The recent OpEd in the New York Times by Desmond S. King, professor of government at Oxford University, and Rogers M. Smith, professor of political science at Penn, is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black diverse. Under the title “On Race, the Silence is Bipartisan,” the two liberal scolds bemoan the fact that despite the continuation of rampant inequality the two political parties engage in a conspiracy of silence to keep discussion of race off the table even though what they themselves recommend is a “compromise” that is even more duplicitous than what they condemn.
First, it is important to note that although they give lip service to the claim that “racial discrimination persists,” what the two academics mean by inequality, and what animates their argument, is that minorities have less wealth than whites (Asians are absent from their analysis).
In July, the unemployment rate was 8.2 percent for whites, but 16.8 percent for blacks and 11.3 percent for Latinos. The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2009, the median household net worth was $5,677 for blacks, $6,325 for Hispanics and $113,149 for whites — down from $12,124, $18,539 and $134,992, respectively, in 2005.
All groups have suffered from high unemployment, the mortgage meltdown and soaring health care costs, but African-Americans and Hispanics started far behind and continue to fall behind. In 2009, 35 percent of black households and 31 percent of Latino households had zero or negative wealth, compared with 15 percent of white households.
Faced with what the two authors call this “racial crisis,” the two political parties (yes, including the one headed by a black), each for its own reasons, say … nothing.
Democrats mention race as little as possible, even though minority voters are crucial constituents, because colorblind positions are far more politically popular. Affirmative action has been supported in every Democratic presidential platform since 1972, but since the Reagan era, Democrats speak of it less and less….
This tack leaves modern Republicans with little to criticize, lest they appear to be race-baiting, so they too keep quiet.
Too bad about those pesky Americans, with their unfortunate devotion to the quaint notion that a defining quality of America is (or at least was) the promise that each and every individual would be judged “without regard” to race, creed, color, or national origin. Nevertheless, our authors, being nothing if not pragmatic realists, recognize that popular commitment to colorblindness for the obstacle it is and thus boldly recommend … obfuscation.
Political leaders must openly recognize that we cannot progress either by ignoring race or focusing exclusively on it. It is not only legitimate, but also essential, to evaluate policy options partly on the basis of whether they are likely to reduce or increase racial inequalities.
Compromise policies — measures that are not explicitly race-targeted but are chosen partly because they will benefit nonwhites especially — should become the basis for policy debates.
Since we can’t do what we need to do — focus exclusively on race — because the misguided public would never stand for it, what they recommend — adopting policies “that are not explicitly race-targeted” but are chosen because they are in fact race-targeted — turns out to be nothing more than what we are doing now. Given their analysis of inequality, what they clearly prefer would be bold (read “targeted”) policies to redistribute wealth from whites (and the absent Asians) to blacks and Latinos. Instead, what they put forward is not even a warmed-over list of contemporary affirmative action:
without using explicit racial classifications, we can devise districts and situate homes in ways that are more likely to produce integrated schools and neighborhoods.
We can adopt employment tests that are fair and inclusive and do a better job at predicting job performance than many Civil Service exams now do.
And we can do more to ensure that our criminal laws do not target crimes more typical of urban Hispanics and blacks, like crack cocaine use, more strongly than crimes typical of suburban whites, like powder cocaine use.
Well, we wouldn’t want to engage in racial re-ordering of society “explicitly,” would we? Just how ensuring more school integration, more “fair and inclusive” tests (read racial thumb on the scale), fewer blacks convicted of using crack cocaine, etc., would lead to the desired racial redistribution of wealth is never explained. Nor do the authors explain how such a timid list differs in the slightest from the current policies pushed by Democrats and, to their shame, tolerated by the Republicans that the authors condemn as a conspiracy of silence.
Surely they can do better than this, no? But if not, I’ll help. Since the authors argue that “‘race neutral’ economic measures … have proved too limited to help many poorer blacks and Hispanics” and lament that even our black president “pragmatically stresses universal social programs like health care,” let me suggest the sort of proposal they would offer if they had the courage of their own convictions. In the spirit of bipartisanship I will present both a Democratic and a Republican version:
- The Democratic version: a racial amelioration and redistribution surtax to be added to all taxes — income, payroll, inheritance, Social Security, etc., etc., paid by whites and Asians.
- The Republican version: a racial amelioration and redistribution tax cut on all taxes paid by blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and any other preferred minorities to be added at a later date.
Since our authors strenuously favor treating citizens differently based on their race, they can have no principled objection to this proposal. As for the practical specifics, the exact size of the racial surtax/tax cut can be negotiated between the two parties. My suggestion would be to incorporate the degree of racial preference present in other programs. If, for example, the SAT scores of blacks and Hispanics at highly selective and selective colleges (excluding the public universities in California, of course) are, on average, say, about 25% lower than than the scores of whites and Asians, then that would seem a reasonable amount for the racial redistribution surtax/tax cut.
The authors might also want to specify that this new tax/tax cut, like the current affirmative action policies that it emulates, should remain in place until “the playing field is level.”
