The problem with the Wilkerson argument

IT IS SAID that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Such is the case in the Second Suffolk District. The Senate seat is currently held by Dianne Wilkerson, who was narrowly defeated in the Democratic primary by Sonia Chang Diaz.

Wilkerson is running on stickers to try to regain her seat, and some in the African-American community are arguing that they are entitled to have one of their own in that seat. That argument is no more rational and acceptable than would be the opposite argument, that in a majority white district (or nation), only a white candidate should serve. The argument is on the wrong side of history.

We live in the district and were instrumental in its creation in 1974. The five African-Americans in the Legislature in 1974 - Royal Bolling Jr., Doris Bunte, Mel King, Royal Bolling Sr., and Bill Owens - worked to unite the predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods of Boston into a single district where it would be possible to elect a person of color. Neighborhoods, sometimes even streets, from Mattapan to the South End had been parceled out among five districts. They had been gerrymandered for decades, despite significant demographic shifts, making it impossible to elect a person of color.

The rationale for changing the district was one of fairness - that the communities of color should have the opportunity to elect one of their own to the all-white Senate. The objective was to create a new district that was a "community of interest" among voters of similar backgrounds, interests, and needs, just as other neighborhoods in the proposed new district map were ethnically, economically, ideologically, and politically cohesive.

The legislative process that created the district was long and contentious. It started as an alliance among a diverse coalition comprised of the Legislative Black Caucus in the House and a group of progressive Democratic and Republican legislators, including Barney Frank, Ed Markey, Paul Guzzi, and dozens of others. It ultimately succeeded because of bipartisan support of the majority of the Legislature and the Republican governor, Frank Sargent.

The new district was not designed to guarantee that an African-American would always serve in that seat. Indeed, the district today is quite different from the one created in 1974, with significantly larger Asian and Latino populations. It has grown so much, both in population and in racial diversity, that two separate districts were created.

In our district, the voters have spoken. They chose from the two progressive women of color - who agree on most of the issues - the one they view as best representing the needs and interests of the district. We understand why Governor Patrick and other elected and community leaders have now gotten behind that choice. Just as the legislative leaders and the governor ultimately supported the efforts of the majority of legislators who persuasively argued for fairness in 1974, a majority of voters today from across the Second Suffolk District supported, on her merits, the candidate whom they felt best represented their interests in 2008.

Do we need a reminder that Massachusetts is the state where an overwhelming majority of voters of all backgrounds chose to elect the only African-American governor in the country - not on his skin color but on his merits? Or that the first person of color - the embodiment of bridging racial and social division - may be poised to become the president of the United States by uniting a diverse coalition of the electorate? The spirit of collaboration and the interest of fairness in which this district was created - one best exemplified in this state and this country at this time - should be continued.

Melvin King served in the Mass. General Court from 1973 to 1983. Kay Gibbs served as a staff member to the Legislative Black Caucus from 1973 to 1975.