Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Race is an exceedingly difficult thing to talk about in America. The issue is highly charged, and there are certain charlatans out there who have a very vested interest in making sure it remains highly charged.

Recently, I did a program on a local Christian radio station where the question being asked was "why do so many African-American Christians vote for candidates from the Democrat Party, even though that party supports so many things they abhor?" But to even discuss the question is to invite charges of racism. Even this discussion among Christians was noticeably tense.

The bottom line is that African-Americans see the Democrat Party as "for" them, and conservatives (Republican or otherwise) as "against" them. The aforementioned charlatans have played a notable part in ensuring that this perception reigns unchallenged.

What is unfortunate in all this is that many blacks apparently cannot see the harm that is being done to them in the name of "diversity." Thomas Sowell and others have made this point repeatedly, but are denounced by the charlatans as "Uncle Toms" when they do.

So I'll say what most people--certainly most white people--are afraid to say: When an African-American comes into a work situation, he or she is now looked at with suspicion and doubt. Why? Because people think that blacks are inherently inferior? No. Because they're terrified of people who are different? No.

The suspicion exists because everyone is now familiar with racial preferences in hiring practices. And because every office has to have "a black guy," he's looked at as filling the diversity quota--even if he actually is the most qualified person for the job. The fact that he's black makes him suspect--not because people doubt the abilities of African-Americans, but rather because they know that the office must have an African-American. He's now seen as the "equal opportunity guy," even if that's not actually the case. It is assumed that he got the job on some basis other than qualifications.

This is why racial preferences in hiring now hurt African-Americans. Frankly, I can't imagine anything more devastating than to be viewed this way by one's peers. The most effective thing this system does is to cast doubt on the very real accomplishments of many African-Americans.

Whatever you happen to think of George W. Bush, he (by virtue of a speechwriter) articulated one of the greatest truths I've ever heard uttered by a politician when he spoke of "the soft bigotry of low expectations." It is simply one of the most apt phrases I've ever heard, and sums up this phenomenon perfectly.

Peter Kirsanow has a solid column at National Review Online regarding the confused and semi-contradictory Supreme Court affirmative action rulings yesterday. Though not as elegant, he makes the same point Bush did:
[W]hile the immediate practical effect may be negligible, the long-term social cost will be pronounced. Aside from the violence the decision does to the rule of law, it has consigned at least one more generation of minorities to hard labor under the stigma of perceived incompetency.
Kirsanow points out that :
[T]he Michigan opinions...impress for the sheer banality of the tortuous reasoning used to convert the plain, unambiguous language of the Fourteenth Amendment into a license to discriminate...provided it is done artfully.
There is no other way to summarize the confusing opinions handed down yesterday. As he notes, the court has decided that "diversity" is now a "compelling state interest."

If I were an African-American leader, I'd be absolutely furious with the patronizing, soft bigotry now called a "compelling state interest" by the nation's highest court. So how come none of them actually are? Indeed, they evidently view it as a victory.

Some victory.

No comments: