UC

The Manhattan Institute’s John McWhorter has spoken out against what he considers a sub-cultural strain of anti-intellectualism among blacks. He also contended that some blacks, no matter how successful or untouched by racial discrimination, have an urge to keep “whitey on the hook,” to never let white people forget historical grievances.

In a piece for The New Republic, McWhorter says he believes the Berkeley College Republicans had a First Amendment right to hold a “diversity” bake sale—and he didn’t like the administration’s response to it—but criticizes the Republican students:

“There is a certain coyness about Republicans’ pretense that the problem with affirmative action is simply that it ‘treats races differently.’ No affirmative action fan starts with a peculiar commitment to ‘treating races differently.’ The assumption is that one must do so in this particular case, to redress past wrongs, and to adjust for the fact that races suffer disadvantage to disproportionate degrees. One may contest that argument. However, to simply pose the wide-eyed question ‘Why should we treat races differently?’ pretends no such argument is germane, which contributes nothing to the general debate.”

“In exchanges with those publicly asking why we should treat races differently, I have often noted that what they really feel is that even if there is inequality in society, it is the job of those dealt a bad hand to make the best of it regardless, not have the standards changed for them. They would be better citizens to state that explicitly, instead of fashioning a studiously know-nothing approach like showing that ‘race is meaningless.’ It isn’t, and they know it. A coherent anti-preferences argument remains possible despite that—and they need to wipe the smirks off their faces and start making it.”

As a supporter of race neutrality in government and an opponent of racial preferences, I’ll accept McWhorter’s challenge. A common refrain on this blog is that it’s unfair, illegal, and just plain wrong to treat the races differently, although I recognize that the races are different to a degree, the most obvious differences being physical.

For example, racial preferences mostly exist because of the academic achievement gap and other racial disparities. I don’t believe the achievement gap in particular will ever close, and it won’t narrow to a degree that will satisfy social engineers. While the performance of individual students can be improved, there will always be a gap that causes “concern” among people who fret about that kind of thing. Blame genetics, the environment, culture, or two of three or all three. The pattern is consistent across standardized exam results and overall academic performance among what I call the Big 4: East Asian, whites, Hispanics, and blacks.

I can’t speak for the Berkeley Republicans, but I can state unequivocally that despite racial disparities, the government still must be racially neutral. The point of “affirmative action” bake sales is to illustrate this principle, and differences between the races should not authorize the government to put a proverbial thumb on the scale to even things up. The government’s job is to protect the rights of individuals, and requiring certain individuals to perform at a higher standard than others based on the color of their skin violates their right to equality under the law.

So what is the solution? There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but the focus shouldn’t be on what the government can do, but what individual families can do.

Some racial preferences proponents advocate preferences based on family socioeconomic status, so members of all racial and ethnic groups benefit. It sounds good on paper, but I believe such preferences would still result in schools lowering admissions standards. However, income-based lowered standards are more palatable than race-based lowered standards.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }