Ch 3.2 | 👊Race in America
Despite the increased visibility of issues related to racial injustice, especially following the Black Lives Matter protests, solutions to systemic racism are complex and often meet with significant opposition.
Here is a video of Martin Luther King Jr. discussing the issue of structural racism from a different perspective and it’s illuminating on the issue. Please stop and watch it!
As racial violence descended on American cities in the 1960s, as the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. King, and Robert Kennedy shocked the country, and as the American engagement in the Vietnam War grew bloodier and more controversial, more and more Americans began to question the moral foundations of American society. We are currently living in the aftermath.
Dan Rather recently reminded us in a blog post on this subject.
I was born 66 years after slavery was legally abolished by the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Not exactly ancient history. Today, that’s how long ago the Eisenhower administration was, or Elvis Presley’s first number one hit.
Today, we live through Ferguson, Mo., Black Lives Matter, and reaction to that movement. But do not read into this that I believe we haven't made great strides in our country. As I said earlier, the general macro trend is "up and to the right."
As the Pew Research Center found, "Most Black adults in the U.S. are optimistic about their financial future."
Roughly two-thirds of Black adults in the United States (68%) say they do not have enough income to lead the kind of life they want, but a majority are optimistic that they will one day, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of Black Americans.
An article by Gallup similarly took a positive tone:
As the nation continues to grapple with the issue of racial injustice, majorities in the U.S. still believe Black and White Americans have the same chances to obtain a good education, affordable housing or any job for which they are qualified.
We truly must move beyond the partisan rhetoric that keeps us distracted from the substance of the issues.
Take for example Florida's African American studies curriculum. The 216-page document is part of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act (or the Stop WOKE Act). The law regulates the way race and gender can be taught in the classroom. Among other things, the law prohibits classroom teachings that make students feel guilt over past actions by members of their racial group. I discuss this further in "The culture wars."
But this doesn’t actually work to advance racial justice. Instead, leaders of both parties, like DeSantis and Vice President Kamala Harris, excited their base. How does any of this advance a common sense discussion on the issue? Business Insider, among others, covered a moment when DeSantis put his foot in his mouth in an effort to justify the curriculum by saying Black people benefited from slavery He said:
They're probably going to show that some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life.
Let me be clear: This is appalling, made more so because it’s calculated on his part. He knew that the media would latch on and this one sound bite would continue to fuel division in our country.
That said, I find the Democrats' response to be equally infuriating. Harris not only took the bait, but fanned the flames of further partisan divide. The New York Post, in an article titled "Kamala Harris’ lies not only push her political agenda but reveal her ugly truth," quoted her statement at a convention for the traditionally black sorority Delta Sigma Theta in Indianapolis:
Just yesterday in the state of Florida, they decided middle school students will be taught that enslaved people benefited from slavery. They insult us in an attempt to gaslight us, and we will not stand for it.
The National Review responded with: "Kamala Harris Is Brazenly Lying about Florida’s Slavery Curriculum."
Isaas Saul, in another great article for Tangle News, took a sober approach in his analysis of the rhetoric:
The effect, if you read the full list and the entire document, is quite obvious. Florida is not downplaying or whitewashing slavery. It is not framing slavery as something that benefits African Americans. And it is absolutely not ignoring the incredible horrors of slavery, or sending us back to the 19th century, or erasing the voices of the slaves who experienced this horror, or glossing over the black scholars who have commented on it, or obscuring the more modern civil rights activists who attempted to overthrow the systems that came after slavery.
A broad denunciation of slavery is central to the curriculum, plain as day — whether it's through "the overwhelming death rates'' of the practice, or how “Africans resisted slavery,” or “the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on individual freedoms,” or how the south “tried to prevent slaves from escaping” or the "harsh conditions" of plantations, or even “the struggles faced by African American women in the 19th century as it relates to issues of suffrage, business and access to education.” The curriculum is thorough and covers a lot of ground.
Of course, it isn't perfect. I'm sure if we took a microscope to every social studies curriculum in every state we could find similar single sentences that raise eyebrows. Though, yes, DeSantis has put Florida under this national microscope by making his education culture war a key part of his 2024 campaign for president.
Still, even the most controversial parts of this curriculum seem to be getting framed by the left in a wholly dishonest way.
Et tu, Nikki? All this erupted while Nikki Haley was still running against Trump for the Republican nomination. While she had stood up to Trump and others in the MAGA movement at many other points, she disappointed me when she struggled to give straight answers on this issue. In the Free Press, Nellie Bowles nailed it:
The Civil War was not complicated: In a town hall this week in Berlin, New Hampshire, someone asked Nikki Haley a very simple question: “What was the cause of the United States Civil War?” And Nikki Haley decided this was the moment for a long, convoluted answer about freedoms and complexity. When the man said it was “astonishing” she didn’t mention slavery, Haley balked: “What do you want me to say about slavery? Next question.” Oh, Nikki, it was so easy. I understand that if you’ve read too much about the issue, like in books or something, you may come to believe the Civil War had a lot of causes. Here’s PBS: “A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.” Do you know what that sounds like to me? Too many words.
Here in the US of A, the Civil War had one cause. It’s like when Republicans asked college presidents whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the student code of conduct. That’s called a gimme. You make a sad face and say: “Yes.” It doesn’t matter what the student handbook actually says. No one cares. You say genocide is so sad, so bad. And Nikki Haley, with all due respect: just say slavery so bad, war tough but war good, America strong, America prevail. You see: you’re not running for president of Georgetown’s history department. You’re running for president of America. When you say something is complex, I feel unsafe, alarmed. Next, will you tell me that America isn’t simply a force for good?
What was actually happening here? My assumption is that Nikki used a lot of words because she is scared of pissing off a base that she fears. . . likes slavery? That’s sort of what Chris Christie said: “She did it because she is unwilling to offend anyone by telling the truth.” My Haley Hive, we were bound to suffer someday.
We need to break this cycle. It's counterproductive to healing the racial divide in our country. As a friend of mine said recently:
To me, a complex social system marked by incentives and decision rules that disadvantage low income families and other populations groups whether defined by race, ethnicity, or other features, can be described as as systemically discriminatory if those groups are consistently denied access to the basic rights, privileges, services, and goods of other groups. Examples of such systemic discrimination can involve access to healthcare, education, voting rights, employment, etc, on some basis protected under the law or under a broader set of moral principles and values.
Further reading: "In Search of Systematic Racism" from Free Black Thought.
The very idea of ‘race’ is a lie
If we are going to develop a shared understanding regarding race relations in America, let’s start here: The very idea of “race” is a lie! As the American Society of Human Genetics, the largest professional organization of scientists in the field, explained in an essay:
The science of genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories”; and it “challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research.” In other words, “race itself is a social construct,” with no biological basis.
Race is a human-invented, shorthand term used to describe and categorize people into various social groups based on characteristics like skin color, physical features and genetic heredity.
The concept of “race,” as we understand it today, evolved alongside the formation of the United States and was deeply connected with the evolution of two other terms, “white” and “slave.” The words “race,” “white,” and “slave” were all used by Europeans in the 1500s, and they brought these words with them to North America. However, the words did not have the meanings that they have today. Instead, the needs of the developing American society would transform those words’ meanings into new ideas. As explained by the Smithsonian:
The term “race,” used infrequently before the 1500s, was used to identify groups of people with a kinship or group connection. The modern-day use of the term “race” is a human invention.
And here is David Roediger, author of “How Race Survived U.S. History”:
The world got along without race for the overwhelming majority of its history. The U.S. has never been without it.
Before i leave this point (which I think i've made persuasively), it's worth noting that the progressive left claims it’s a "micro-aggression" to say “there is only one race, the human race.” Again, more on race and the DEI bureaucracy in “The culture wars.”
While I didn’t vote for Barack Obama because I didn’t agree with his politics especially as it relates to Israel and more broadly his role in making the Middle East less safe, I was extremely proud of our country for electing him! More evidence that if we zoom out, the macrotrend is up and to the right.
And while I was hopeful we had reached a turning point, at the time I was vocal that I feared a backlash would follow. I have no doubt that has come true with the MAGA movement.
I was once a huge Ronald Regan fan. But lately, I’ve come to see that he was a deeply flawed person, at least when it comes to issues of race. Listen to this and tell me you’re not offended.
“There is no defense, no rationalization, no suitable explanation for what my father said on that taped phone conversation,” Patti Davis wrote in an op-ed.
Neoslavery
So let's get into it! As I’ve said, I don't want to lead you to conclude that I believe things aren't improving. They are and have dramatically since the 1960s. Any other interpretation would be disingenuous.
But that doesn't mean we can't strive for better! And that starts with developing a shared understanding of some of the issues that we still face in America. Yes, technically, slavery ended following the Civil War. However, that is a vast oversimplification of the reality that Black men and women faced in the South after the war’s end. If we are going to try to understand why our country continues to struggle on this issue, we need to understand our history better.
In “Slavery by Another Name,” Douglas Blackmon of the Wall Street Journal argues that slavery did not end in the United States with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. He writes that it continued for another 80 years, in what he calls an "Age of Neoslavery." Here is an interview on NPR’s "Talk of the Nation."
Here's a great history lesson worth watching.
But as you look for evidence to the contrary, consider this: “Five US States to Vote on Vestige of Slavery.” Yup. In 2022, slavery — in some form — was still legal in five states. Today, only Louisiana's Constitution allows slavery and indentured servitude as punishment for a crime as the remaining states voted to end the practice.
In her book, “The New Jim Crow,” Michelle Alexander reveals the horrifying fact that more Black men are involved in the American carceral system today — whether physically incarcerated, on parole or on probation — than were enslaved in 1850. This is a gross injustice that we must strive to fix. And if you’re going to reflect honestly about racism, you really need to take the time to read Isaac Saul’s editorial on the prison system in America. As he states:
Both our policing and criminal justice systems have long and well documented histories of being used to systematically oppress people of color and low-income Americans (we can have good-faith arguments about whether they are today, or to what degree, but the historical record is indisputable).
Bryan Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative’s founder and executive director, has said:
We should judge our moral character and nobility as a society by how we treat the poor, the disenfranchised, and the powerless.
An equal, effective justice system is a basic prerequisite for achieving our highest potential. We cannot hope to lift up one portion of society while leaving others behind, and as such, the basic concept of justice has been vitally important to me for a long time.
We need to have a discussion in this country that can't be had while the extreme voices in both parties control the narrative and are granted a disproportionate vote.
Critical race theory
I discuss the "culture wars" at great length elsewhere, but it is important to note here that the duopoly is undermining our ability to discuss race in America in a rational way. Just consider critical race theory.
Spoiler alert: We have all fallen into a partisan propaganda trap!
Were you aware that this entire issue was invented by a conservative activist named Christopher Rufo?
We have successfully frozen their brand—"critical race theory"—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.
His concept was picked up by Fox News and they ran with it! Trump saw the segment on Tucker Carlson and the rest is history. I'd really encourage you to read this article in the New Yorker. Here's just one small tidbit to whet your appetite:
As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.
I have struggled with CRT since it came to the forefront. But I need to remember that CRT is a legal theory taught in advanced higher education. It’s not a program for school-age children. Does that mean race-centered lesson plans haven’t made their way into elementary schools? Of course not.
I like what Bill Ackman had to say on the subject in "How to Fix Harvard":
Having a darker skin color, a less common sexual identity, and/or being a woman doesn’t make one necessarily oppressed or even disadvantaged. While slavery remains a permanent stain on our country’s history — a fact that is used by DEI to label white people as oppressors — it doesn’t therefore hold that all white people, generations after the abolishment of slavery, should be held responsible for its evils. Similarly, the fact that Columbus discovered America doesn’t make all modern-day Italians colonialists.
As I’ve researched this issue, I'm convinced that if properly implemented, CRT could be beneficial to society as a whole. What exists today, however, has been politicized and used as a fulcrum to divide us.
We know that our country has a history and track record of brutality and oppression. Our nation was born on the backs of the genocide and ultimately the oppression of the indigenous people, built upon the backs of slaves and followed by a brutal revolution to overthrow the British government. The version of American history taught in public schools and promoted in the national media when I was growing up was simplistic and boastful. There was little reflection on the shadows in the American historical story. The atrocities of slavery, the destruction of indigenous peoples, the economic exploitation of poor people and immigrants, the failure to offer equal opportunities to women.
Winston Churchill said that “history is written by the victor”… but to see it in action and see how we’ve all been manipulated is untenable. So how is that applicable to us?
Well, the history of the U.S. as we were taught as kids and as it is still taught in schools today, is not "engineered" in such a way as to set us on a course for healing. Is it really so hard to accept that the history lessons we learned in school are “whitewashed”? Just consider: “Christopher Columbus discovered America!” Did he really? We know that he didn’t. There were indigenous people that “discovered” America 20,000 years ago!
Do you believe that we need to give our children and grandchildren the tools to do better than we have done to right the injustices perpetrated on generation after generation? If we don’t teach children how to deconstruct race in America, what kind of adult do you think those children grow into? Can't we apply some common sense and try to find a way to address race in America in a constructive way?
Do we really believe that our schools teach kids that the world is racist? I don't think so. I believe that kids learn that on their own! What our schools can teach them is how to confront our history and learn from it so they can do better!
My point here is not simply to judge the prevailing curriculum because I’m sure like everything else in this life it can be implemented well with common sense or it can be used as yet another way to divide us.
So let’s move beyond the construct as you understand it today. Let’s move onto the bigger issue of race. So here’s my question for you to consider: Do you believe that it is long overdue that we “own” our history when it comes to race?
Reparations
That is what I believe is missing from the current Republican Party platform. Trust me, I’m not advocating for the left wing of the Democratic Party either. But it must begin with an acknowledgment that America has yet to fully embrace the shame of what we did to indigenous peoples and to Black people. When I say “we,” it should be obvious to anyone reading this that neither I nor anyone in my family ever committed any crimes against humanity. We did not take part in the genocide of the indigenous people living here before European colonists arrived, nor did we ever participate in any form of slavery. But that doesn’t mean, “we” can’t feel empathy and accept the economic realities that flowed from the actions of the Founding Fathers.
I think we could all learn something from the modern German state. If you are unfamiliar with how it addressed the atrocities of the Holocaust, it’s a fascinating study in how to “own” a country's past.
I’ve visited Germany twice in my life. The first time was in 1986, when my friends and I visited while studying abroad. I have to tell you that we all felt so uncomfortable that we quickly left and went to Paris. But I had a very different feeling when I visited recently. It seems that since reunification in 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, a lot has changed. I feel we have much to learn from the Germans. During my more recent trip , I had an eerie feeling, for the first time, what it must feel like to be Black in America. And shame on us for not confronting it head on, making reparations and “owning” the past. Our brilliant guide, Stefan Albrecht, helped us to understand Berlin from every vantage point, from its historical significance in shaping Europe to the atrocities of the Holocaust to the evolution of the culture of Berlin today.
Let’s start here: In 1951, Germany’s first post-war chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, courageously did what no nation defeated in war had ever done: accepted responsibility for the wrongs committed by the Nazi regime — wrongs he called “unspeakable crimes against Jews.”
As I have recently come to understand it, for approximately 20 years after the end of World War II, the war crimes committed by the Nazis were never discussed within the German school system. It wasn’t until the late 1980s when a generation of kids finally learned of what transpired and their shame and guilt led to a culture that fully acknowledges their crimes against humanity and it wasn’t until they faced that shame that reparations — and most importantly “healing” — could even begin.
Germany has provided over $90 billion in compensation and is an exemplar of coming to terms with the past. It is a stronger, more vibrant, more tolerant democracy for having done so. While no amount of compensation can make survivors whole for what they and their families lost, Germany accepted it has a moral responsibility to provide a greater measure of dignity to survivors in their declining years than they suffered in their youth at the hands of the Nazis.
They are confronting the atrocities of the Nazis head on. The national guilt is palpable. As an example, we visited the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe. Suffice it to say, Germany refuses to be “PC” about the brutality of the Nazis. We could learn a lot that would go a long way to healing the sins of the past.
Of course, the challenge is how to make reparations here in America, where we have been talking about reparations since before the Civil War ended.
In his article in the Free Press discussing "What Happened when One Illinois Town Passed Reparations," Adam Popescu points out:
On January 16, 1865, three months before the South surrendered, Union General William T. Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15—which famously called for giving former slaves 40 acres. But after President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, President Andrew Johnson overturned the order, and only a small minority of the nearly four million former slaves ever got their land.
Since then, black Americans have struggled to come by their 40 acres. The failures of Reconstruction, the subjugation and violence of Jim Crow, the deeply entrenched poverty of the black American ghetto—all of these forces have worked against black homeownership.
According to the National Association of Realtors:
While the U.S. homeownership rate increased to 65.5% in 2021, the rate among Black Americans lags significantly (44%). For that group, it has only increased 0.4% in the last 10 years and is nearly 29 percentage points less than among white Americans (72.7%), representing the largest Black-white homeownership gap in a decade.
Asian and Hispanic Americans experienced the biggest homeownership rate gains over the last decade. Asian American households rose nearly 5 percentage points, driving the rate to an all-time high (62.8%). Hispanic American households increased by more than 4 percentage points to 50.6%.
Black homeowners and renters are more cost-burdened than any other racial group. Less than 10% of Black renters can afford to buy the typical home.
The good news is momentum is building. For example, here’s a proposal from the city of San Francisco. I’m not going to opine on the merits of the proposal, because Tangle does a great job of laying out arguments on all sides. I'll let you draw your own conclusions but will include these statistics that Tangle identifies:
84%. The percentage of U.S. wealth held by white Americans.
60%. The percentage of the U.S. population that is white.
4%. The percentage of U.S. wealth held by Black Americans.
13%. The percentage of the U.S. population that is Black.
$338,093. Average per capita wealth of white Americans
$60,216. Average per capita wealth of Black Americans.
Ta-Nehisi Coates made "The Case for Reparations" in The Atlantic:
Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.
This author believes that no common sense solution will be found until the "silent majority" regains its voice.
The Great Society and the War on Poverty
I’m not suggesting that we haven’t attempted to address the sins of the past. Let’s look at what is commonly called “The Great Society,” a set of social and economic programs initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s.
The main goal of the Great Society was to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in America, and to promote greater equality and opportunity for all citizens. The effectiveness of these programs is a matter of debate, with some arguing that they were successful in reducing poverty and improving the lives of millions of Americans, while others contend that they were ineffective and resulted in massive, unsustainable federal programs.
This is an incredibly complex issue that came to my attention when a friend mentioned to me an interview he listened to with Black conservative radio personality and author Larry Elder. In the 2015 discussion, he blamed the plight of Black people in America on entitlement programs.
Here is the clip from the full interview.
He basically embraced Malcolm X, who famously said:
The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn't taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.
This led me to do some research on the question of whether: (a) the Great Society was successful in using government programs to eradicate poverty for greater equality and opportunity in America, or (b) did the Great Society fail to eradicate poverty and result in massive, unsustainable federal programs?
Like most questions that we face in our society, the answers are nuanced and we must find a way to intelligently debate how to best serve the American people. Read this article and you’ll realize it is a complex issue and the outcomes are rarely binary.
Support for the “success” argument:
Poverty rates declined: One of the key goals of the Great Society was to reduce poverty, and there is evidence to suggest that it was successful in doing so. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate in America fell from 22.2% in 1959 to 11.1% in 1973, the year the Great Society officially ended.
Increased access to health care: The Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which provide health care coverage to millions of low-income Americans who would not have otherwise been able to afford it. These programs continue to be critical components of the U.S. health care system today.
Improved education: The Great Society created programs such as Head Start, which provides early childhood education and development services to low-income children, and the Higher Education Act, which increased access to higher education for low-income students. These programs helped to improve educational opportunities for millions of Americans.
Support for the “failure” argument:
Lack of sustained impact: Critics of the Great Society argue that although poverty rates initially declined, they began to rise again in the 1970s and have remained relatively stable since then. They contend that the programs initiated by the Great Society were not sustainable and did not have a lasting impact on poverty rates in America.
Cost and sustainability: The programs created by the Great Society were expensive, and some argue that they created an unsustainable burden on the federal government. They contend that the cost of these programs has contributed to our current national debt and fiscal problems.
Dependence on government: Some critics argue that the Great Society created a culture of dependence on government programs that has contributed to a decline in individual responsibility and self-sufficiency. They contend that this has had a negative impact on American society as a whole.
The effectiveness of the Great Society in eradicating poverty while promoting greater equality and opportunity in America is a matter of debate. While there is evidence to suggest that the programs created by the Great Society were successful in reducing poverty rates and improving the lives of millions of Americans, there are also concerns about the sustainability of these programs and their impact on individual responsibility and self-sufficiency.
One of the complicating factors in determining whether the Great Society succeeded is the role of other factors that might have contributed to its failure.
Vietnam War: The Vietnam War was a major drain on the U.S. economy and resources, diverting attention and funding away from domestic programs like the Great Society. The war also sparked widespread protests and social unrest, which may have undermined public support for the Great Society.
Economic challenges: The 1970s were a period of economic stagnation, with high inflation and unemployment rates. These economic challenges may have made it difficult for the Great Society programs to achieve sustained success.
Political opposition: The Great Society faced significant opposition from conservative politicians and interest groups, who argued that the programs represented an overreach of government power and an infringement on individual freedom. This opposition may have undermined the effectiveness and sustainability of the programs.
Changing cultural attitudes: The 1960s and 1970s were a time of significant cultural change in America, marked by the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement and the counterculture. These changes may have made it difficult for the Great Society programs to keep pace with shifting social and cultural norms.
Overall, any argument about the failure of the Great Society cannot be attributed to any single factor. Rather, it was likely the result of a complex combination of economic, political and cultural factors that made it difficult for the programs to achieve their intended goals.
This is endemic to the problem in America. We are looking for simple answers to complex questions. Simple answers don’t exist, and they require a willingness to work together to find solutions. Given how polarized politics has become, that is nearly impossible today.
Affirmative action
As we’ve discussed, racial prejudice continues to negatively impact our nation. For most of my adult life I was a firm believer that our country should be based upon principles of meritocracy and that the best way to end prejudice is to become “color blind.” I often quoted Martin Luther King Jr.:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
And I felt strongly that we should apply that universally. By extension, that would mean all college admissions should be based solely on merit. I’ve always believed that our country provided equal opportunity for all and therefore didn’t need to guarantee equal outcomes. Some may argue that equality of opportunity shouldn’t be the goal either.
For example, in article headlined “The case against equality of opportunity,” Vox posits:
[Equal opportunity] assumes that life is a zero-sum competition for wealth and status, that the most important thing is ensuring that only the smartest and hardest-working among us end up the victors. It assumes there will always be an underclass; it just wants to reserve membership for those who truly deserve it. We shouldn't want a better underclass. We should want no underclass, a world in which there might be some inequality but deep poverty is a thing of the past. A decent society shouldn't try to build a better aristocracy. It should try to achieve a reasonable and rising standard of living for all.
While that is truly aspirational and I would love to strive for that utopian society, I’ll settle for leveling the playing field to improve the opportunities that exist in this country. That's the only way to secure our future!
Affirmative action was designed with that end in mind. It was designed to attempt to level the playing field to provide opportunities for all regardless of race, creed, color, etc. But every intention/action comes with a cost. And this action does mean there is an element of “reverse racism.” If we lived in a society with equal opportunities for all then this action wouldn’t be necessary. But we don’t and likely never will, given human nature. But I would argue that is the price we must pay to attempt to correct the injustices that white America and the “elite class” have yet to rectify. So what sacrifices are we willing to make for the greater good?
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court has upended race-based policies and our ability to ensure that we provide opportunities for underrepresented minorities. In June 2023, the court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission, a landmark decision that overturns long-standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students in higher education.
This all just feels like we’re going in the wrong direction! Let’s assume for a moment that everyone who applied to a top 25 university was "qualified" (e.g., high GPA, high SAT/ACT score, strong extracurricular activities, strong moral fiber ,etc.). Then wouldn't we expect that the student body at that school would mirror the population from a diversity perspective? Wouldn't a "fair" system result in a school that consisted of 50.4% women and 49.6% men. Wouldn’t it be 58.9% white, 19.1% Hispanic, 13.6% African American; 6.3% Asian, 1.3% Native American and so on? But that’s not reality, because admission offices aren't "color blind" and don't make decisions solely on the applicants’ character or qualifications. I believe that until we humans can demonstrate that we've evolved to a point where we are able to be unbiased when it comes to race and ethnicity, until we can cleanse our institutions of the corruption of money and influence, and until we break out of a classest perspective, shouldn’t we insist on leveling the playing field to achieve those results?
Isn’t this what’s best for the overall good of our country?
For what it’s worth, I’m clearly in the minority here.
In a Pew Research Center poll in June 2023, 50% of U.S. adults say they disapprove of selective colleges and universities taking race and ethnicity into account in admissions decisions in order to increase the racial and ethnic diversity at school. One-third approve, with the remaining 16% unsure. No surprise that support for colleges giving consideration to race and ethnicity is higher amount Democrats and independents (54% approve, 29% disapprove) and Black Americans (47% approve, 29% disapprove) than it is among white Americans (29% approve, 57% disapprove) or Republicans (14% approve, 74% disapprove). In the same poll, 70% of Americans say the Supreme Court should rule that colleges are not allowed to consider race in admissions, with just 30% saying the opposite.
How do you feel about it? Can you think of a better way to level the playing field? If so, I’d love to hear from you!
The War on Drugs
The history of racism that underpins our drug policies is beyond comprehension. When considering what fueled mass incarceration, what laws and policies were created that led to both the ballooning of the prison population and the racial disproportionality of who is there, the War on Drugs is really front and center. More than half of Americans (57%) support legalizing marijuana (plus 32% who favor legalization for medical use only). Trump had an opportunity to reverse nearly a century of violence known as the War on Drugs and failed to meet the moment. Instead he allowed the GOP to continue to stonewall (pun intended) any attempt to end the racist policy called “Cannabis Prohibition.” Richard Nixon was responsible for the War on Drugs in 1971, and Ronald Reagan doubled down on it. It’s appalling the magnitude of damage that this racist policy has wrought on America.
John D. Ehrlichman served as the White House counsel and assistant to President Nixon. Here is a quote that comes from a 1994 interview with journalist Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine. It was subsequently featured in Baum's 2016 article for the magazine about the failure of the War on Drugs” originally launched by President Nixon in 1971:
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people,” Ehrlichman said. “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.
It's worth noting that Ehrlichman's family and friends have disputed the quote, claiming that it did not represent his views or actions. While that may be true, taken in context it seems to represent Nixon’s opinions and the policies of his administration — and perhaps even all administrations that followed.
There is a significant body of research and commentary arguing that many drug laws in the United States, going back to the early 20th century, have had racial disparities in their enforcement or have been influenced by racial prejudice. Here are a few key points:
Opium laws: In the late 19th and early 20th century, anti-opium laws in the U.S. were often associated with anti-Chinese sentiment. The use of opium was common in Chinese immigrant communities, and stereotypes of Chinese immigrants as immoral or dangerous were often linked with opium use. The first laws specifically prohibiting opium smoking, such as a San Francisco ordinance in 1875, were local and explicitly targeted these communities.
Marijuana prohibition: There is evidence that racial prejudice played a role in the criminalization of marijuana during the 1920s and 1930s. Anti-Mexican sentiment in the Southwest and anti-Black sentiment in the South were often linked marijuana, and fears about the drug were sometimes expressed in explicitly racial terms. Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was a prominent proponent of marijuana prohibition and often used racially charged language in his public statements on the subject.
Cocaine and heroin: Similarly, in the late 19th and early 20th century, fears about cocaine and heroin use were often tied to racial prejudice. For example, fears of "cocaine-crazed" Black men in the South contributed to the drug's criminalization. In the mid-20th century, heroin use was often associated with urban, predominantly Black communities, contributing to negative stereotypes and punitive policy responses.
The War on Drugs: Critics argue that the War on Drugs has disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities, leading to vastly disproportionate rates of arrest and incarceration for drug offenses among these groups. This has led some to argue that the War on Drugs reflects systemic racism in the U.S. criminal justice system.
This is not to suggest that drug laws are the sole or even primary cause of racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Rather, they are one part of a complex set of social, economic and legal factors contributing to these disparities. And not all scholars agree on the extent to which racial prejudice has influenced drug laws and their enforcement. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that racial prejudice has played a significant role in the history of drug prohibition in the United States
But let’s ask a different question for a moment. Let’s consider whom our elected officials represent. As you are probably aware, the number of states that have legalized marijuana (either medical or recreational) has now reached 40! By definition, that means that 82 of 100 senators have a clear mandate from their constituents, and yet the Senate has refused to advance legalization to end federal prohibition of the substance. We must hold these people accountable.
They represent all of us.