More “Sensible Prescriptions” From Roger Clegg

Yesterday I discussed (here) what I termed a few “Sensible Prescriptions For Change We Can Believe In” that Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, had posted on National Review Online.

NRO’s John Derbyshire posted some surprisingly lame criticism’s of Clegg’s comments here, and Clegg posted an unsurprisingly strong reply here.

Sunday the Philadelphia Inquirer will publish a longer version of Clegg’s comments, but I am happy to report that Clegg has agreed to publish the full, complete, unexpurgated version below, thus confirming DISCRIMINATIONS as the blog of record for all matters discriminatory in nature. (Wait, that doesn’t sound right….)

RACE RELATIONS, 2009

By Roger Clegg

For obvious reasons, this is a good time to take a step back and think about what remains to be done to improve race relations in the United States of America.

I’m going to limit my discussion to African Americans here, for a few reasons. The inauguration of Barack Obama makes this the logical focus; discussing all racial and ethnic groups would be rather unwieldy; and the problems with respect to African Americans are the longest standing (except for American Indians) and remain the most difficult. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that, if we had to deal only with the (nonimmigration) issues raised by Latinos, Asians, and Arab Americans, the issue of race relations would barely be on the public policy radar screen.

But before we can discuss what can be done to improve race relations, it makes sense to ask first where, ideally, we would like to end up. A realistic goal would be for being black to be roughly analogous to being Irish. That is, we don’t expect people to be literally colorblind, and we don’t demand that people ignore or forget about their Irish or African American roots. It’s perfectly fine to celebrate that heritage, but the celebration ought to be a relatively minor part of one’s makeup, no one should be discriminated against on account of this ethnicity, and of course any formal legal distinction on this basis ought to be forbidden.

Okay, now in what respects do we fall short of this ideal, and what can we do to reach it?

In terms of any legal distinctions in treatment, we are already there (with the important exception of racial preferences–a.k.a. affirmative action–discussed later). That is, the government at any level is not allowed to treat people differently on the basis of skin color, and in fact it is illegal to do so in most publicly transacted private matters as well: employment, housing, public accommodations, you name it.

Rather, the problems that might be identified are twofold. First, while we have made huge progress over the last half century, there are still individuals who harbor racial bias and who, therefore, engage in racial discrimination. Second, it is troubling that there are a disproportionately high number of African Americans clustered at the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and a disproportionately low number at the upper end.

What can we do about individual bias and discrimination? Well, as discussed, one thing we have already done is make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in most public transactions. Our society has also made it socially unacceptable to be a bigot. Not only our laws but our popular culture condemn racial discrimination.

But of course the root task is to persuade people that they are wrong to think that African Americans are in some way inferior in the first place. For that, the aforementioned racial stratification is a problem. That is, the reason for bigotry today is not that it is taught by the government or in school or even at one’s mother’s knee, but that the bigots observe the disproportionate number of African Americans who are poor or jobless or in prison or whatever, and conclude that there is something wrong with the whole race. This is unfortunate, but so long as these disproportions occur, it will happen.

So, how do we address the racial stratification? Once again, one of the ways is to ensure that African Americans do not face racial discrimination that makes it difficult for them to rise. As I said before, that’s being done.

Another, more important task in 2009 is to improve black culture–or, more precisely, some parts of it–most obviously by addressing the fact that seven out of ten African Americans are born out of wedlock. It is illegitimacy that results in the bunching of black people in poverty and unemployment and prison, as well as having the next generation of children also out of wedlock, perpetuating this cycle.

Fix that problem, and there won’t be much left to improving race relations.

* * *

I promised to discuss racial preferences. Classifying people according to skin color and what country their ancestors came from, and treating some better and others worse depending on which box they check, is obviously discrimination and obviously undesirable for the long-term harmony of an increasingly multiracial and multiethnic country. Sometimes this politically correct discrimination is even aimed at members of minority groups, including African Americans.

To a large extent, indeed, any policy discussion is moot, since the Supreme Court has (quite rightly) rejected the broad use of racial preferences of any sort. The use of the remedial rationale must be justified at a particular government agency or company, rather than as a means to address societal wrongs, let alone mere racial imbalances.

But, even as a policy matter, is it plausible that racial preferences improve race relations at any place in the discussion above? For instance, do they diminish bigotry? Hardly: They encourage it, by fostering resentment and apparently confirming the suspicion that blacks are incapable of competing without special help. Do they improve black culture by, in particular, discouraging illegitimacy? It’s hard to see how.

Ah, but does it do something about that racial stratification–the disproportionately high number of African Americans at the bottom of the ladder and low number at the top?

Actually, it’s unlikely that they do, in the short run or, especially, in the long run. Racial preference programs stigmatize African Americans–in their own eyes and in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, coworkers, clients, and customers. As John McWhorter has noted, they also encourage separatism, create disincentives to trying one’s best, and encourage a victim mindset. What’s more, they paper over the real problems that ought to be addressed–like illegitimacy–and thus make it less likely that they will in fact be addressed. Finally, by mismatching individuals and institutions, they set the former up for failure; thus, as Professor Richard Sander of UCLA law school has demonstrated, racial preferences in admission to law school have actually resulted in there being fewer African American lawyers than had those preferences never been used in the first place. All of this impedes African American progress.

It’s impossible to conclude that, in 2009, racial preferences are anything but a big, net minus for racial relations.

* * *

So there’s a lot to be happy about in the New Year here. Race relations are good–have never been better. The most important elements to further improvement are already in place: A legal regime that is antidiscrimination and a popular culture that condemns bigotry. Did I mention that Americans have elected an African American president?

And, partly on that account, there is hope regarding the two major impediments to further improving race relations. The president-elect has already encouraged African Americans to follow the Obamas’ lead when it comes to family and child-rearing. It would also be heartening if he would follow the logic of his own words–that his daughters probably shouldn’t get preferences, and that poor nonminorities probably should–and transform racial preferences into programs that help disadvantaged individuals of all colors.