Hustlers to the Left of Me

Jokers to the Right

On Sunday, The New York Times will publish yet another extensive discourse by Nikole Hannah-Jones, perpetrator of The 1619 Project: The Colorblindness Trap. Like its predecessor, it is well worth a read. Most of the essay details past white efforts to undermine equality for the descendants of slaves. If you aren’t aware of this disgraceful history, you should be (and I would guess that most Times readers are). But there is a problem here, a subtle one, the same problem that plagued the 1619 Project—the problem of disproportion.

You may recall that 1619 ran into trouble with liberal historians, among others, because it insinuated—an insinuation later revised under pressure—that the primary cause of the American Revolution was the preservation of slavery. There was some peripheral truth to this, but just a little bit. It makes sense only if you are looking at our history through a single prism, that of enslavement. But America is a land, and a history, that necessitates the use of many prisms. Hannah-Jones has made a living peering through the worst possible American lens—an unforgivable one, the history of enslavement. The passion involved in this pursuit can result in myopia; too often, it does. In the case of Hannah-Jones and far too many other left-academics, it leads to a damaging failure of perspective: she has nothing to say about the incredible progress made by blacks over the past 60 years. White racism appears immutable.

Now, let me stipulate: racism exists in America. Let me further stipulate: It always will. Nonetheless, there is work to be done: a quarter of blacks live in poverty, another quarter are working poor. That’s far too many. But nearly another 50% of black families have incomes middle-class or higher. The black unemployment rate, under Biden, is the lowest that it has ever been. (Yes, yes, the wealth gap is still wide—but that’s a consequence of home ownership, a lagging indicator in the wake of red-lining, secret covenants and other racist practices, now illegal.)

But I’d argue—with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, William Julius Wilson and others who look through more than one lens—that the economic disparities are not merely a consequence of racism, but also of sociology. Never does Hannah-Jones admit that the income and education gaps would shrink significantly if there were more two-parent black families (the sociology devoted to the problems faced by single-parent families is extensive and rock solid). Indeed, white pathologies are increasing dramatically as the number of single-parent families in those communities soar. A necessary caveat: There are great, heroic women—mostly women—raising children on their own; but the data scream that most are not. (By the way, black women—many of them single moms going to school part-time—graduate college at a greater rate than white men these days. I’d love to see Hannah-Jones write about that, but I expect she won’t. She has an axe to grind.)

Hannah-Jones opens her essay with a rather bizarre anecdote:

Anthony K. Wutoh, the provost of Howard University, was sitting at his desk last July when his phone rang. It was the new dean of the College of Medicine, and she was worried. She had received a letter from a conservative law group called the Liberty Justice Center.The letter warned that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions, the school “must cease” any practices or policies that included a “racial component” and said it was notifying medical schools across the country that they must eliminate “racial discrimination” in their admissions. If Howard refused to comply, the letter threatened, the organization would sue.

What is the point of this, aside from illuminating the idiocy of the Liberty Justice Center? There is no plausible threat. Howard is a fine university and I would guess—given the fact that it’s a historically black institution—that the preponderance of its applicants are black, and the preponderance of its new students are not “affirmative action hires,” but the best the black community has to offer.. Is Hannah-Jones suggesting that Howard may get into trouble because it skews its admissions toward its less talented applicants? I seriously doubt that it does, though I’d hope that poor kids would get a small boost in the selection process. Is she fearful that Howard Medical School is about to be overrun by Jewish and Asian brainiacs? Ridiculous. Again, what is the point?

And where are the counter-arguments? Affirmative action is a tangled issue, a close call under the best of circumstances. Making racial distinctions under any circumstances is questionable. Making such distinctions, across most of American history, against blacks (and Asians and Jews and Catholics and…), was despicable. But government attempts to rectify this through social engineering according to race have proved questionable: The first big story I covered was busing to achieve racial integration in Boston. It was a disaster, and more: I couldn’t find any black parents who were in favor of it. (School choice, via charter schools, is a more subtle and equable tool to encourage diversity.) For Hannah-Jones not to acknowledge the complexity of the issue is a form of intellectual dishonesty—and a failure on the part of her Times editors. (Having recently been edited by the Times Opinion staff, I can assure you that the process is usually more rigorous.)

Another interesting thing: Hannah-Jones quietly kicks all other “people of color”—including Africans immigrants—to the curb. She wants affirmative action only for the descendants of slaves. Including those who married white people or West Indians or Native Americans or Latinos? What percentage of “enslaved” heritage should be the threshold? Will affirmative action require “Ancestry.com” testing? Hasn’t too much blood passed under the bridge? By the way, arguments for reparations run into this same problem. It is a boutique argument, targeted at guilty black college graduates and ever-suffering white liberals. I’ve often posited the case of an Italian-American divorcee, working three jobs to support her kids. Her ancestors arrived 100 years ago. She’s struggling to get by; college for her kids is a dream. Why should her tax money go to repair sins that happened before her family got here?

The point is, our national diversity is a blessing, but we’ve passed the sell-by date for racial reparations of any sort. These distorted, disruptive, unfair ideas are touted by people like Hannah-Jones and Ibram X. Kendi, who rails against the notion of assimilation.

But assimilation is precisely what we should be seeking. It is where we are heading, I hope: toward a society that acknowledges the kaleidoscope of strengths our various ethnicities contribute to the American whole. That is not the same as color-blindness; it is technicolor appreciation. That’s probably bad for Nikole Hannah-Jones’ business, though. I’ve made this point before, but American music—a remarkable, cosmopolitan gift we’ve given the world—should be the model for the rest of society. We’re a unique country because of our plethora of prisms. If we do achieve the goal of All-American cafe au lait assimilation, the single-prism hucksters of all sorts will have to look for other work.

For those of you who are new to Sanity Clause, I try to keep things quiet and, yes, sane in a sea of blithering bloviators who are corrupting our democracy. If you approve, I hope you’ll support the cause: