. As someone who knows where that anger comes from and has been on the receiving end of it, he could be a powerful voice against domestic abuse.

How long do you hold a grudge against public figures? Are some transgressions forgivable while others are not? You could hate Robert Byrd for being in the Klan back in the 1940′s and voting with segregationists in the 1960′s, but does being pro-Civil Rights since the late 1960′s – longer than I, and perhaps some of you, have been alive – redeem him? Byrd was constantly apologizing for being in the KKK, and he should have been. More than that, though, he tried to right some of those wrongs for more than 40 years.

Yet, even toward the end of his life and in death, some people couldn’t forget Byrd’s past – even if it might be to score political points. So, when Chris Brown is an old man, could he still be known as the singer who hit his girlfriend, even if he is an advocate against domestic violence? Jackson was never convicted of any of the child molestation allegations against him, but they still lingered along with his weirdness. Could he have ever broken away from the labels and caricatures to regain his Thiller-level cache.. and dollars?

When it comes to public figures, at what point do you forgive and can you ever forget?

Leave your comments below.

This New York Times article delved into some of the issues involved in transitioning the military to allow homosexuals to openly serve. One issue is whether openly gay soldiers should be put in separate housing. Another is that families might request different housing, on religious grounds, if same-sex couples live close by. Others are concerned that service members who don’t adhere to anti-discrimination policies may not be promoted. An unnamed Army National Guard member who is a lesbian had concerns, too. She said, “Getting rid of ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"] completely without modifying it is kind of worrisome. The number of incidents against gays in the military is going to increase.”

True. This soldier is rightfully concerned about the safety of herself and other troops. If the policy is going to be repealed soon, and that is far from certain, it doesn’t look like it will happen before a report on the repeal is due on December 1. All of this fear and worry, though, is over soldiers who may be homophobic. This hand-wringing is over the feelings of people who may be bigots and what they might do. But the bigotry I see is with the leaders, policymakers and pundits who want DADT to remain in place.

On the issue of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, we’re not the norm in the West. Every other country in NATO, except Turkey, allows gays and lesbians to openly serve. When Britain and Canada allowed homosexuals to serve openly they only lost three soldiers each (yes, just 3). And when U.S. looked into how Canada changed their policy, a report showed that “negative consequences predicted in the areas of recruitment, employment, attrition, retention, and cohesion and morale have not occurred.”

Chances are, the same thing will happen with our military. There may be some bumps along the way, but our military effectiveness is not going to collapse on the day that DADT is repealed. My understanding of the military is that troops’ primary concern is to protect and look out for each other. I doubt that would change when in battle just because the next soldier over is a homosexual. Meanwhile, poll after poll shows more Americans think gays and lesbians should serve openly. Colin Powell, who used to be in favor of DADT but is now against it said, “Society is always reflected in the military. It’s where we get our soldiers from.”

If opponents of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” truly felt military effectiveness would be diminished or that it would be profoundly difficult to integrate openly gay and lesbian service members in the military, they shouldn’t support DADT. They should speak out against discrimination and homophobia in the armed forces. By not doing that, opponents of DADT reveal themselves to be the ones who are bigoted.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Everything from banks and corporations to restaurants and bowling alleys would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, in his view. From his statement about people in wheelchairs working in two-story buildings, it sounds like businesses would be able to treat disabled people differently, too. And, I’ll go out on a limb and say that in Paul’s worldview, they would be able to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

So, according to Paul, prejudice and discrimination is bad, but it would be allowed for private businesses. If he were to be elected as senator, it doesn’t appear he wouldn’t do anything in that capacity to stop it.

I don’t think these views make Rand Paul racist. Nor do I think that the Libertarian or small government movements are racist either. But their antipathy toward the federal government has blinded them so much that they would allow private businesses to discriminate without any legal recourse. If Paul and his supporters put a business’s desire to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or disability above the need for all citizens to be treated equally, then the movement is flawed.