A Simple Prescription for Race Relations, As We Await Fisher

As the Supreme Court prepares its opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas (in which that school’s use of racial and ethnic admissions preferences is challenged), and as our bien pensants continue as always to agonize about the state of race relations in the United States (which are actually quite good, by the way), a few thoughts.

Racial preferences are becoming more and more unwieldy and divisive as the United States becomes more and more multiethnic and multiracial. But they are thought necessary because without them there would be “underrepresentation” of some groups. The same logic, by the way, is behind the use of “disparate impact” lawsuits: They are attractive because this is another way to address the “underrepresentation” that results from merit-based selection.

But the principal reason for some groups’ failure in the aggregate to achieve will not be solved by using racial preferences and is ignored by them – the principal reason being illegitimacy. That’s the problem that should be addressed, rather than pretending there is something wrong or unfair with merit selection.

Last fall the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.

It is, of course, no surprise that the groups with the highest illegitimacy rates are the groups that are struggling educationally, economically, with crime, and so forth (and this is true not only between racial groups but within them). To take just one example, here are the latest high-school graduation rates (the numbers were are taken from January 22, 2013, Washington Post article reporting on data collected for the class of 2010 by the National Center for Education Statistics and released that week): Asians, 93 percent; non-Hispanic whites, 83 percent; Hispanics, 71.4 percent; American Indians/Alaska Natives, 69.1 percent; and African Americans, 66.1 percent.

See any parallels between the pairs of numbers in the two preceding paragraphs? If not, you have a promising future as a liberal social scientist.

So here’s a modest proposal: Why don’t the NAACP and similar organizations take all the money they use to challenge and complain about the standards that their groups (in the aggregate) don’t meet when it comes to university admissions, selective high-school admissions, school discipline, mortgage loans, police and firefighter tests, felon disenfranchisement laws, employment policies that look at criminal records, etc., etc., and use that money to figure out ways to bring down the illegitimacy rates that drive all these other disparities?

It’s all really very simple: We should all treat people as individuals, not as members of this or that racial group; and we should all wait until we’re married to have children. Do those two things, and race relations will be just fine.

* * *

What you just read was posted on Minding the Campus, with a cross-link at National Review Online’s “Phi Beta Cons.” With tongue firmly in cheek, I’ll not that President Obama apparently must read one or both, since his commencement address last Sunday at Morehouse College is at least broadly consistent with my themes “no special treatment” and “no fatherless children”:

…Which brings me to a second point: Just as Morehouse has taught you to expect more of yourselves, inspire those who look up to you to expect more of themselves. We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices. And I have to say, growing up, I made quite a few myself. Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. I had a tendency sometimes to make excuses for me not doing the right thing. But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years is there’s no longer any room for excuses. (Applause.)

I understand there’s a common fraternity creed here at Morehouse: “Excuses are tools of the incompetent used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness.” Well, we’ve got no time for excuses. Not because the bitter legacy of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they have not. Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; we know those are still out there. It’s just that in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with millions of young people from China and India and Brazil — many of whom started with a whole lot less than all of you did — all of them entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything that you have not earned. (Applause.)

Nobody cares how tough your upbringing was. Nobody cares if you suffered some discrimination. And moreover, you have to remember that whatever you’ve gone through, it pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured — and they overcame them. And if they overcame them, you can overcome them, too. (Applause.)

…
… Be the best father you can be to your children. Because nothing is more important.

I was raised by a heroic single mom, wonderful grandparents — made incredible sacrifices for me. And I know there are moms and grandparents here today who did the same thing for all of you. But I sure wish I had had a father who was not only present, but involved. Didn’t know my dad. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home — (applause) — where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man. …

* * *

On to a completely different topic. There are four groups of people who are typically not allowed to vote in the United States: children, criminals, noncitizens, and the clinically insane. Last week, the bohemian voters in Takoma Park, Md., decided to enfranchise 16-year-olds and felons; the city council of New York is contemplating enfranchisement of noncitizens. And of course the Left also resists attempts to ensure that only those who are lawful voters are actually voting, by denying that there is such a thing as voter fraud — a nod to the clinically insane.

* * *

A few weeks ago I sent to you a special email about President Obama’s disturbing nomination of Thomas Perez to head the Department of Labor. This week I wanted to mention that opposition to this nomination has been building and, while Mr. Perez last week was (barely) voted out of committee, his confirmation is far from assured. The Wall Street Journal had a good editorial on the matter this week; here are some excerpts:

Labor Secretary nominee Thomas Perez made it through a Senate committee on an embarrassingly narrow 12-10 vote Thursday, with no Republican support. Democrats want to hold a Senate floor vote as soon as possible, and no wonder. The Justice Department’s civil-rights chief’s flexible interpretation of the law and disingenuous testimony echoes other abuses of power currently unfolding in Washington.

… Mr. Perez convinced the City of St. Paul, Minnesota last year to withdraw an antidiscrimination case from the Supreme Court in exchange for Justice’s agreement not to join two False Claims Act cases against the city. In doing so, Mr. Perez undermined civil servants who wanted to pursue the cases, abandoned whistleblower Fredrick Newell who was trying to improve the lot of Minnesota’s poor, and forfeited as much as $200 million in potential damages.

Mr. Perez and Attorney General Eric Holder are proud of all this, which is problematic enough given that Mr. Perez is up for a cabinet position with enormous power. But he’s further undermined his nomination by giving statements under oath that are contradicted by other testimony and documents. …

Democrats seem determined to confirm Mr. Perez on a party-line vote, and generally we’d say that a President’s nominee shouldn’t be filibustered. But the problem with Mr. Perez isn’t merely a difference over policy. It’s abuse of power.

As Labor secretary, he’d write the initial rules for new visa programs under immigration reform, among other things. His record clearly shows he’s happy to stretch the law for partisan and ideological purposes. This is one nominee whom Republicans would be doing a public service by defeating.

Related posts: