By Isaac Schorr
Thursday, January 28, 2021
‘The fact is systemic racism touches every facet of
American life,” says President
Biden, who offers no further explanation for this sweeping declaration
about the country he serves as commander-in-chief.
Every facet? Really? I facetiously asked Twitter if
Biden’s statement applied to every trip to the grocery store, every school
field trip to an apple orchard, and the existence of the child tax credit. One
follower of mine responded that yes, in fact, it does, and provided me with
links meant to prove as much. Unwittingly, he provided me with near-perfect
examples of why the president’s assertion is preposterous.
To progressives, systemic racism remains a sinister but
amorphous force infecting every aspect of American life. Many conservatives
deny its existence altogether. Lost somewhere in the fights that inevitably
ensue is what the phrase really means. As defined by the United Nations Human
Rights Office of the High Commissioner, systemic racism is “an infrastructure
of rulings, ordinances or statutes promulgated by a sovereign government or
authoritative entity, whereas such ordinances and statutes entitles one ethnic
group in a society certain rights and privileges, while denying other groups in
that society these same rights and privileges because of long-established
cultural prejudices, religious prejudices, fears, myths, and Xenophobias held
by the entitled group.” In short, it’s the use of state power to advantage one
ethnic group over another. In the United States, systemic racism has taken the form
of Jim Crow, “redlining,” and, of course, most glaringly, chattel slavery.
Now, let’s see if systemic racism is really to blame in
the examples my Twitter follower cited when I mocked Biden’s pronouncement.
The first is a piece from Johns
Hopkins Magazine. It begins:
“Food deserts” — areas in which
residents are hard-pressed to find affordable, healthy food—are part of the
landscape of poor, urban neighborhoods across the United States. With few
supermarkets or farmers markets, it’s easier to find a Slurpee than a smoothie,
cheaper to get the Big Mac meal than grab dinner at a salad bar.
It goes on to explain that:
According to new research by Kelly
Bower, an assistant professor at the School of Nursing, a neighborhood’s income
isn’t the only barrier to obtaining healthy food. When comparing communities
with similar poverty rates, she discovered that black and Hispanic
neighborhoods have fewer large supermarkets and more small grocery stores than
their white counterparts. Bursting with junk-food options, these smaller
establishments rarely offer the healthy whole-grain foods, dairy products, or
fresh fruits and veggies that a supermarket would provide. When it comes to
having healthy food options, says Bower, “the poverty level of a neighborhood
certainly matters, but even beyond poverty, the racial composition matters.”
I have no doubt that this is true. Supermarkets are more
common in suburban and rural areas, where space is abundant and cars are
residents’ primary method of travel. Urban landscapes, on the other hand, are
dominated by smaller convenience stores — 7/11 and CVS as well as myriad
mom-and-pop outfits — that are better suited to city life. But this has nothing
to do with race, much less racism. White Americans in lower-income urban areas
are subject to the same challenges as black Americans in such areas. Black
suburbanites have the same access to supermarkets as white suburbanites. That
doesn’t mean that public-policy solutions that would increase the availability
of affordable, healthy food in urban areas should not be explored; they surely
should. It just means that the issue is not one of systemic racism.
Next up was an article from the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) meant to demonstrate that the tax
code was systemically racist. The problem with this piece is that it treats any
part of the tax code that benefits a higher proportion of white Americans than
black Americans as racist, even if it benefits qualifying black Americans
and does nothing to harm non-qualifying ones. Take the following passage:
Tax provisions, such as the
deductions for mortgage interest and college savings plans, are “upside-down”:
they go overwhelmingly to higher-income — and disproportionately white — households
who least need help and likely would do what the tax break is designed to
encourage (such as buying a house or going to college) even without the
incentive. These provisions can exacerbate racial income and wealth inequality
and reinforce discrimination and other barriers that households of color face.
In addition, as this report explains, those barriers mean that even when
households of color have similar income and wealth levels as white households,
they often are less likely to benefit as much from these tax breaks.
We are meant to believe that the very existence of the
mortgage-interest deduction and 529 education-savings plans are systemic racism
in action because more white people buy homes and attend college. But these
aspects of the tax code actually make it easier for African-American
citizens to buy homes (the black-homeownership rate is 44
percent) and enroll at universities (where black Americans already compose roughly “12% of
the student population at 4-year public institutions, 13% of the student
population at 4-year private nonprofit institutions, and 29% of the student
population at 4-year private for-profit institutions” while representing
roughly 13 percent of the total population). Ironically, Biden recently
expressed regret that “We’ve bought the view that America is a zero-sum game. .
. . If you succeed, I fail. If you get ahead, I fall behind. . . . Maybe worse
[sic] of all, if I hold you down, I lift myself up.” He and I agree on
this count. But I have a feeling we’d point to very different culprits if asked
to identify the source of the problem.
Last comes a 2015 article in The
Atlantic about school funding, based on a study of Pennsylvania that
shows that, with some exceptions, majority-minority school districts are
underfunded as compared to majority-white ones, even when one controls for
poverty levels. Most everyone can see and would want to come up with a solution
for this disparity, and indeed there has been a bipartisan effort in the state
to do so. But again the problem cannot be attributed to “systemic racism” or
any purposeful effort to hold down black students. Rather, as the study’s
author acknowledges,
it is the result of a well-intentioned formula meant to provide “extra funds to
small districts (impoverished rural districts that are almost all white are
generally sparsely populated), supplements for being geographically spread out,
and the practice of ‘holding harmless,’ which means that if a district declines
in enrollment it doesn’t get less money as a result.”
I’m sure most progressives would read this last quote and
see what they call systemic racism, since the formula favored low-income rural
districts, which are disproportionately white. In fact, that’s an excellent
demonstration of why the term, now deployed at will on the left, is such an
ineffective and needless lightning rod: It attributes to racist malice problems
that can be more accurately attributed to human error of a sort that is, yes,
often systemic. (In Pennsylvania’s case, once the error was identified, it was
agreed upon by all involved that action needed to be taken to correct it.)
Using systemic racism as a catch-all phrase to describe
racial disparities, and, worse, stating as “fact” that it infects every facet
of American life is both wrong and counterproductive. It sows racial and
partisan discord, obscures real problems, and makes their solutions less
obvious. President Biden has talked a lot in the opening days of his
administration about being a unifying figure. If in truth, buzzword politics
and red meat for his base are all he’s after, then he can continue on his
current path. But if he’s serious about healing our divisions and making
progress on the many reforms the nation needs, he should retire the
systemic-racism canard.
No comments:
Post a Comment