 |
| Rev William Barber II |
In the 80s, I learned one of the tenets of Critical Race Theory, and it changed the way I think about racism to this day. It’s the understanding of
how racial disparities are perpetuated even if no individual person in the system has anti-Black bias in their heart. It’s a powerful way to understand racism, and I wish that antiracists talked about it more. In general, I like all the parts of anti-racism activism that have evidence behind them, and this concept seems like the one that needs the most attention. It’s both powerful and seemingly downplayed. Here I’d like to consider this concept’s value separate from the rest of Critical Race Theory. When I learned about it, it was not associated with the other tenets of CRT, such as convergence theory or counter-storytelling.
In sociology class, we were taught to call it “institutional racism”, but I no longer use that term. Alternatively, this sort of racism is sometimes described as systemic or structural, but I don’t use those terms either. Different people use these terms in different ways, so I never know what someone means when they use one of them. Sometimes they mean what I’m getting at here: racism that operates in the absence of bias. Sometimes they mean the opposite: racism that operates through bias that is systemic, structural, or institutional. The term “meritocratic racism” has some promise since it’s the meritocracy that primarily perpetuates inequality from one generation to the next, but its meaning isn’t obvious. I hope that the phrase “race-blind racism” is clear enough that people know what I mean.
Ibram Kendi gives an example of race-blind racism when he cites climate change as racist. Climate change is already hitting non-whites around the world harder than it hits whites, a sort of racism that rolls out without anyone directing it to roll out that way. Meanwhile, our carbon-fueled economy brings in profits to Texas oilmen, Norwegians, Dutch, Arabs, and Persians—all of whom are “white” under US law. Fighting climate change is anti-racist regardless of people’s feelings. (It’s no coincidence that I’m the co-chair of my church’s climate action team.)
Another example from Kendi is health insurance. Our current system is an example of race-blind racism. It disproportionately disadvantages African Americans even if you can’t find reference to race anywhere in the regulations or insurance policies. Expanding health coverage is effectively anti-racist, and I’m all for it. (Unitarian-Universalists recently passed a resolution in favor or universal healthcare coverage.)
Kendi echoes King in saying that antiracists should focus on changing policy over changing hearts. Policy, not feelings, is where race-blind racism operates. Let’s hope that Kendi’s many readers take him seriously.
A key driver of race-blind racism is the way that resources and advantages are largely heritable from one generation to the next. For both white and Black Americans, the primary factor that determines one’s socio-economic status is the SES into which one is born. As long as the previous generation of Americans had a racial divide in terms of resources, the next generation will perpetuate that divide. Here you can consider “resources” in the broadest terms, not just money but also education, neighborhood, family stability, personal security, etc. Progressive taxation of income is one way that the system pushes in the opposite direction, but it’s not much of a push. Tax wealth, I say, but that’s another post.
One place where educators are pushing back against race-blind racism is in the educational meritocracy. Educational resources are routinely restricted by “merit”, such as admission to universities being contingent on academic achievement. Since white and Asian kids tend to do better on academic achievement than African American kids, gatekeeping by achievement disproportionately hurts African Americans. Higher educational institutions respond by lowering standards for African American candidates and often by raising them for East Asians. This policy has some antiracist effect but doesn’t come close to generating equal outcomes. Some schools are questioning the very idea of meritocracy. Gifted programs disproportionately help white and Asian kids because those are the kids that more often qualify for them. Eliminating gifted programs works against race-blind racism by taking a benefit away from white and Asian kids. The NAACP’s Youth Council, for example, demands that Seattle schools dismantle their “Highly Capable Cohort” program, and the school board has recently started this process. Likewise, Lowell High School in San Francisco is switching from admission based on achievement to a lottery system. The student population has been 60% Asian and only 2% Black, and the lottery will change that. In general, any education program that benefits higher achieving students disproportionately disadvantages African American students. (Personally, I see value in education programs for highly capable students, but I’ve been wrong before.)
After Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr saw the civil rights movement succeed, he pivoted to fight poverty. Within six months, he was assassinated. King knew that freedom to compete doesn’t help much when the race-blind meritocracy benefits those who are born into privilege and leaves out those who are born into poverty. His plan was a massive program to redistribute wealth, including a guaranteed minimum income for people of any race. All anti-poverty and pro-safety-net policies are antiracist.
Personal bias certainly also plays a role in racial disparities, but it’s pretty common for people to overstate its role, as if race-blind racism isn’t a factor. Race-blind racism works by driving higher rates of dysfunction in poor communities and then letting the meritocracy play out. If poor kids show up to kindergarten already behind rich kids in reading and math, the meritocracy rewards the rich kids over the poor kids. Those poor kids, of course, are disproportionately African American. Structural issues that exacerbate racial disparities, such as higher levels of lead in inner city environments, are hard to get excited about. It’s easy to get excited about bias. When King switched from fighting racial discrimination to fighting poverty, he caught flak from his supporters, and no one picked up King’s campaign after he was murdered. Maybe only a leader of his stature had the potential to change the movement’s direction. Fifty years later, Rev William Barber II picked up the banner of the Poor People’s Campaign, and I’m hoping for the best.
