Race Relations

I see a lot of interesting debates on Facebook. This one's about race relations, which is always an interesting and controversial topic.

Controversial Person: For every race, tribe, color, and religious person, his/her fate starts and ends with jobs, the economy, adequate purchasing power, and a way to earn that purchasing power without being dependent on the kindness of persons who are of a different tribe, race, religion, or color. If a black man has to be dependent on a white man or welfare for his income, how far removed is he from slavery?

Cool Blue-Collar White Guy: This race subject has always bewildered me--shoot, most of the black people I know are more successful than I. I do not know what it is like to be a minority, however I grew up dirt poor and under-educated, and like most I did not go to the ends of the earth to get an education either....so my point is, it is up to the individual.

The Philosopher: I think it is a mistake to look at the African-American issue as a separate entity in the way Malcolm X makes it sound; it would be natural for him to mount his argument in the tone and rhetoric that he has - he is/was, after all, a black man himself. But the problem is a larger one – one that ‘I grew up dirt poor, under educated…’ comment of the comrade above illustrates rather well: it’s a problem of social construction as a whole. No doubt about it – race does matter, especially in a heterogeneous society like ours. But if you read books by intellectuals like Cornel West and/or Michael Eric Dyson, you’ll see how Malcolm’s message is put in perspective: we must (society at large, dominated by rich, white establishment) stop promoting the myth that a black man is either distant to a gang, or music or sports lifestyle. One may say those are merely stereotypes, but stereotypes, too, are constructed and have purpose. It’s the view of an African-American, permeating as a stereotype, that needs to be demolished (left behind – choose your own metaphor), which in turn will have the constructive and positive effect of better financial understanding, home ownership etc, etc… though not much mentioned, America very much operates on the basis of an unspoken caste system, and that unfortunately is true not just for African Americans, but whites and other races.

I also reject that success in a society is entirely dependent on the individual, but then I also disagree with a society that is merely concerned with equality of opportunity (and not equality of condition).

Cool Blue Collar White Guy: Books and scholars will not solve the problem. Friendships, Strong morals and family will. Furthermore I honestly believe the younger generations are doing this at a much greater rate than anytime in human history. I am 47 and can look you in the eye and honestly say that race or religion has not mattered to me.

Controversial Guy: @Philosopher: one reason African-Americans are stereotyped as athletes is because it is one area where they have been successful on their own and against the majority race.

@Blue Collar Guy: the last Fed Reserve study I read indicated that the only racial group (tracked by the Fed) that had a negative savings/wealth rate were African-Americans. Why is that? African immigrants from Africa tend to do very well in America and save money, so it's not a racial issue. One answer might be that African-Americans in this country have not found their niche outside of sports, which means that in every other category, they compete at a disadvantage with the majority race. As I've said before, never in the history of mankind (outside of apartheid or dictatorships) has the majority race ever allowed minority races to do well to an extent where they displace the majority race. The only way the minority races are able to succeed is by finding a place where they can outperform, based on merit, the majority race. For example, Christians wouldn't or couldn't handle money/interest in the old days, allowing others to handle that area for them. Muslims and Middle Easterners in America have done well because native born majority Americans have been unable to excel in math and science to the same extent as foreign Muslims, Hindus, Indians, Iranians, etc.

As a member of the majority race, Blue Collar Guy, you don't get to be automatically successful--but you get a default head start over racial minorities b/c the number of potentially available jobs is based on your skill set, not the color of your skin. With minority races, as I've posited here, the majority will never allow them to rise too high up in the ranks of government or union jobs and will defer charges of racism by hiring a few visible, compliant and perhaps not very exceptionally smart people (like Michael Steele, etc.). Having said that, so what? We can never dissolve all jobs based on political connections and limited accountability, i.e., union and government jobs, so all we can do is understand certain dynamics and work within those dynamics.

One contention is that political solutions to resolve racial wealth imbalances don't work (see President Johnson's War on Poverty), so we should look at solutions that allow minorities to gain independence and financial stability without relying on the kindness of the majority race. Assuming we want to assist minority communities specifically (rather than assisting all poor people regardless of race), any aid should come in the form of direct money into minority/poor communities, small business grants with someone vetting business plans, and assistance with teaching marketable skills (i.e., almost nothing that is taught in public schools today by unionized teachers).

There's another issue involved here. By attaching their fate to the majority race, minority races might be restricting women's mating choices. This is because only a limited percentage of minority men are allowed to get a part of the majority pie--in other words, the majority's pie will always be at least 51% in terms of gov and union jobs, and anything else that allows the majority to pass laws protecting themselves. This usually means the majority of minority men, at least those who cannot open their own businesses or find a niche, are unable to fully integrate into society on the same level as the majority race. It also means that the successful minority women who do successfully integrate and get a piece of the majority pie end up with fewer same-race men to marry who are on the same level, academically, financially, and geographically.

Cool Blue Collar White Guy: you know this feed is above my simple mind...I will just say that I have many "minority" friends and I am the minority in my neighborhood. I am cool with that...I know most my neighbors have my back, as I do them. I don't need my goverment to tell me whom to hire or to be friends with. That decision is best left with me. I have made the right choices. My "friends" list is a smorgasbord of personalities....all with their own qualities, and I dine there often :)

If our government is a reflection of the people why the disparity ? Or perceived disparity ? Shoot you have to be an attorney just to understand the tax code, let alone the civil rights stuff...and with 2300 pages of healthcare reform with more pork than a Jerry Springer show, I am definitely confused.

Controversial Guy: I totally agree with you when it comes to the ever-increasing laws and complexity of our political process. This phenomena makes it difficult for the average person/voter to stay interested. It has also led to dangerous apathy that will one day mutant into contempt, not just ridicule, name-calling, and Nazi references. We are not there yet, thank goodness. But if we do not move the debate back to realistic, fact-based, and data-driven solutions, we will get there soon enough.

Shelby Steele on Racial Preferences

From Shelby Steele's excellent book, The Content of Our Character:

A [racial] preference [like affirmative action] is not a training program; it teaches no skills, instills no values. It only makes color a passport. But the worst aspect of racial preferences is that they encourage dependency on entitlements rather than our own initiative...And here we fall into an Orwellian double-speak where preference means equality.

The most interesting chapter so far is Chapter 5, titled, "White Guilt."

Update: someone posted the quote above on his Facebook wall, and a debate ensued. Here you go:

J.N.: First of all, Steele's argument pre-supposes a disparity in skill levels between traditionally privileged applicants and the beneficiaries of affirmative action. This is not typically the case. In fact, one of the major arguments FOR affirmative action is that while a member of a minority may be less prepared, he is by no means unable or unfit to do the job. There are still basic qualifications that must be met.

Therefore, we don't need affirmative action to teach skills or instill values. In fact, it's insulting to even suggest that those who qualify for affirmative action are somehow "lesser" people than those who do not- I particularly have an issue with the "instills no values" part.

What affirmative action does do, however, is function as a mechanism that counterbalances the systemic disparities in OPPORTUNITIES for minorities, usually a side effect of internalized and often subconscious racist and oppressive actions on the part of the status quo. A status quo, mind you, that has no problem enjoying all of the advantages and perks that come from being members of the preferred race, cultural and moral background.

In the case of two candidates equally qualified, affirmative action is meant to give more opportunity to the member of a historically disadvantaged group over the one that isn't. However, affirmative action as a policy isn't instituted in every single job or educational institution--not even the majority. And even if it were, minority populations are small enough that there is still room enough to for everyone. So the biggest argument against it--systemic discrimination against majority ethnic members--doesn't really hold up considering the numbers.

Bottom line: in his lifetime, a white, middle-class college-educated guy will never lose as many opportunities to affirmative action as a poor, uneducated black woman will just for being born black and poor into a society which does not value all of its members equally.Affirmative action isn't replacing equality with preference. It's bringing people into the picture who weren't even considered as part of the equality equation to begin with.

D.M.: Shelby Steele creates a "strawman" and then knocks it down. "Affirmative Action" is NOT setting up a racial preference no matter how much the Republican Party and the mindless right wing want to claim that it is. In fact, what occurs in a real Affirmative Action situation is a slightly larger pool of applicants for a job or a slot in a university. The claim that the slightly larger pool has then degraded the job, the university, or the applicant is absurd. Racism exits in our society to label those who fight against racism as "reverse racists" is quite simply a ploy by the most right wing elements in our society to maintain white skin privilege.

L.L.: you two basically say two things: one, African-Americans don't start on an equal playing field (they are "less prepared") and thus deserve additional assistance to maximize "opportunities"; or two, that affirmative action, though it uses race as a benchmark, simply broadens the pool of accepted applicants. Both of you also refer to "white" privilege as a justification for affirmative action. Steele would respond:

"Such policies have the effect of transforming whites from victimizers into patrons and keeping blacks where they have always been--dependent on the largesse of whites...The former victimizers are now challenged to be patrons, but where is the black challenge? This is really a statement to and about white people, their guilt, their responsibility, and their road to redemption. Not only does it not enunciate a black mission, but it sees blacks only in the dimension of their victimization and casts them once again in the role of the receivers of white beneficence...

What is needed now is a new spirit of pragmatism in racial matters where blacks are seen simply as American citizens who deserve complete fairness and in some cases development assistance, but in no case special entitlements based on color. We need deracinated social policies that attack poverty rather than black poverty and that instill those values that make for self-reliance. The white message to blacks must be: America hurt you badly and that is wrong, but entitlements only prolong the hurt while development overcomes it."

Steele, unfortunately, does not specify what he means by "developmental assistance," but I suspect he would approve of merit-based programs like scholarships and financial assistance to top performers who come from low-income families.

J.N.: "Where is the black challenge?" really? REALLY? The black challenge is in their freaking daily existence. Blacks continue to be victimized and discriminated against, now not just because of their skin color, but because they are now the economic and social victims of a society that has minimized their lives to the near constant effort of trying to EXIST much less SUCCEED in white America. I agree that blacks need other assistance, but I think they need it as well as affirmative action, not instead of.

The problem here is that your author seems to be equating affirmative action with reparations, which while I may be foolish to deny a connection, that is not all or even a majority of what it does. We're not making it up to the blacks for making them pick our cotton all that time, we're counterbalancing all the sh*t we've been doing to them from the moment they were granted citizenhood up until TODAY.

L.L.: You've played right into Steele's hands. He would respond that in your mind, the "black challenge" has no relation to merit, hard work, or anything individual--it's merely a rehashing of the old formula that being black = wretched, and being wretched necessitates special help. You fail to see that you've just condemned an entire group of people as wretched or disadvantaged because of their skin color. Of course, you then cast yourself as the compassionate shining white knight who will help these unfortunate wretches surface from their so-called miserable existence. I will quote Steele again:

"Selfish white guilt is really self-importance. It has no humility and it asks for unreasonable, egotistical innocence. Nothing diminishes a black more than this sort of guilt in a white, which to my mind amounts to a sort of moral colonialism."

Steele also quotes Ralph Ellison, who said, "Our task is that of making ourselves individuals. The conscience of a race is the gift of its individuals."

S.M.: [She is half-white, half-Filipina] It seems like whenever anyone is talking about victimized races in the United States, they are either black or Hispanic. Although statistics may be in their favor on that note, they are no longer the minority of minorities. There are programs everywhere for "disadvantaged" Hispanics and blacks, but somehow, when you're a half-this or half-that, no one knows what to do with you. Are they supposed to discriminate against the top half, but not the bottom? Maybe vice versa?

I'm saying I agree completely agree with Steele that being a particular race has become an issue of entitlement. Frankly, I feel bad for [fully] white people, because the masses of disadvantaged minorities seem to forget about the disadvantaged "hillbillies." Unfortunately, if those "hillbillies" stand up for themselves, then suddenly they are bigots. And when you are mixed, forget about it; one side identifies you as the other side, and suddenly I'm not white or I'm not Filipino enough--[and] I'm American, God-damn it. It's for this reason that affirmative action has always got my pannies in a bunch.

L.L.: the Supreme Court, when recently analyzing an affirmative action case, pointed out the difficulty of having any racial categories or preferences in an increasingly mixed-race world.

From my perspective, the difference between African-Americans and other races is the way Americans favored and promoted slavery in America. While other races have experienced government-sanctioned discrimination (Chinese Exclusion Act, Japanese internment camps, etc.), I don't think they were subject to institutionalized slavery and the deliberate break-up of their families. Perhaps I am wrong, but my understanding is that America--at least domestically--has treated only Native Americans worse than African-Americans (as a group). Consequently, I am not offended when academics and others focus on African-Americans and Native Americans when discussing social programs. Today, however, using race to award benefits has become controversial, because a family's wealth and education levels are probably the primary factors in establishing a child's success--not race.

By the way, I am surprised that no one has cited perhaps the best argument for affirmative action: diversity. Being from California, perhaps we take diversity for granted. (Or perhaps we believe in many types of diversity, not just racial diversity.)

Update: some of the confusion seems to be the difficulty of defining "affirmative-action." For example, I do not think this program (Posse Foundation) is race-based affirmative action, though some people might disagree. (The program clearly includes Caucasians and Asians from disadvantaged areas, not just African-Americans.) In the future, perhaps people should attempt to define affirmative action before engaging in a debate about it.

Update: See HERE for a link to one of the best articles on affirmative action I've ever read.

Henry Louis Gates, Questions

The following questions aren't the usual "Let's get to know you better" kind. They are leading questions, and they force you to question your own principles.

1. What is the point of the 4th Amendment if the government can tell you how to behave in your own home even after it has verified that it is your home; you have not committed a crime; and you have a legal right to be there?

2. Prof. Gates was arrested on his own front porch. The officer who arrested him had already verified his ID and appears to have been walking outside. If Prof. Gates began yelling at the police officer and belligerently demanded the officer's badge number, whose job was it to walk away and de-escalate the situation? The Harvard professor in his own home, or the police officer whose salary is being paid by the Harvard professor?

3. As soon as the police officer verified Prof. Gates' ID and realized he was the proper homeowner, did Prof. Gates have the legal right to tell the police officer to leave his property? If yes, then as a legal principle, what does it matter the choice of words that Prof. Gates used to ask the officer to leave his home?

4. Is it a crime to be verbally belligerent to a police officer in your own home when the police officer has already verified that no crime is taking place in the home? Is there ever such a thing as "contempt of cop"?

Here is the best article I've read so far on the Gates-Crowley affair (Robin Wells, July 27, 2009):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-wells/hard-truths-and-the-teach_b_245856.html

I believe that the treatment of Professor Gates was unjust and unprofessional. Yes, he was belligerent to a police officer. But that is no crime, and nowhere has Officer Crowley shown that there was any chance of a crime being committed, confirmed by the Cambridge Police Department's quick decision to drop the charges against Professor Gates. Police officers are trained to be professionals, and a professional would have recognized that an obstreperous sexagenarian who walks with a cane standing in his own house and faced with a phalanx of armed police officers is no threat...

[But] The hard truth that Professor Gates needs to hear is that he is the one who handed over his power to Officer Crowley. Letting his agitation get the better of him, Gates lost the ability to shape the outcome of the encounter and set up his own victimization by a poorly trained police officer.

Amen, sister. Basically, the police officer was unprofessional and did not handle the situation properly, but Prof. Gates could have saved himself a lot of trouble by being the bigger man. Professor Gates might not have realized he had to show the officer his state-issued ID, not just his Harvard-issued ID.

By law, you must produce state-issued ID when requested to do so by a police officer who has lawfully detained you. Most states have statutes similar to the following: “Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer." I know these types of "ID" laws sound perilously close to "Show me your papers," but the law seems clear--see U.S. Supreme Court decision Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004), decided by a 5 to 4 vote. (I wonder if Justice Kennedy is now reconsidering his deciding vote.) Perhaps if Prof. Gates had known the law requires him to produce state-issued ID to an officer, the situation might not have escalated.

In any case, when a police officer needs to call backup to handle a senior citizen Harvard professor, something's amiss. As President Obama stated, "I think...that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who is in his own home."

Although Prof. Gates could have de-escalated the situation, the burden was on the officer to do so, not Prof. Gates. The Cambridge Police Department owes Mr. Gates an apology for escalating what should have been a routine check.

Bonus: Here are 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kosinski's comments on free speech, which apply to Gates' case:

See Duran v. City of Douglas (1990): [T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." [Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 at 461] The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

Re: criticism of judges, see Standing Committee of Discipline v. Yagman quoting Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941):

"The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect."

Judge Kosinski is often named as one of the potential candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bonus II:

1. The question isn't whether Gates could have acted better under the circumstances--the question is what a government worker should do in someone else's house once he verifies there is no threat, no crime, and the owner wants him out.

2. Gates may have been outsmarted by the police officer. The officer probably couldn't arrest Gates inside his own home for "disorderly conduct," so he may have beckoned Gates outside, where he could plausibly argue that the public was affected or endangered by Gates' conduct.

Patrick S. says:

Based upon the holdings in the MA cases below, Dr. Gates' conduct did not even fall under the disorderly conduct statute. Whether this is an issue of the cop arresting him anyway or whether the cops were not properly trained on what is "disorderly conduct" in MA is another question:

In Commonwealth v. Mallahan, 72 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 889 N.E.2d 77 (2008), a decision rendered last year, an appeals court held that a person who launched into an angry, profanity-laced tirade against a police officer in front of spectators could not be convicted of disorderly conduct.

In Commonwealth v. Lopiano, (2004) 805 N.E.2d 522, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 723 (2004), an appeals court held it was not disorderly conduct for a person who angrily yelled at an officer that his civil rights were being violated. [In this case, according to the officer, Defendant was "yelling at me, you're violating my civil rights, then he began yelling at Ms. Carins, why are you doing this to me, you'll never go through with this."]

The Massachusetts statute defining "disorderly conduct" used to have a provision that made it illegal to make "unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display," or to address "abusive language to any person present." Yet the courts have interpreted that provision to violate the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. So police cannot lawfully arrest a person for hurling abusive language at an officer.

[See more law-related discussion here and Commonwealth v Feigenbaum, 404 Mass. 471 (1989)]

Racial Divide?

Here's an interesting political map about Obama's and McCain's voters, when divided by race:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-did-white-people-vote.html

I enjoyed reading the comments. One comment pointed out that the map lacks a control. Without comparing the Obama/McCain map with the Kerry/Bush election, one can't reasonable conclude anything significant. Chances are, the maps might be similar for both elections, meaning there was no racial pattern in the 2008 election.

The NAACP's New Man

Another blogger wrote a post about race in America and the new head of the NAACP. It's such a well-written post, I had to share:

http://politicalcolors.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-face-of-naacp.html

The writer makes a great point when she asks the rhetorical question, "What happens to high school dropouts? They become the chronically unemployed."

Juror is Dismissed in Mattel Trial

Mattel alleges MGA, a competitor, stole the idea of Bratz dolls. MGA's CEO, Isaac Larian, is an Iranian Jewish immigrant. A juror may have influenced the Mattel/MGA case when she told other jurors about her husband's assessment of Iranians: "stubborn, rude, stingy, are thieves and have stolen...ideas."

This comment is rather surprising, given that the founder of eBay is a French-born Iranian (Pierre M. Omidyar); the first female space tourist, Anousheh Ansari, is Iranian; the founder of bebe, a clothing retailer, is Iranian; and one of Google's business founders is Omid Kordestani, an Iranian.

On the bright side, at least the comments weren't considered anti-Semitic or directed at Mr. Larian's Jewish background, so there's some progress there. My take on the issue of Mattel's gripe against MGA? It takes a lot more than an idea and some sketches to bring to market a viable product. Even if the original sketches were designed by someone who happened to be working for Mattel at the time, Mr. Larian obviously took the idea and made it into a viable product. Damages should take into consideration Mr. Larian's performance in terms of advertising his product effectively, investing in international factories to make the dolls, setting up an efficient shipping/export process, hiring the employees, etc.

Unfortunately, any employee who leaves a company who had an inkling of an idea during company time that ends up being successful will be sued. This is like Xerox suing Apple for "stealing" the idea of a computer--it's laughable. A company should not be able to cherrypick ideas through the legal system when it first rejected the idea and did not invest in developing it. If Mattel is smart, it will focus on saving future legal fees (I am not sure if an attorneys' fees provision was available or pled), not fight the inevitable appeal, and settle with Bratz for a small slice of the profits.