The Glass Is Not Half Full
Two broad traditions
encompass commentary about race relations in the United States. One is
pessimistic, the other optimistic. Thomas Jefferson, a pessimist, maintained
that blacks and whites "can never live in a state of equal freedom under the
same Government, so insurmountable are the barriers which nature, habit, and
opinion have established between them." Despite the Civil War, the
Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights Revolution, an appreciable number of
observers continue to assert that the United States is, and will remain, a
white supremacist pigmentocracy. Hence the despairing talk about "the
permanence of racism," "the myth of black progress," and "the coming race
war."
The
optimistic tradition includes such figures as Frederick Douglass, who, in 1863,
even before the destruction of slavery, averred that one day "the white and
colored people [would] be blended into a common nationality, and enjoy together
... under the same flag, the inestimable blessings of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, as neighborly citizens of a common country." A century
later, Martin Luther King Jr. affirmed that Americans would someday "be able to
transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of
brotherhood."
America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible by
Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom is a highly publicized contribution to the
conversation on race relations that is, in certain respects, squarely within
the optimistic tradition. Stephan Thernstrom is professor of American history
at Harvard University and Abigail Thernstrom, his wife a senior fellow at the
Manhattan Institute, a think tank. Their book offers a history of black-white
race relations since the late 19 th century; discusses racial
controversies in a wide array of contexts (employment, housing, social-welfare
programs, electoral politics, criminal justice); and prescribes a framework
within which to fashion policy.
The
Thernstroms conclude that the story of race relations since the 1940s is one of
"amazing" and "enormous" change for the good. America, the Thernstroms claim,
is "no longer separate, much less unequal than it once was, and by many
measures, less hostile." The authors are critical of those who, in their view,
exaggerate the significance of white racism, the significance of the black
underclass, and the extent to which blacks remain outsiders. Instead, the
Thernstroms stress the reduction in racial prejudice openly expressed by
whites, "the rise of the black middle class," and the extent to which blacks
have become "major players" in American politics.
For the Thernstroms, American racial politics
took a wrong turn when the imperative simply to end discrimination ceased to
govern our policies. That bare obligation, they argue, was superseded by a
destructive insistence that racial minorities be included in substantial
numbers (ideally, in rough proportionality) in all spheres of social life,
including the most competitive. Throughout America in Black and White ,
the Thernstroms attack almost any initiative that steps beyond simple
anti-discrimination: affirmative action, race norming in testing (under which
black examinees and white examinees are ranked and judged separately),
majority-minority electoral districts, busing, subsidies for purposes of
residential racial integration, and so on.
The
Thernstroms synthesize a tremendous amount of information, cover a daunting
array of topics, and convey their findings and prescriptions in a vivid,
accessible style. America in Black and White fails, however, to reach
the levels of insight and carefulness that its subject demands and the
expressed ambitions of its authors lead one to expect. I say this
notwithstanding my affinity for their optimism. Indeed, perhaps it is partly
because I share this optimism that I am particularly disappointed by this
book's rather substantial flaws.
The authors try to place themselves at the vital center of
racial politics: "We quarrel with the left--its going-nowhere picture of black
America and white racial attitudes," but "we also quarrel with the right--its
see-no-evil view." In actuality, however, they unremittingly berate "the left"
but rarely challenge the settled understandings of conservative or
neoconservative readers. The Thernstroms say they recognize that racial
discrimination, though dramatically diminished, continues to pose an obstacle
to African-Americans. Yet they say little about the large extent to which key
anti-discrimination provisions remain underenforced. Virtually the only sort of
current racial discrimination that the Thernstroms treat at length is that
which is intended to help blacks and disadvantages certain whites in the
process.
Consider
the Thernstroms' discussion of the controversy surrounding the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1991. The act involved, essentially, a congressional
override of several Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed, in a number of
ways, the scope of earlier civil-rights statutes. The Thernstroms mainly
disapprove; the "one small bit of arguably good news" about the act, they
write, was that Congress outlawed race norming. But was this really the
only good news? Unmentioned in the Thernstroms' account is the Supreme
Court decision on Patterson vs. McLean Credit Union that prodded
Congress to take action. In Patterson , the Supreme Court held that the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 did not prohibit employers from racially harassing
employees--e.g., calling a black employee "nigger." In the act of 1991,
Congress rectified this problem, explicitly outlawing such racial harassment by
employers. I am certain that the Thernstroms would view that aspect of
Congress' action as "good news." But it seems that the Thernstroms were so
preoccupied with criticizing the legal system as overindulgent toward blacks
that they passed over entirely this key feature of the 1991 legislation--a
feature that sought to correct the very sort of anti-black bias they take pains
to underplay throughout their text.
I am not criticizing the Thernstroms because
they fervently oppose affirmative action. I disapprove of most forms of public
affirmative action myself, on the premise that public authorities shouldn't be
permitted to allocate burdens and benefits on racial grounds in the absence of
an absolute emergency. But there is something dreadfully wrong with a study of
race relations in the United States that places affirmative action at the
center of the drama. The imbalance is especially notable given that other
significant phenomena--such as the lingering effects of racial oppression in
the (recent) past, new eruptions of anti-black prejudice, and so-called
"rational" racial discrimination (by which people, without malevolent intent,
use black skin as a negative cue)--are relegated to the far margins of
discussion.
The only time the authors
attack passionately and in detail the privileging of whiteness is when such
practices are located safely in the past. But even then, the Thernstroms
equivocate. They do not clearly condemn as racist the actions, sometimes
violent, that white ethnics in Chicago resorted to in the 1960s to keep blacks
from moving into "their" neighborhoods. Rather, the Thernstroms shift attention
to liberals who criticized these actions but didn't themselves live in the
contested neighborhoods. I do not object to their empathy for the white
ethnics, or to their point that affluent folk often have been able to escape
the harsh dilemmas posed by racial conflicts. After the explaining is done,
however, judgments must still be made. It is striking, and troubling, how
reluctant the Thernstroms are to condemn white bigotry, especially in light of
their clear, consistent, and negative assessment of black bigotry.
Some commentators adopt a
stance of racial pessimism because they fear that making concessions to the
optimists will breed complacency and inhibit the efforts needed for still
further progress. America in Black and White will nourish such fears
through its own embrace of laissez faire optimism. The Thernstroms prescribe
little to end the harms wrought by past injustices, or even to fight latent
racism--except stopping affirmative action and kindred policies. This is too
passive a stance. Affirmative action in its current guises is unlikely to be
the best or even a good way forward; but the consequences of simply eliminating
such programs are sure to be mixed. What's more, such reforms will leave
untouched injustices that seed legitimate aggrievement on the part of blacks.
Through intelligent, self-conscious, collective action, we have changed much
for the better in race relations. But much remains to be done to create what
Jefferson wrongly perceived as impossible: an America with blacks and
whites--and others as well--living in a state of equal freedom under the same
government.
