Racial Exhaustion in the New York Times

Ross Douthat's op-ed on race, published in the New York Times, reads like a piece of science fiction. Although Douthat makes well worn arguments about the perils of affirmative action, his ultimate conclusion that class-based measures should replace race in social policy rests on a description of America's near future that is utter fantasy.

Racial Exhaustion
Douthat frames his essay around Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in a 2006 case that upheld the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. Near the end of the opinion, O'Connor expresses a hope that in 25 years, affirmative action would be unnecessary. Douthat agrees with O'Connor's sentiment.

But that decision was not the first time the Supreme Court fantasized about the diminishing need for race-based public policy. The first judicial expression of this mistaken view occurred in an 1883 opinion that invalidated the first federal statute banning racial discrimination in places of public accommodation. In the face of dramatic racial inequality, the Court opined that ongoing measures to address racial inequality were no longer necessary and that these provisions were simply handouts that made blacks the "special favorites of the law."

Similarly, immediately after the Civil War, conservative members of Congress contested policies designed to provide food, shelter, and protection to the former slaves on the grounds that the war and the abolition of slavery had ended the nation's racial issues and that these policies harmed whites and made blacks lazy. Racial exhaustion rhetoric (see my recent law review article on the subject) has existed throughout the history of the United States. It is unclear why Douthat believes his plea for the end of race-based measures sits outside of this long history of racial denial.

Obama's and Sotomayor's America
Douthat notes that some critics have argued that Sonia Sotomayor's treatment by conservatives proves the salience of race in the United States. In response, Douthat asserts that:

[T]he [Republican] senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama.

And just where are all of these budding black presidents and wise Latina Supreme Court justices? According to Douthat, they are the inevitable consequence of population increases among persons of color and the likely nonwhite "national majority" by 2042. Numbers alone, however, do not translate into material well being or even political power (just ask South Africans -- or poor Latinos in Texas). And having a black President and a Latina on the Supreme Court does not mean that race has become socially irrelevant. Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, is one of the richest persons in the world. Under Douthat's individualized approach to the question of inequality, women of color should have indisputable economic power. Instead, they are the poorest segment of the United States population.

Furthermore, Sotomayor and Obama both benefited from affirmative action. According to Douthat, however, their great success disproves, rather than proves, the necessity of race-based affirmative action.

Race "or" Class
Douthat makes a valid point regarding the importance of class-based remedies. But the class proponents (Douthat is not the first) never justify their "either/or" formulation. Most sociological data on the subject, however, indicate that race and class both shape the experiences of the nation's poor persons of color. And while they would certainly benefit from economic policies (see William Julius Wilson's "When Work Disappears") the persistence of poverty among persons of color results from more than race or class alone.

The proponents of the class approach also ignore the significant public hostility to anti-poverty policies and the fact that "programs for the poor" often morph into "programs for lazy and undeserving blacks and Latinos" in public discourse. According to very popular political rhetoric, undeserving black and Latino "subprime" mortgage-holders singlehandedly caused the global economic and financial crisis. Also, "welfare" supposedly ruins the economy because it leads black women to have more children than they can afford, mistakenly believing that an extra 100 bucks a month is worth the hassle. Although most women who receive welfare are white, they are largely invisible in conservative discourse.

Even in the area of public education, where class-based policies could have a tremendous impact, the political will for egalitarian measures is not strong enough. For example, despite the inequities that result from using property taxes to fund public schools, most states continue to utilize this approach, which the Supreme Court validated in 1973.

The conditions in public schools also counsel against an approach that attempts to separate race from class. Public schools have become highly "resegregated" in the last decade. Schools that have largely black and Latino student populations are also "poverty schools," while schools with predominately white student populations are likely middle-class and higher-income schools. The race-poverty schools are grossly underfunded, are revolving doors for teachers, and they rank at the bottom in most measures of pupil success (This has nothing to do with the availability of affirmative action -- as conservatives falsely argue). Due to racial residential segregation, poor students of color are more likely than poor whites to attend poverty schools.

Nevertheless, in 2007, the Court invalidated policies in two school districts, which sought to remedy the harmful effects of resegregation. The majority held that the school assignment policies, which included an innocuous racial "tie-breaker" -- if a long list of other measures failed -- were too broad. The four most conservative justices argued that states did not even have a "compelling interest" in remedying racial isolation in public schools (despite all of the problems that correlate with it). The problem of racially isolated poverty schools is much more severe in "liberal" states in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast -- despite those states having large populations of persons of color.

Conclusion
Although Douthat probably formed his views on the subject of race before Obama's election, he seems to read too much into the historical fact of the nation's first black president. He also fails to consider the substantive and political limits of a class-based approach to equality. Douthat also exaggerates the relevance of increasing numbers of persons of color to their overall well being. Accordingly, Douthat's vision of America's near future remains simply that: a vision.

Media Matters: NYT, Fox and MSNBC Delete Sotomayor Comment Regarding Her "Socio-Economically Poor Background"

Recently, the New York Times produced video footage of a panel discussion during which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor stated that her standardized test scores (not grades) were below the average of persons at Princeton and Yale Law School. Although she ultimately graduated from the top of her class at Princeton and performed excellently at Yale Law School (which does not "rank" students), conservatives who oppose affirmative action have used these comments in order to depict Sotomayor as an undeserving beneficiary of race-based admissions policies.

There is one glaring problem with their analysis, however: The edited video footage deletes Sotomayor's statement that she "is from what is traditionally described as a socio-economically poor background," which leaves the impression that Princeton and Yale only considered "race" as an affirmative action category. Media Matters uncovered the misleading reports (on Fox, MSNBC and in the NYT).

Many studies show that academic performance in college and graduate or professional school correlates more strongly with prior GPA than with standardized tests. Furthermore, it is well known that expensive test preparation courses, which benefit the wealthy, can add significantly to a test-taker's performance. It is unclear whether Sotomayor enrolled in professional test preparation courses, but it is unlikely that she did.

Also, Sotomayor's gender probably played a tremendous factor in her admission to college and law school, but most conservatives have reserved their anger for race-based affirmative action. Undoubtedly, graduating summa cum laude from Princeton, one of the highest ranked universities in the world, strongly influenced the Yale Law School admissions committee (as it should have). This remarkable achievement, however, receives little attention from individuals who seek to blame affirmative action for their own irrational refusal to appreciate her intellectual power (and the achievements of other persons of color).

Although conservatives argue that affirmative action "stigmatizes" persons of color as inferior, this racial stereotype predated affirmative action by centuries, and it clearly remains a part of American culture. This stereotype operates so powerfully among those who accept it, that even the top graduate from one of the world's top colleges and law schools cannot escape it. Blaming affirmative action for this patent bigotry is an act of cowardice.

Ironically, conservatives have chosen to deemphasize Sotomayor's poverty even though they often advocate affirmative action on the basis of "class," rather than race. I have always doubted the sincerity of the class-based "alternative" (often, affirmative action is based on race and class), given conservative opposition to antipoverty programs -- which often portrays beneficiaries as lazy persons of color. Nevertheless, if the class argument comes from an honest place, then conservatives should point to Sotomayor's academic and professional success as vindicating -- rather than delegitimizing -- societal efforts to extend opportunities to poor and disadvantaged individuals. Instead, they have chosen to downplay or question her obvious success and to vilify an individual who succeeded despite her severe disadvantages. This approach is politically suicidal -- not to mention deceitful and hypocritical.

Are Young People Really Progressive As New Study Claims?

Ruy Teixeira has published a few articles (and even co-authored a book), in which he argues that the United States is becoming a more "progressive" society. Now, Teixeira and his colleague David Madland of the Center for American Progress, have released a study which concludes that the "Millennial" generation is strongly progressive (view the full report here).

In the past, I have viewed these types of studies with a high degree of skepticism. First, I believe that it is very difficult to articulate a list of factors that define an individual as "progressive." Second, public opinion is highly malleable, and people's responses to a set of specific policy questions might reflect the politics of the moment rather than longterm ideological commitment. Third, younger people's views tend to be more fluid, thus exacerbating the problem of measuring their longterm ideological commitments. In addition to these general methodological problems, I have some specific "questions" about the Teixeira and Madland study.

Voting for Obama = Progressive?
The first nine pages of the study report how well Obama performed among voters in the 18-29-year-old category. Exit poll studies have already revealed that Obama received a huge share of younger votes. Madland and Teixeira interpret this fact as an indication of the age group's progressive values: "Millennials backed Obama primarily because he reflects their progressive view of the world and progressive policy preferences. . . ."

Obama represented many things to different individuals. But as many progressives who supported Obama are recently discovering, political campaigns and governance are not the same. A lot of liberals constructed Obama as being far more progressive than other candidates -- including, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards -- without having a tangible basis for such a claim. Madland and Teixeira demonstrate that Millenials' support of Obama was far greater than their support for Kerry, but Obama and Kerry are pretty close in terms of social policy. Saying that a candidate is progressive and then voting overwhelmingly for that person does not make the candidate or the voter progressive.

Post-Gender and Post-Racialism Are Not Inherently Progressive Positions
Despite the blatant role of race and gender in the 2008 election, many political commentators have celebrated the arrival of America's new "post-racial" and "post-gender" landscape. Even though Obama ultimately won the national election on the strength of black, women, and Latino voters, many commentators view his election and Hillary Clinton's strong performance as proof of the social irrelevance of race and sex. Not only is this view contradictory, but it is not inherently "progressive" as Madland and Teixeira assume.

To Madland and Teixeira identity-blindness is a positive thing. The authors applaud the Millennials for believing that race is not a "big deal," and they enthusiastically proclaim that: "Barack Obama’s election is just the beginning—America’s postracial future is fast approaching." They make a similar observation with respect to gender: "Just as with race, gender equality is rapidly becoming a nonissue with Millennials."

Critical theorists have produced a rich body of literature that contests the idea that race- and gender-blindness produce progressive outcomes. Not only is this argument inconsistent with Millennials' support for Obama, but this view has also justified conservative resistance to policies designed to create educational diversity and equal employment opportunity.

As long as social inequities correlate with race and gender, the post-identity rhetoric will preclude an honest discussion of and solutions to inequality. Conjoined racial isolation and poverty severely limit opportunities for advancement. Dismissing race and sex in the name of progress does not alter this harsh reality.

Lack of "Context": Measuring Future Generations By Past Standards
The study also questionably measures the "progressive" ideology of the Millennials based on their support of historically contested ideas that were considered progressive to earlier generations. The study fails to articulate a new set of values that might provide a more accurate measure of how cutting-edge today's Millennials are.

The study, for example, shows that Millennials are less likely to believe in creationism, do not believe a "woman's place is in the home," favor government-sponsored health care, believe in same-sex marriage, and support a move to renewable energy and a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. Opposing the idea that a "woman's place is in the home" might have been a radical concept (especially if she were white and wealthy) up until World War II, but the post-War era and the second wave feminist movement greatly altered societal beliefs in "women's work." The fact that today's younger people embrace concepts that centuries of social movement activity and subsequent legal reforms have legitimized does not make them more progressive. Instead, it gives them a different set point than their predecessors.

Conflating Idealism With Progressive Ideology?
Finally, several aspects of the study suggest that the opinions of the respondents correspond with age, rather than ideology. The authors cite to studies which purportedly demonstrate a continuity in ideology across an individual's lifetime. Even if these studies are accurate, age could still determine an individual's response to many of the questions in the survey.

For example, younger respondents want much more regulation and governmental involvement in economic affairs. Younger respondents are also less cynical and more trusting of the government than older respondents. The authors attempt to dismiss this fact by explaining that younger respondents are more cynical than younger persons who completed similar surveys in the past. But this qualification does not answer how today's Millennial's would have viewed politics if they lived in the past.

Youthful idealism could also explain the Millennial's embrace of post-racial and post-gender politics. Once younger people and their friends report experiences with discrimination in the workplace, then their views on the insignificance of race and sex will likely shift.

Conclusion
Because public opinion is contextual and shaped by the media, social movements, politicians and contemporaneous events, it is very difficult to discern ideological commitments from short-term viewpoints. The Madland and Teixeira study focuses on "hot-button" social issues that have informed much of the "adult" lives of the Millennials. Hillary Clinton took "the bullet" on healthcare reform in the 1990s, but today, her thinking on the subject informs the so-called progressive commitment of the Millennials. The shift in public opinion on the subject resulted from years of political activity and statutory reform that predated the 2008 election.

The older folks in the Madland and Teixeira study engaged in vigorous protests over Vietnam, racism and sexism, and they showed a commitment to progressive causes that went far beyond simply casting a vote for certain issues or candidates. Yet, Madland and Teixeira describe these individuals as being more conservative than younger people who oppose the Iraq War and think race and sex are irrelevant.

Despite my skepticism, I took the "How Progressive Are You" quiz. I scored 288 out of 400, which makes me extremely progressive. The average score among Americans is 209.5. I even slammed the Millennials. Of course, I do not know what score I would have earned 20 years ago.

Pathetic News Item: "Liberal" New York City Charging Homeless People to Stay at Shelters!

The New York Times has published a disturbing article that probably will not provoke much attention or generalized anger in this so-called era of change. Apparently, New York City -- the nation's "liberal" mecca -- has begun enforcing a previously unenforced 1997 law which allows the city to extract rental payments from folks who live in homeless shelters once they obtain employment. The law permits the city to charge a rental amount of up to 50% of the individual's salary.

As one would expect, advocates for the poor oppose the policy, which has already led to sad circumstances for homeless individuals. Consider the experience of Vanessa Dacosta, whom the article highlights. Dacosta is a single mother who lives in a city shelter. She makes $8.40 per hour and $800 per month as a cashier at Sbarro pizzeria. The city has informed Dacosta that she must pay $336 in monthly rent to the shelter or vacate the premises.

Dacosta spends $400 a month on childcare. The rental policy will force her to live on $64 per month after she pays her rent and childcare. Sadly, Dacosta would bring home about the same amount of money if she did not work at all. Without a job, she would have to struggle to pay for childcare, but she would not have to pay rent to the city. This policy clearly creates perverse incentives for people who, like Dacosta, are fortunate enough to find employment and who want to escape the shelter by saving money to pay for rent.

The article provides a stunningly callous statement from Robert Hess, the city's homeless commissioner:

I think it’s hard to argue that families that can contribute to their shelter cost shouldn’t . . . .I don’t see this playing out in an adverse way. Our objective is not for families to remain in shelter. Our objective is to move families back into their own homes and into the community.

I suspect that if Hess had spoken with Dacosta, rather than a reporter for the New York Times, he would have had a difficult time convincing her that the rental policy would not have an adverse impact on her life.

Closing Remarks
I usually do not "yell" on this blog, but this policy represents one of the most despicable examples of governmental callousness in recent memory. While this nation recklessly pours trillions of dollars into reckless financial institutions, New York City -- which houses many of those reckless financial institutions -- has quietly decided to force its most destitute and disadvantaged residents to pay rent at homeless shelters. Although this policy is even more offensive than AIG's bonus payments, I suspect that it will not create as much of a media frenzy. I hope I am wrong about this, but poor people are not "sexy" enough for mainstream media coverage.

Final question: Where are agents of change?