Why is Our Nation So Obsessed with Race?

This morning, I read an article in the Portland Business Journal about the Oregon Department of Transportation refining their quota system to be more specific about which minorities will get what percentage of contracts. This afternoon, a friend told me her 15 year-old daughter was accosted at school by a student who called her the n-word and then snarled “White power!”

The ODOT quota refinement is the epitome of bureaucratic stupidity. The incident at school is an example of ugly, mindless malice. But there’s a common thread between them:  Basing judgments on race rather than individual merits.

The state of Oregon did a “disparity study” and determined that, even with a mandate that 14% of ODOT contracts go to minority-owned businesses, specific minorities are underrepresented. Native-American contractors got 8.2% of ODOT contracts and Hispanic-American contractors got 6%, while African-American and Asian-American contractors got less than 1% combined. Over a third of the businesses qualifying for the state’s “disadvantaged business enterprise” certification are African-American, and almost a quarter are Asian-American.

So the state decided to rectify the imbalance by requiring at least 6% of new contracts to be awarded to African-American or Asian-American contractors. But now Native-American and Hispanic-American contractors are claiming discrimination because they foresee losing contracts to African-American and Asian-American contractors to meet the new micro-quota.

Ordinarily, contracts are awarded based on bids and qualifications. If certain contractors aren’t getting contracts, presumably, either their bids are too high or they’re not as well-qualified. On the other hand, if the reason they aren’t getting contracts is because of corruption or bigotry on the part of those awarding the contracts, then those individuals shouldn’t be in charge of awarding contracts. If that’s the case, changing the quota requirements won’t address the real issue. But, if that’s not the issue, then the reallocation of quotas is even more senseless, and can only result in either costing the taxpayers more or in hiring less qualified contractors.

If the purpose of quotas is to ensure equal opportunity, regardless of race, sex, or whatever, why not award the contract to the most qualified contractor with the lowest bid, regardless of race, sex, or whatever? The imposition of quotas inherently creates a double — or, in this case, triple — standard, pitting African/Asian-Americans against Hispanic/Native-Americans. And, after requiring 6% of contracts to go to either African-American or Asian-American contractors, what happens if Asian-Americans end up with 5% of the contracts and African-Americans with only 1%? Will they then mandate that African-Americans must get 3%?

Perhaps the only way to make this work would be to allocate contracts based strictly on demographics. If exactly 5% of the population is of whatever ethnic derivation, then exactly 5% of the contracts would be set aside for contractors of that ethnicity. And, of course, within each ethnic allocation, half of the contracts would have to go to Female-Americans, lest we be condemned as sexist…

On the other side of the coin from senseless bureaucracies awarding contracts based on race rather than qualifications, we have senseless individuals, viciously spewing invective at individuals they don’t even know, feeling justified because they’re a different race.

My friend’s daughter is a shy, quiet girl in her freshman year of high school in a small city in rural Oregon. There aren’t many black families here, so she attracts attention just by existing. 15 is a difficult age for girls, with all the changes they’re going through, and even a girl who blends right in can feel painfully self-conscious at times. For a shy girl, who shuns being the center of attention, it must be tough to be the only black kid in class, even on a good day.

This is a family that believes in personal responsibility, and would never seek or expect special consideration based on race. So, after the incident occurred, their daughter refused to report it. It was humiliating enough to be singled out for denigration and intimidation because of her race, without complaining to the authorities like a victim demanding redress. That isn’t the way she was raised. But, when her mother recounted the incident to me, recalling the pain in her daughter’s eyes made her break down and cry. And she’s a pretty tough woman.

Kids will be cruel and call other kids names. That’s part of life. But it’s a hard lesson to learn for a 15 year-old girl that she has classmates who feel a blind hatred toward her, and cannot even see her for the person she is, just because of her race.

Nobody’s entitled to special benefits because of their race. Nobody should be subjected to malicious harassment because of their race. Each person should be judged on their own character and their individual merits. Why is that so hard for so many people to grasp?

---

Bookmark/Rate this post:

Sticks and Stones and All That

In response to my post on The “R” Word, some people expressed that a comparison of the “R” word to the “N” word is unfair. After all, as one person stated, “the ‘R’ word has to be earned.” When I pointed out that anybody can call anybody a racist, true or not, they responded “If that label is directed at someone who isn’t a racist, I’d argue that the word has no power at all. Sticks and stones and all that…” But doesn’t “sticks and stones and all that” apply to the “N” word as well?

I’m not defending the use of the “N” word. Nobody I know uses that word. I used to know people who used it regularly. They were black, so it was considered OK. I’m not saying there are no white people who use it. I know there are. I just don’t associate with them.

However, the “R” word is becoming so commonplace that it will eventually become meaningless. What prompted me to write The ‘R’ Word was someone who posted on my favorite local forum a couple of months ago:

“Many people are determined to hate Senator Barack Obama. But, c’mon, let’s just be honest for a change… It all has to do with the color of his skin and his self confidence.”

Wow, that’s some kind of “honesty.” The implication is that anybody who doesn’t like her candidate must be a racist, just because her candidate is black. That really got me to thinking. Since when is it racist to disagree with a black person? The term “racist” used to be reserved for true bigots, like the KKK or the Aryan Nations, — really despicable people. Now, anybody can qualify for that previously heinous label just by not supporting Obama.

When I was growing up, calling someone a racist was one of the worst things you could say about them. It had the same visceral impact as calling someone a child molester. And, like that other accusation, just the suggestion of it is enough to plant an enduring suspicion, even in the minds of those who are too “polite” to say anything, leaving the target no way to defend themselves without appearing to beg the question. Even without any justification, many people implicitly believe “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

Despite its recent dilution, the word still has incredible power. Today, the mere implication of racism can put a person’s job in jeopardy. Corporations are very sensitive to the potential for lawsuits by members of protected categories who allege the reason they didn’t get the promotion they wanted was because of racism or sexism. Is it true in some cases? Of course. But, in most cases, whether it’s true or not isn’t likely to ever be investigated. Corporations can’t afford to take the risk, so any suspicion of racism or sexism, justified or not, can derail a person from the management track and send their career south. The victim is never confronted with the accusation and doesn’t know what hit them, because it’s easier for management to just avoid the issue.

The word is a powerful weapon. But perhaps its cutting edge will soon be dulled through misuse by the petulant and inept, who resort to name-calling when they run short on reason. Another possibility is that its overuse may create a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who are sick of spurious accusations and demands for political correctness may start identifying with the “R” word out of defiance, just as certain blacks have adopted the “N” word to refer to themselves. Will that be a good thing? I don’t think so. But I suspect we may be headed in that direction.

---

Bookmark/Rate this post:

The “R” Word

I’ve always been intrigued by the sheer power of language. Usually, the power of words lies in their context, and in the way they’re strung together to communicate a complex concept in a way that disposes the listener to accept or reject it. Certain words, however, have their own intrinsic power, irrespective of context. I think of those as magic words. The “F” word is a magic word because of its peculiar power to shock and offend and to stop a conversation dead in its tracks. But the power of the “F” word pales in comparison to the power of the “N” word.

The “N” word may be the most powerful word in the English language, in terms of pure visceral impact and the ability to elicit shock, anger, betrayal, humiliation, hatred, and even violence. Can you think of any other two syllables stuck together that could incite a riot? The “N” word is not just a word; it’s a weapon. It’s an incredibly ugly word because it objectifies the person at whom it’s leveled, stripping them of their individuality and casting them as an insignificant inferior.

The word “Racist” is another of those amazingly powerful words, similar to the “N” word in its capacity to evoke an emotional response. Arguably, the “R” word is even uglier than the “N” word, because what it says about the person at whom it’s leveled is uglier. It implies that they are blind to the individuality of others and are motivated by ignorant hate.

One may say the “N” word is worse because it’s based on race, a characteristic with which one is born, about which one has no choice. Presumably, if one is a racist, it’s by their own volition. But what’s more insidious about calling someone a racist is that, just because one is labeled that, doesn’t mean it’s true. Yet how does one prove what one is not? Once tarred with the brush of racism, either by accusation or implication, one cannot easily defend oneself without sounding like one is begging the question.

Spurious imputations of racism are increasingly in vogue these days among a certain set of people. It’s commonly used to shut down discussion without having to come up with a rational response, to vilify someone with whom one disagrees, and to discredit whatever it is they have to say. Unlike the “N” word, which is so politically incorrect that one can’t even spell it out without invoking imprecations of racism, the word “racist” is commonly used by those who see themselves as infallibly politically correct.

It’s ironic that, though Senator Obama sells himself as the “post-racial” candidate who will heal the racial divide in our nation, his campaign has become the focal point for racial divisiveness. Perhaps more ironic is that the most aggressive perpetrators of that racial divisiveness are not his opponents, but his supporters. While Obama himself has tiptoed around direct accusations of racism, many of his supporters are quick to fling the epithet at anyone and everyone who doesn’t support their candidate, or who disagrees with them on any number of hot button issues.

I know how it feels to be branded with the scarlet “R” for daring to speak about race without genuflecting before the altar of political correctness. But I’m not intimidated by magic words. However, I know many people who are hesitant to express legitimate opinions about subjects such as affirmative action or welfare because they don’t want to be put in the position of having to defend themselves against the inevitable intimations of racism. How are we ever going to “heal the racial divide” if we can’t talk openly and honestly about any issues that happen to touch on race? Liberals like to spout “Speak truth to power,” but they won’t abide people who speak truth to political correctness.

I’ll continue to speak my mind, and to support my opinions with logic and facts. Anybody who can refute my positions with logic and facts is welcome to convince me I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, but I won’t shut up because I’m afraid of what somebody might call me, no matter how ugly it is.

---

Bookmark/Rate this post:

Affirmative Action Has Run its Course

Affirmative action, like labor unions, once served a legitimate purpose. But, as is often the case when remedial measures get institutionalized, having addressed the problems that gave rise to them, they entrench themselves in self-sustaining bureaucracies and set about creating new problems to solve. I’m not suggesting that there are no longer any inequities in pay scales or hiring practices. But inequities will be with us always. Having gotten to the point where we are today, it’s got to be up to individuals to make it the rest of the way.

Crutches are undeniably beneficial when one has a broken leg, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to rely on them permanently. Up to a point, they’re necessary to allow the injury to heal. But using them longer than necessary will eventually atrophy the very muscles that need to be strengthened to effect a full recovery. After nearly half a century, it’s natural to feel some apprehension about laying down the crutches, but the time has come to stand up and walk independently. It may be wobbly at first but, ultimately, the only way to get beyond the need for crutches is to leave the crutches behind.

In a country that’s on the verge of electing a black man as its president, it seems condescending to maintain that a qualified black man can’t get a job without affirmative action. I know a number of highly qualified black men and women in well-paid, highly technical jobs who did not get there because of affirmative action. I think it would be insulting to them to have to work alongside people who were hired because of affirmative action, and have to constantly prove that they weren’t. Affirmative action places a stigma on those who happen to be in a ‘protected’ category, hovering over them like a nagging cloud of doubt as to whether they were hired because of an accidental characteristic or because of their true qualifications.

I’m told that women still only make $.78 on the dollar, compared with men. The assumption is that women and men are always equally qualified and, therefore, should always be paid the same. I question that assumption. Clearly, for many jobs requiring certain physical skills, men will generally be better qualified than women. Notwithstanding individual exceptions, on average, men are bigger, stronger, can run faster, jump higher, etc. There are psychological differences as well, which are reflected in different inclinations, motivations, and other character traits.

There are also different types of intelligence. I know some very smart people who are terrible at math, and I know some incredibly smart engineers who can’t write a coherent sentence. Clearly, different jobs require different types of intelligence, as well as different character traits, motivations, inclinations, and skills. While any individual may possess any given traits to a greater or lesser degree than any other individual, there are fundamental differences between men and women that may impact their respective effectiveness at different types of jobs. That may account for some of the imbalance in wages. Or perhaps women, in general, aren’t as good at negotiating salaries. In that case, they need to develop that skill, not rely on the government to do it for them.

I believe every individual should be paid according to the actual value they provide to their employer. In a free market, that’s exactly what happens. If women who are just as qualified as men are generally making $.78 on the dollar, there are bargains to be had, and there will be savvy employers who are more than willing to pay $.90 on the dollar to get their pick of the most highly qualified women in the work force. Assuming the most highly qualified women really are as qualified as the most highly qualified men, that would give those employers a distinct advantage over their competition. If that isn’t happening, there must be a reason. I can’t imagine that employers would act against their own best interests just to keep women in their place.

The ultimate ideal of affirmative action seems to be to achieve demographically proportional representation in every field. I don’t believe that’s a valid goal. I believe all individuals applying for the same position should be judged by the same criteria, and that the criteria should be determined by the requirements of the position. Job qualifications should not be redefined to encourage diversity. In many cases, that’s where affirmative action leads. It encourages businesses to level the playing field by lowering the bar. That’s not right.

---

Bookmark/Rate this post:

Barack Obama — Man of Mystery

Barack Obama has captured the imagination of the nation. He’s so wholesome, so sincere, so charismatic and charming, he almost comes off as naive. But underneath his ultra-smooth exterior, he’s obviously a very complex, and very conflicted, man.

The Chicago Tribune article, The Not-So-Simple Story of Barack Obama’s Youth tells the following story about his reinterpretation of a difficult period in his life, when he was attending a private boarding school in Hawaii.

In his best-selling autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” Obama describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student, “Ray.” The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese. In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an angry young black man.

He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa said, were not about race. “Not even close,” he said, adding that Obama was dealing with “some inner turmoil” in those days.

So, Obama sometimes reinterprets real life to better to suit the myth. He seems to see his life as a sort of parable, in which the message is more important than the actual facts. Don’t all politicians do that, though? Perhaps so. But Obama is supposed to be different. The very thing that appeals to his loyal following is that he represents a whole new breed of politician. — In short, a politician you can trust.

Another example of reinterpretation of reality is his reaction to the recent publicity about his pastor and spiritual advisor. Obama claims to have attended church every Sunday for the last 20+ years. Yet, he claims to have never heard his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, make any militant remarks about the evils of America, or of white people, or how we deserved 9/11. The videos of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the reactions of the congregation, would seem to indicate that these are familiar themes to his parishioners. Was Obama just not listening to the parts he didn’t want to hear? For over 20 years?

Barack Obama was raised without any religious affiliation. His mother had exposed him to a number of religions, including Christianity, when he was growing up, but she did not subscribe to any of them. Obama himself never felt drawn to any particular religion until he encountered the Trinity United Church of Christ in the 1980s. It was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright who inspired him to embrace the Church and become immersed in that particular brand of Christianity.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches that Jesus was a poor black man, living under an oppressive white regime (the Romans). Much of the teachings of his church are about the oppression of the blacks, and the evil of the rich white people who run this country. He has a close personal relationship with the militant, anti-Semitic, black separatist leader, Louis Farakkhan. The angry, militant message of racial separatism spewed by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright seems antithetical to Obama’s message of unity and his calm insistence that his candidacy has nothing to do with race. If Obama is so race-agnostic, one can’t help but wonder why, of all the churches in the country, he would be exculsively drawn to one that’s so focused on such a racially charged message.

When I first heard some of the things Michelle Obama said about her feelings toward this country, they struck me as very peculiar. But now that we have some insight into the Obama family’s spiritual life, it all starts to make sense. Obama has tried to distance himself from the dire imprecations of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright against America and against white people, but how could he immerse himself and his family in this racially charged atmosphere every Sunday for over 20 years, and fail to notice it? Why would someone who feels race is not relevant want to expose his young daughters to such radical hate speech as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright habitually preaches? It just isn’t credible — unless he has one of those personality disorders that cause the sufferer to dissociate from experiences too disturbing to acknowledge, resulting in a bifurcated personality.

Obama is clearly a far more complex person than his public persona reveals. The glimpses we’re starting to see into the personal life of the man behind the public persona have vaguely disturbing undertones, like in a movie where you get subtle hints that the almost-too-perfect protagonist isn’t what he seems to be… It isn’t just a question of the indisputably poor judgment of someone in Obama’s position making someone so politically incorrect his spiritual advisor. The more ominous question is what are the deep undercurrents in Obama’s character that draw him to people like Wright and, for that matter, his wife, who are so outspoken in their distrust and seeming hatred for the very country of which Obama desires to become president.

---

Bookmark/Rate this post: