Spend time in the trenches and you get to know a lot of black and Hispanic kids very well. You take responsibility for their lives, and in the course of being their lawyer, you talk. You learn about them, their lives, their families. You learn about their education, their problems, their world. It’s not quite a representative sampling, since the people you get to know best have the common thread of being arrested and prosecuted, but you get close to a great many.
Unlike public defenders, private criminal defense lawyers get to spend far more time with their clients, and accordingly get to know them far better as people. We get to know their spouses, kids, parents and friends. These aren’t destitute people, but generally people who have sufficient funds to retain our services, so they aren’t exactly poor.
And one perpetual realization* has been that, had they not been black, not been Hispanic, they could be the CEO of a multinational corporation. You think it’s easy to create an organization where your competitors want to take away your market share with extreme prejudice? And beyond the competition, the 3-4 Precinct regulates your business with guns? Yet, they do. Some of these guys are quite brilliant, incredible organizers motivators and business people. So why aren’t they ruling the world?
Finding #2: The black-white income gap is entirely driven by
differences in men’s, not women’s, outcomes.Among those who grow up in families with comparable incomes, black men grow up to earn substantially less than the white men. In contrast, black women earn slightly more than white women conditional on parent income. Moreover, there is little or no gap in wage rates or hours of work between black and white women.
We find analogous gender differences in other outcomes: black-white gaps in high school completion rates, college attendance rates, and incarceration are all substantially larger for men than for women. Black women have higher college attendance rates than white men, conditional on parental income. For men, the gap in incarceration is particularly stark: 21% of black men born to the lowest-income families are incarcerated on a given day, far higher than for any other subgroup.
The New York Times has a major article on this study on Race and Economic Opportunity, and the the findings as to outcomes are deeply disturbing. But the Times has “weaponized” the study in a way that makes it particularly dangerous. The danger begins with the headline.
Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys
The data is, indeed, devastating, but whether it shows racism begs the question. The study does not show what causes these outcomes, but merely the outcomes. The writers take for granted that it’s racism, because what else could it be?
This isn’t a question of whether racism exists. Obviously, it does. And equally obviously, it’s facile to assume racism to be the cause of all problems affecting black boys. But then, why not black girls, for whom the outcomes match white girls when black boys of well-to-do families fall off the charts in the next generation?
Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.
White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households.
There is an array of potential reasons why these outcomes differ, some of which are acceptable in polite company and some of which are not. The study provides the outcomes. The reasons exist only in the assumptions of the writers and the bias of the readers.
Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.
The problems of poverty and education raise additional causation issues, but explaining why a black boy of a wealthy family growing up next door to a white boy of a wealthy family would end up poor can’t be simply chalked up to racism. It can’t be chalked up to anything on such a simple level.
The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.
This is certainly reasonable, but the same argument that dispels differences in cognitive ability similarly undermines the argument that racism answers all questions. Why would the racism that putatively impacts black boys have no impact on black girls? If it’s racism, then it should apply to all black children, not just males.
The good intentions, combined with pressures of ideology that makes it impossible to consider causes other than racism, may serve to soothe our collective guilt about our treatment of minorities, but if our concern was real, finding real solutions would be more important. Finding real solutions does not mean indulging our social justice ideology, as sad tears aren’t going to help any black boy to make a better life for himself, no less establish a path where we can rise above these outcomes.
Am I suggesting it’s not racism? I have no idea, and I assume that racism plays a significant role in driving these disparities. But having spent far too much of my life and career trying to help black boys, Hispanic boys, to get and stay out of prison, indulging in the facile fantasy that racism answers all questions is something I refuse to do.
For those who actually believe in racial equality, and want to see the eradication of racial disparities in society, then rejecting the easy and obvious politically-correct assumptions in favor of seeking hard answers should be the goal. The Times article that tries so hard to spin correlation into causation doesn’t serve to help black kids, but inflames assumptions. Real help means real questions and real answers.
This study tells us of bad outcomes, but it doesn’t tell us why they’re happening. The New York Times does, but it’s just making it up. That’s not going to help anyone. Would you rather help or stroke your bias?
- I fully expect the woke to call me racist for not accepting the assumption that all bad things that happen to black boys must be caused by racism. Unlike the woke, however, it’s more important to find viable solutions that adhere to simplistic ideology, so I’ll just have to suck it up and let the SJWs yell at me. This is the price of seeking real solutions.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I know there is a often a very thin line between the folks that appear before me for sentencing and those of us who sentence.
I’ve defended people whose innate abilities are far better than mine, and seen how a small shift here and there in their lives would have changed everything. The line is razor thin.
The world is far more complex than any of us realize. We view the world through assumptions and stereotypes because there’s no other way to make sense of it.
To assign blame for any one person’s failures to one factor, be it racism, poverty, home life, etc. is only useful to those who believe they can change the world if people would just do what they say.
Regardless of any macro-factors, every individual’s circumstance differs. And rarely is anything reduced to “the thing,” but who gives a damn what Mencken said anyway, amirite?
Nothing to worry about, because the ABA is fixing this. In another year, all the top earning equity partners in large firms will be black men. Or maybe two years. It has been a little behind schedule so far.
But their kids? What about the children? Well, the male children, anyway.
They could “identify” as female. Check off another one. I am going through the world’s problems today, one by one.
SHG,
You write:
For those who actually believe in racial equality, and want to see the eradication of racial disparities in society, then rejecting the easy and obvious politically-correct assumptions in favor of seeking hard answers should be the goal. The Times article that tries so hard to spin correlation into causation doesn’t serve to help black kids, but inflames assumptions. Real help means real questions and real answers.
But real questions and answers might just make us sad. So, we resort to unicorns. After all, unicorns are sweet and pretty and make us happy. Stop your effort to delegitimize unicorns. It is not only mean it is futile.
All the best.
RGK
Who they gonna believe, a mean old curmudgeon like me or the New York Times which validates their certainty that unicorns prance on rainbows? Welcome back, Judge. You look rested.
Answers to the wrong question might make us sadder. Duck and cover. Some are playing darts wearing blindfolds.
“Why would the racism that putatively impacts black boys have no impact on black girls? If it’s racism, then it should apply to all black children, not just males.”
For what it’s worth, a common SJ explanation is that racism specifically links to perceptions of black people as “dangerous savages” Those ideas have much more of an effect when applied to black men than they do when applied to black women, because of the inherent gender differences. Moreover, due to black males’ significant presence in the justice system there is even more perception that black men in particular are prone to crime and violence.
I don’t think the SJ explanation is entirely true, but it probably is true in part.
The only thing more valuable than baseless social justice assumptions are Erik H.’s assumptions.
–Abraham Lincoln
SJ: “Why do people make those claims? Nobody can think it makes any sense.”
EH: “I don’t necessarily agree with it, but here is what I have read about why SJWs make those claims, and why they think it makes sense. ”
SJ: “Your assumptions are valueless.”
OK, then. Did you forget your morning coffee?
“The answer to you rhetorical questions challenging the Times’ simplistic assumptions is my simplistic assumption.” Can’t get anything past you.
…of course, that explanation is self-defeating for the SJW, because they’d deny to their dying day that there are “inherent gender differences” (and indeed, that gender has anything to do with biology or anatomy).
Not at all, it simply requires that they insist differential arrest and incarceration rates between men and women have nothing at all to do with actual behavioral differences between the sexes, and spring entirely from differential enforcement due to gender stereotypes.
“Why would the racism that putatively impacts black boys have no impact on black girls?”
It is disingenuous for a man with your background and interests to pretend he doesn’t know the answer to this question in the context of this discussion.
Not at all, but since you lack my background and interests, I wouldn’t expect you to realize why. See Erik above? He made the same mistake you’re making. Just because you believe something to be so doesn’t make it so. Same for Erik. Same for me.
A – I don’t ‘believe’ that black men are incarcerated at a much higher rate than black women, I know it to be true.
B – I don’t ‘believe’ that A has an impact on the income of black men in the aggregate, I know it to be true.
C – I don’t ‘believe’ that a failure to understand A and B is an indication of either racism, ignorance, or both, I know it to be true.
I feel badly that your reply button isn’t working. If only you know someone computer-savvy who could help.
Your “analysis” is not only deeply flawed, but rather facially racist. I’m kinda surprised, Jake. We’re talking about the male children of wealthy blacks who live in good neighborhoods, attend good schools, and do not get arrested like those ghetto blacks you assume all blacks to be. Stop stereotyping black male youths as all ghetto gangbangers, Jake. It’s not real.
Cute. Always playing for the cheap seats Scooter.
“We’re talking about the male children of wealthy blacks who live in good neighborhoods…”
No, we’re not. The sentence we’re discussing read:
“Why would the racism that putatively impacts black boys have no impact on black girls?”
Not:
“Why would the racism that putatively impacts wealthy black boys have no impact on wealthy black girls?”
Your very next sentence reads: “If it’s racism, then it should apply to all black children, not just males.”
Of course, since your post is cherry-picking points from the aggregate totality of an inconclusive study to point out it’s inconclusive, I guess you also think it’s fair to change the meaning of the specific sentence I’m commenting on.
Then again, I’m cherry picking too. So there. Booger-head.
Why do I include quotes in my posts if you’re not gonna read them?
But at least you fixed your reply button. That’s good.
The study actually does in fact attempt to measure the effect of racism on outcomes. See page 5, Finding #6 of the Executive Summary linked above. Apparently they measured the level of racial bias among whites for each census tract (“by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus inGoogle searches”) and found it that lower levels of racial bias among whites was associated with smaller disparities between black and white males.
So not exactly, Dave.
“If it’s racism, then it should apply to all black children, not just males.”
P1: The income prospect disparity of black men (is) affected by racism.
P2: The income prospect disparity of black women (is) affected by racism.
C: The income prospect disparity of black men (must equal) the income prospect disparity of black women. If not, one of the premises must be false.
Gotta love the classics.
Ceteris paribus.
Some terms are more equal than others. ; }
Possibly related could be demanding (not requesting) things that are asinine. This morning I saw a headline in the news about startups demanding that investors “diversify or keep your money.” Well, thank you. Since I am what I am, I will keep my money. I can’t see this ending well for startups that actually might need money. Some people never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
The perverse pride of being kind enough to allow insufficiently inclusive VCs to fund your nonsensical start up. That’ll show ’em.
“. . . there is little or no gap in wage rates or hours of work between black and white women.”
There is a black immigrant woman who heads a department where I work. She is supremely competent and a joy to work with. Management was overheard saying that they need to keep her because she not only does the job well, but also checks off two boxes: woman and minority.
Perhaps too simplistic, but maybe some of that finding can be explained as just a business decision.
Maybe. Maybe space aliens. Maybe the Billy Madison award. Maybe not. The only real question is why I didn’t trash your comment because of its propensity to make people stupider, and the answer is because then I couldn’t respond with this comment.
I stand chastised, without knowing exactly why. How does it make people stupider?
If the point of the post is to not indulge assumptions, not speculate based on the limits of personal experience, as the Times article did by concluding it must be racism because that’s the answer that aligns with the writers’ bias, your comment does the same thing, except that it replaces their assumption with your assumption, plus inductively reasons from one anecdote to the general proposition.
This is what the post seeks to eliminate, and your comment does the opposite, thus confirming the bias and misunderstanding of any reader who fails to grasp that it’s pretty much the opposite of what one should do when faced with outcomes without empirical basis for why those outcomes are happening.
Thank you, very much. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
Hey, it’s the least I could do after being such a mean old asshole to you.