Last night vandals smeared the Thomas Jefferson statue at the University of Virginia with the phrase “racist + rapist,” reports WVIR-TV. Today marks Founder’s Day, which celebrates Jefferson’s 275th birthday.
The University of Virginia released a statement, saying, “The university is disappointed that individuals vandalized the statue of Thomas Jefferson on the Lawn on the day that we honor his contributions to our University and to our democracy.”
The UVa administration is “disappointed.” Not “indignant” about vandalism to the founder of the university and a founding father of the nation. Not “shocked.” Not “outraged.” Just “disappointed.”
The latest vandalism follows an incident last September in which someone draped the statue with a sheet that read, “Black Lives Matter. Fuck White Supremacy.”
Vandals, let me tell you what university administrators can’t bring themselves to say. If you’re trying to change things for the better, you’re not helping. If you want to convert people to your cause, you don’t get it by desecrating the revered symbols of the people you’re trying to convert. In fact, you do the opposite. Want more rednecks flying big-ass Confederate battle flags just off the Interstate? This is how you get more rednecks flying big-ass Confederate battle flags just off the Interstate.
I could say something similar to the rednecks. Want more defilement of Thomas Jefferson statues? This is how you get more defilement of Thomas Jefferson statues. Here’s the difference. You are University of Virginia students — you’re attending one of the most prestigious universities in the country. You’re supposed to be well-informed and articulate. The rednecks are just… rednecks.
Go back and study your history. See how Frederick Douglas acquitted himself. See how Harriet Tubman acquitted herself. See how Booker T. Washington acquitted himself. See how Thurgood Marshall acquitted himself. See how Martin Luther King acquitted himself. They didn’t use vulgar profanity. They didn’t desecrate the founding fathers. They appealed to peoples’ better nature. And they made a difference.
If you want to discuss Jefferson’s historical legacy — his role in articulating and advancing human freedoms, his sins as a slave holder, his views towards race, his role in abolishing the international slave trade — by all means, let’s have that discussion. The man was not a saint. It is reasonable for every generation to reinterpret his contributions for good and for ill in this country. But vandalizing his statue doesn’t contribute to the conversation — it shuts the conversation down.
The distinction of having the highest student-loan default rate of any higher-education institution in Virginia goes to Everest College in Chesapeake. The default rate at the for-profit college (now doing business as Altierus Career College), which prepares students to be dental assistants, HVAC technicians and the like, is 36%, reports WVTF Radio IQ.
In absolute numbers, non-profit Liberty University took the top spot. A 10% default rate translated into 2,903 students.
The highest default rates tend to be small, for-profit vocational schools. Although the Radio IQ data doesn’t show it, some public colleges have a fairly high default rate as well. Low-income students are disproportionately likely to drop out of college — whatever the institution — and find themselves unable (or unwillling) to repay their loans.
Many progressives purport to be concerned about minorities and the high default rate blame for-profit colleges. The Radio IQ article quotes Diane Standaert with the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) as noting that many for-profits are converting into non-profits to avoid state and federal regulations aimed at curbing “abusive practices.”
Acccording to CRL’s Virginia state profile, for-profit colleges disproportionately harm: low-income families, communities of color, and women.” Undergraduate enrollment at for-profits is 54% low-income, 45.4% African-American, and 60.9% female. Students at for-profit institutions in Virginia are less likely to graduate, more likely to take out student loans and graduate more indebted, and are more likely to default on their college debt, according to CRL.
What this analysis ignores is that there is considerable variability in the default rate for for-profit, private non-profit, and public non-profit institutions. The best for-profit institutions have lower default rates than the worst non-profits. Public institutions such as Norfolk State and Virginia Union University that cater to lower-income African-Americans have default rates comparable to many for-profits. Conversely, the for-profits cater to adult African-Americans — look at their television ads if you doubt me — who didn’t get a chance to attend college immediately after high school but, as adults, would like to advance their career and obtain a better job.
If mean ol’ fiscal conservatives wanted to shut down for-profit institutions with high default rates on the grounds that they were costing taxpayers, some progressive group would describe the disproportionate impact on upwardly striving African-Americans as racist. But the impetus for shutting down for-profits isn’t coming from the Right. It’s coming from the Left, hostile as always to the idea of someone somewhere making a profit.
The real problem isn’t whether an institution is for-profit or non-profit, it’s the fact that the federal government hands out student loans indiscriminately. Federal loans are not granted on the basis of a student’s likelihood to repay, whether based on SAT scores, class standing, credit score, years in the workforce or any other relevant factor. Why? Because objective lending criteria might impact minorities more than whites, which would constitute a different type of discrimination and invoke the inevitable cries of racism.
So, if you think with a leftist mindset, instead of insisting that the federal government establish standards to reduce the number of students defaulting on their debt, which would be racist, you attack for-profit institutions… even thought, by leftist standards, limiting educational opportunities for minorities by this indirect means also could be construed as racist. But if you think with a leftist mindset, that’s OK because you’re suspicious of for-profit enterprises anyway. Furthermore, you control the commanding heights that shape public opinion formulation — the media, academia, the educational bureaucracy — so you have the power to frame the issue the way you want.
That, folks, is democracy at work in America today.
A white rap artist who goes by the name of Lil Dicky joined a black rap artist, Chris Brown (born in Tappahannock, Va., and best known for slapping around songstress superstar Rihanna) to produce a song, “Freaky Friday.” The conceit of the song and video is that Lil Dicky and Chris Brown find themselves occupying each others bodies, which gives rise to such witticisms as
I’m in Chris Brown’s body I look at my soft dick with delight, it’s my dream dick… My dick is trending on Twitter, fuck
and toward the end of the video when contributing “artist” Kendall Jenner says…
Huh, I’m Kendall Jenner I got a vagina, I’m gonna explore that right now (woo) Holy shit, I got a vagina (uh), I’m gonna learn I’m gonna understand the inner workings of a woman
Then there was this, in which Chris Brown (occupying white Lil Dicky’s body) croons the following:
Wonder if I can say the n-word (wait for real?) Wait, can I really say the n-word? What up, my nigga? (woo) What up, my nigga? Big ups, my nigga We up, my nigga, you pussy ass nigga Man, fuck y’all niggas, ’cause I’m that nigga Nigga, nigga, nigga, I’m that nigga
Apparently, that’s what passes for art — or maybe it’s humor — in the Millennial generation. We’ve come a long way from Rogers and Hammerstein, baby! Released in March, this foul little ditty soared to number one in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and reached number eight on the US Hot 100. As of today, the YouTube video has received more than 90 million views. The mind-dumbing vulgarity didn’t seem to offend anyone….
Until the words were sung by members of the Virginia Tech women’s lacrosse team. Someone posted a Snapchat of exuberant young women after a win over Elon University dancing in the aisle of their bus and singing the song. Including Chris Brown’s grotesque nigga-nigga-nigga sequence.
Social media went ballistic. Charges of racism were hurled. Next thing you know, Coach John Sung was apologizing for the use of the epithet, although he insisted that there was no malice involved. “They had just won,” he said. “They’re singing songs. The first couple songs were Disney songs… They were celebrating and they were dancing and they were excited.” (From “Let it Go” to “Freaky Friday” — quite the transition.)
Then came the crowning blow, the condemnation of their peers. The Virginia Tech Student Government adopted a resolution condemning the use of the racial slur, describing it as “one of many episodes of discrimination and animosity toward marginalized groups that have occurred on the campus of Virginia Tech in recent months.”
According to the Campus Reform website, the resolution stated:
Examples of such discriminatory incidents include… a guest lecture by Dr. Charles Murray, a white-nationalist known for inaccurate theories linking race and intelligence; a Steven Crowder speaking event in which promotional materials contained homophobic language; and the invitation of Charlie Kirk, a controversial right-wing speaker whose rallies have attracted the support of white nationalists and ended in violence such as the February 2nd event at Colorado State University, to speak on campus April 30th.
Asserting that “such discriminatory incidents contribute to members of marginalized communities feeling unsafe on the campus of Virginia Tech,” the resolution goes on to “completely and wholeheartedly” condemn the Women’s Lacrosse team out of a desire to “stand in solidarity with our fellow students.
Basically, anyone to the right of Mother Jones is deemed a racist, a homophobe, or a borderline Nazi worthy only of condemnation and exile. This is concocted outrage. It is selective indignation. It is bullying. It is totalitarian intimidation. It is all about silencing opposing views and silencing anyone who even has a stray thought resembling an opposing view.
Look, the song is total trash. It is offensive from start to finish — not least the mindless repetition of “nigga nigga nigga” — and if I were the parent of one of the girls who had learned the lyrics by heart, I’d be mortified that she’d wasted her time listening to such garbage. But in the minds of the Virginia Tech student council members, there’s no problem with Chris Brown using that language. There’s no problem with putting that language on a YouTube video. There’s no problem with 90 million people listening to that language. The problem is that the wrong people used the language. When a bunch of white girls used the N word while singing the song — not in in a way meant to denigrate anyone — they were singled out for condemnation and humiliation.
I reject the N word, I never use it, I don’t defend anyone using it, and I suppose you could say the lacrosse team girls had it coming for being so vapid as to use it. But the double standards applied here are just appalling. It’s all about the power. It’s all about defining who can say what and who can’t.
But this bullying will backfire. If you want more Donald Trump, this is how you get more Donald Trump. If you want more Alt-Right, this is how you get more Alt-Right. That may be fine with the far Left because anything that engenders hate and polarizes the nation is fine with them, but it’s not the kind of country I want to live in.
We have a choice. We can succumb to the narrative of aggrievement or we can build a narrative of achievement. We can surrender to envy, resentment, nihilism, and destruction, or we can embrace hope, collaboration, improvement and uplift. Pick one or the other. That’s what it’s come down to.
The conventional wisdom tells us that developing human capital is the key to economic development in the knowledge economy, and that helping more Virginians (and Americans) earn more college certificates and degrees is the key to building human capital. This is a core assumption behind Virginia’s Plan for Higher Education, which aims to make Virginia the best-educated state in the country by 2030, and the Virginia Chamber of Commerce’s Blueprint Virginia 2025, which highlights the necessity of building a talent pipeline, including making Virginia “the top state for talent.”
But Frederick M. Hess and Grant Addison with the American Enterprise Institute warn in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today that the emphasis on churning out college degrees can have an unintended effect: degree inflation. And degree inflation can have a pernicious effect: disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics.
“Some 51% of employers have rejected applicants with the requisite skills and experience simply because they didn’t have a college degree, according to a 2017 Harvard Business School study,” Hess and Addison write. “If current trends continue, the authors found, ‘as many as 6.2 million workers could be affected by degree inflation’ — meaning their lack of a bachelor’s degree could preclude them from qualifying for the same job with another employer.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. When practices have a disproportionate impact on minorities in the job selection process, employers must show that any requirements are directly job-related and an accurate predictor of job performance. Given all the legal scrutiny around employment tests, such as IQ tests, possession of a college degree is one of the few proxies for aptitude that doesn’t trigger a risk of litigation.
However, as George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan explained in a Bacon’s Rebellion interview published a week ago, only a small portion of the value of a college degree is what students learn in their classes. Employers regard a college degree mainly as a signal that a job applicant has the intelligence, diligence and social conformity required to earn a degree — all attributes that contribute to making a good employee. If the higher ed system cranks out more students with degrees, he predicted, employers will demand higher degree qualifications — in effect, creating degree inflation.
Hess and Addison also worry about degree inflation and its implications. They write:
In a 2014 survey, Burning Glass Technologies found that employers are increasingly requiring bachelor’s degrees for positions whose current workers do not have one. For example, 65% of job postings for executive assistant and secretary positions call for a degree even though only 19% of people currently employed in such roles hold a degree.
“The Harvard report found that groups with college graduation rates below the national average are disproportionately harmed by the practice,” they write. Smaller percentages of blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians possess college credentials, squeezing them out of contention for more and more jobs. And with escalating college costs creating an affordability crisis for lower-income Americans, blacks and Hispanics remain disproportionately likely to fail to complete their degree requirements — and take on debilitating student loan debt in the process.
Bacon’s bottom line: If you’re looking for institutional racism in America, this is it. The impetus behind degree inflation isn’t racism, prejudice or a desire to discriminate. As with so many things, degree inflation is driven by the best of motives. But the unintended effect is highly damaging to blacks and Hispanics (as well as to poor whites and the poor of other ethnicities). When everyone has to have a college degree to get a job, those who are poorest, attend the worst schools, and graduate with the most inadequate academic preparation are the biggest losers.
It’s a shame that the social justice warriors don’t get this. Perhaps the myopia stems from the fact that so many SJWs come from academia, making them direct beneficiaries of the degree-inflation phenomenon. It’s much less discomfiting to focus on micro-aggressions or agitate about the statues of Civil War generals than confront the real forces hindering upward mobility for minorities in 21st century America.
No sooner had I posted the previous op-ed about the battleground of race and memory, I came across this story in Charlottesville Tomorrow about Freedom and Liberation Day in Charlottesville.
Historians gave a series of presentations at the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center earlier this month highlighting how freed slaves in the Charlottesville area took action after the Civil War to improve their condition in life.
Ex-slaves participated in politics and fought for public education. They agitated for the redistribution of land (which they never got, although many freed slaves managed to purchase land themselves). Perhaps most notably after the end of Reconstruction and the onset of Jim Crow segregation, they picked up and moved north to cities offering greater economic opportunity.
There is a great tradition of self-improvement among African-Americans, epitomized by the great Booker T. Washington who called for black progress through education and entrepreneurship. Washington was eclipsed by W.E.B. Du Bois, who called for political change to end segregation and discrimination. Sadly, the crusade for equal civil rights has morphed into a crusade for equal economic outcomes, and Washington’s philosophy of self-improvement seems a quaint anachronism.
Perhaps it’s time for a Booker T. Washington revival. Given all the discussion about the history of race and racism these days, it would be more helpful and inspiring to celebrate the positive accomplishments of black Americans in the face of adversity than nourishing the narrative of victimhood in the face of abundance.
The University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello have just wrapped up an international symposium, “Universities, Slavery, Public Memory & the Built Landscape.” The conference, a great success according to the symposium website, provided a forum for “a free-ranging conversation about researching the enslaved past, disseminating findings to a broader public, and breaking down disciplinary boundaries as we collectively work to tell a fuller story about our own pasts.”
Said Ana Lucia Araujo, a Howard University professor of history:
This very city and campus are living examples of how such public battles over public memory can unfold. But where reparations for slavery are increasingly accepted and embraced by governments and other institutions, there is usually a great silence surrounding the idea of financial reparations for slavery.
Symbolic reparations touted by government and universities — renaming buildings, adding memorials and plaques, creating commissions, may not be enough.
Then there was this from Craig Wilder, author of “Ebony and Ivory”:
A lot of the universities have launched reports, but they have launched reports and studies somewhat reluctantly. The question of reparations was, in part, a reflection of how a lot of colleges and universities got to the point of studying their histories … which was often driven by students.
It’s impossible for us to know whether comments about reparations were typical of the sentiments expressed during the conference or cherry-picked by the Times-Dispatch reporter because they were controversial. And one can only conjecture whether the dialogue at the international symposium will reflect the tenor of the upcoming “Teaching Race at UVa” seminar, the purpose of which is to inspire UVa faculty to revise their course syllabi to “present reality of race and racism both locally and nationally.”
My fear, however, is that the sentiments expressed are widely shared by the “subject matter experts” who will be teaching the “Teaching Race at UVa” sessions. If I am correct, the Leftist views espoused at the “Universities, Slavery, Public Memory & the Built Landscape” conference will inform the perspectives propagated by the “Teaching Race at UVa” seminar, which will alter the syllabi of a wide range of courses taught at UVa, which in turn will shape the worldviews of a new generation of students. Leftist thought might be diluted in the process, but the flow of influence will be entirely one way.
The study of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow, racial prejudice and desegregation are entirely appropriate subjects for a university to undertake. Indeed, as a former student at UVa and the Johns Hopkins University of slavery, the Atlantic slave trade, and African history, I find myself intrigued by much of the symposium’s subject matter. Furthermore, I agree that it is appropriate to use history as a tool to illuminate contemporary society. We are, after all, products of the past.
What worries me is the narrow range of intellectual perspectives that are considered. The historic focus on past racial injustices is part and parcel of the larger obsession with racial and ethnic disparities today. The underlying assumption is that disparities in income, education and other outcomes are the result of America’s grievously flawed institutions and continued white privilege. The modern academy gives very little attention to the possibility that over the past 50 or so years the modern welfare state, social engineering projects and social justice initiatives have backfired badly, harming those whom the Left purports to help.
The obsessive focus on race represents a form of intellectual doubling down on the bad bet that once Civil Rights were affirmed for all, government then needed to intervene proactively to address equality. African-Americans especially have been the subjects of one botched policy experiment after another. Thus we have witnessed the devastation of intact neighborhoods by urban renewal, the concentration of the poor into housing projects, the undermining of the family structure by the welfare state, the denigration of “bourgeois virtues” that facilitate upward mobility, the assault on disciplined behavior in public schools, the push for lower-income households into home ownership and the subsequent obliteration of wealth after the housing crash, and most recently the credo that everyone is entitled to a college education despite overwhelming evidence that low-income Americans are disproportionately likely to drop out before earning a degree and accumulate debt they can never discharge.
While these policy disasters have afflicted low-income Americans of all races and ethnicities, they have devastated African-Americans most of all. The Left, fixated on race, identity politics, and the sinfulness of America, is unwilling to acknowledge its grotesque failures. Instead, it has adapted to the persistence of poverty and social breakdown among African-Americans (replicated to various degrees among Indians, Hispanics and whites) by finding racism in micro-aggressions and blaming poverty on ever-more-subtle forces of institutional racism.
That’s the problem I have with these academic seminars and symposia. Far from fostering “free-ranging conversations,” they tolerate only a limited spectrum of views. They ignore strains of thought that would threaten their sinful-America paradigm. Instead of embracing a positive approach — how can individuals and communities lift themselves up from poverty — they pursue a divisive, zero-sum game. Reparations in the United States is a non-starter. The idea of collectively punishing one race for the sins of committed by members of that race more than 100 years ago in order to repay the descendants of the victims is intellectually incoherent. Not only does the idea stir great resentment, it distracts us from the proper task at hand — identifying policies that actually work.
Wow, ever since winning federal recognition as an Indian tribe, the Pamunkey Indians are on a tear. Last week I highlighted PamunkeyNet, a proposal to bring broadband Internet service to rural counties in the Chesapeake Bay region. Now, we find out that the Pamunkeys are thinking bigger… way bigger.
According to Daily Press, the Pamunkey Indian Tribe is looking for land to build what it envisions as a $700 million gaming center that features shows, a spa and a hotel. The project would employ some 4,000 full-time workers and would have a $200 million payroll. Not bad when you consider that the Pamunkeys number only 380 members!
It’s hard to know what to make of all this activity. Since securing their federal recognition, the Pamunkeys have been conducting negotiations with investor groups that specialize in helping Indian tribes launch similar ventures. The value proposition of Indian tribes is their ability to access federal funds and their exemption from many state and local restrictions.
I’ll be the first to admit to an anti-Pamunkey bias, dating back to 1675 and the original Bacon’s Rebellion. Nathaniel Bacon led a movement comprised mainly of poor farmers and white and black former indentured servants against the corrupt regime of Governor Sir William Berkeley. The Pamunkeys sided with Berkeley. The frontier was notorious for tit-for-tat raids and retaliations between English settlers and Indian tribes, and it is fashionable among historians now to accuse Bacon’s forces of making indiscriminate attacks on innocent Indians, including the Pamunkey. Bah! Politically correct thinking infects everything! I reject it. Cross Nathaniel Bacon for whatever reason, and you’re on my black list.
I bear modern-day Pamunkeys no ill will for the deeds of their misguided ancestors. But I find myself astonished by the sudden good fortune about to be showered upon a handful of tribesmen by virtue of their ancient lineage. Whether they succeed in building a casino or not, it seems they have hit the proverbial jackpot.
Judging by the Daily Press article, the Pamunkey tribe has an enlightened attitude. It is using its privileged status to help the broader community by expanding senior housing, rural broadband services, and job creation.
“We don’t live in teepees; we’re just your neighbors,” said Chief Robert Gray. “We’ve got jobs in Richmond, Mechanicsville, Williamsburg. We’re retirees, kids … right now we can use HUD (U.S. Housing and Urban Development) funds, the Indian Health Service. But wouldn’t it be great if we paid for our own health care — more self-sufficiency, more self government.”
The Pamunkeys sound like good neighbors. And I respect the fact that they have managed to maintain a distinct identity for hundreds of years. But in the irony of ironies, they are adopting a strategy that’s become as American as mom and apple pie — working the leviathan state for privileges and favors. They’re joining the ranks of the rent seekers. What a shame.
U.S. Personal Saving Rate since 1960. Too low for all Americans.
The editorial board of the Virginian-Pilot finds it a matter for “concern” that African-Americans are denied mortgage loan applications in the Hampton Roads region at a higher rate than whites. “In Hampton Roads,” writes the Pilot, black applicants during the study’s period — 2015 and 2016 — were 2.4 times more likely to be denied mortgages than white applicants.
As I began reading this editorial, I braced myself for the usual insinuations that the disparity is due to discrimination, white privilege, institutional racism, or whatever. But I was pleasantly surprised. The editorial writers acknowledged that the study by the Center for Investigative Reporting from which they drew their data did not account for the credit scores of borrowers (or loan-to-asset ratios, for that matter). Indeed, they went so far as to aver, “There is no evidence that the gap is a direct result of discrimination.”
Still, they find the disparity troubling, and they suggest that “something more than economic trends might be a factor.” The report should prompt a “serious review” of lending practices to ensure that there’s “no subtle discrimination at play, no policies or actions that could — even unintentionally — lead to racial discrimination.”
I applaud the Pilot editorial writers for breaking free of the simple-minded institutional-racism narrative. But they don’t go nearly far enough. They remain so ensnared by progressive assumptions that they can’t imagine any other explanation for the disparity than a subtle, as-yet-undetected bias — even though, as they acknowledge, mortgage lenders say it wouldn’t make financial sense to deny a loan to any qualified candidate.
I would refer the editorialists to a December 2017 commentary by Alfred Edmond Jr. in Black Enterprise. Edmond addresses a fact, celebrated in other contexts, that African-Americans were estimated in 2016 to wield some $1.2 trillion in consumer buying power. Buying power is not the same as wealth, he cautions.
Addressing other blacks, Edmond writes:
The ability to build wealth depends on the degree we control our spending, so that after we pay income and other taxes, and for necessities such as housing, food, and transportation, we have something left over to not just spend, but to earmark for emergency savings, retirement savings, an investment portfolio, buying real estate (beginning with our own homes), financing businesses, and acquiring other assets.
Right now, while black income has grown rapidly over the past 70 years, our spending has grown even faster, which means we are spending every penny we make and then some (which is the case for most Americans). And what allows us to spend more than we make? Easy access to credit, of course. …
The truth is that money is in our garage, in our homes, and on our bodies, in the form of consumer goods, such as cars, clothes, electronics, and experiences (such as that daily, gourmet coffee-dessert) that we’re convinced we deserve and can’t live without, or even defer long enough to save, rather than borrow at interest, to have. And far too much of our money is going toward interest payments on the debt we took on (much of it via credit cards) to make these purchases.
Blacks can pursue one of two paths, he says:
A poverty-creation lifestyle. Spend more than you make, regardless of income, and borrow, paying interest and fees, to cover the difference. After providing for basic necessities (and often instead of doing so) you spend all of your income on high-priced, low-value, depreciating assets, such as clothes, cars, jewelry, etc.
A wealth-creation lifestyle. Spend less than you make, regardless of income, and save and invest the difference, earning interest, dividends and capital gains. Invest as much as possible in sensibly priced, appreciating assets, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate, etc.
What Edmond writes, of course, is true for everyone, not just African-Americans. Personal thrift and saving were long considered virtues in the United States. But with the general disparagement of “bourgeois virtues” and the rise of hyper-consumerism, the willingness to defer gratification has gone out of style. Savings rates in the U.S. are half of what they were in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. (See the chart atop this post.) For whatever historical or cultural reason — perhaps attributable to past discrimination and a desire to enjoy the material blessings that other Americans take for granted — African-Americans spend more (thus accounting for their punching above their weight in consumer spending), save less, accumulate more debt, and have worse credit scores. Which means they get turned down more frequently when they apply for mortgages.
Rather than engaging in wild goose chases, seeking auras and penumbras of discrimination in the banking industry, society should be encouraging African-Americans to embrace the virtue of thrift. Resources devoted to underwriting deeply flawed and deceptive “investigative” reporting such as the Center for Investigative Reporting study (see my take-down here) would be far better deployed to teaching financial literacy to African-Americans — indeed, to all Americans, for financial illiteracy and irresponsible spending know no ethnic or racial bounds. Meanwhile, the editorial writers of the Virginian-Pilot would be well advised to broaden their reading list. Black Enterprise might be a good place to start.
The University of Virginia promotes an “inclusive and welcoming environment for all.” It encourages students to promptly report bias-related incidents so the administration can evaluate them to determine if university policies have been violated. The university also collects data on “bias” incidents reported by students.
The incidents include verbal, written or physical threats, harassment or intimidation, and it covers a wide range of protected groups based on age, color, disability, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, veteran status, marital status or — get this — family medical or genetic information. You can find the report for the 2016-17 academic year here.
The UVa administration divides bias reports into four categories. Category 1 consists of actual threats or harassment. Category 2 describes conduct directed not at individuals but protected groups generally. Category 3 includes incidents that do not appear to involve any bias-motivated conduct, and Category 4 covers allegations lacking sufficient detail to evaluate. Categories 1 and 2 are the only ones worth worrying about, so I will exclude the other two from this discussion.
Now, in a 24,000-student university ruled by identity politics, how many Category 1 and Category 2 bias incidents would you expect to be reported over the course of the year? 100? 500? 1,000?
None of the above. Depending on exactly what you’re counting, the number is more like 40 to 45.
Most of the allegations involved verbal or online harassment. Only one incident rose to the level of someone making a threat. One entailed vandalism, and one involved property damage. Not one physical altercation was reported.
And remember, these are allegations — before UVa has investigated the truth behind the charges. UVa does not reveal the results of its investigations, but it would be interesting to know how many cases were verified as real, and how many had mitigating circumstances. For example, how many incidents arose during an argument of escalating rhetoric and insults? How many consisted of “micro-aggressions” made unwittingly?
Conversely, it is likely that some bias incidents were never reported. Still, the numbers — roughly one report filed for every 530 students — strikes me as astonishingly low given the hyper-sensitivity on college campuses these days.
The hopeful message from this data is that the vast majority of UVa students of all races, ethnicities, and religions mix easily with one another. There may be the occasional incident like that one I noted yesterday about pro-Palestinian protesters busting up an event sponsored by Jewish groups, but that is a rarity.
The low number of incidents also tells me that the campus obsession with identity politics is misplaced. The overwhelming majority of Americans want to get along, and in fact they do. The right-wing and left-wing political extremists who stoke racial and gender grievances represent the biggest problem. If UVa categorized the students who filed complaints by their level of political consciousness, who knows what else we might find?
What is the justification for taxing people to provide healthcare? There is no mandate for it in the Constitution. The “general welfare” was never considered to include health care. The campaign slogans of the Founding Fathers never included, “Free leech treatments for all!”
Are all men “created equal”? No. Everyone has different talents. I can’t get on a football or basketball team. They can’t do what I do in Information Technology. Is it the job or responsibility of the United States government to make me equal to them or them equal to me? No. Are we equal in the sight of God? Yes.
Should people who sacrificed to made the personal choices to earn college degrees and delay having children until they were married be penalized for making those choices by forcing them to pay for others who didn’t? Would you expect to pay higher insurance because your neighbors’ kid wrecked two of his parents cars? Is it fair to discriminate against those with bad driving records? Should the government require equal insurance premiums for everyone?
If we institute Medicare/Medicaid for all, where would personal responsibility start and end? If there is a shortage of doctors, how do we determine who gets one and who doesn’t? Since we were given the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” how does freedom from the tyrant’s power to tax me to fund his armies and empire translate into the power of my fellow countrymen to tax me to provide them 21st-century medical care?
Nowadays, appeals to personal responsibility and initiative are described as justifications for white privilege. If you earned a B.A. degree, got a job in your field, married, and then had kids, would you expect your children to have a better start in life than one who’s parents didn’t? Of course! Does that make you “privileged”? Not at all.
Notice that in listing the essential requirements for success in life, I didn’t mention race. That’s because I know non-white spouses who followed the formula and live as well as I do.
Many assume that all differences between the races are due to racism. But once you factor out marriage, education, in-wedlock birth, age (whites are older on average than blacks and Hispanics and have had more time to climb the income scale), and inheritance from parents who made the same responsible choices, what difference is there left?
If it’s racism that keeps people down rather than hard work and grit that allow people to rise, how do we explain the career of the noted African-American economist Dr. Walter Williams? He grew up in the projects with his mother and sister, but no father. He earned a Ph.D. in 1972, and has been teaching at George Mason University since 1980, and he publishes a nationally syndicated column. Racism was worse back then than it is now. How do we explain his success?
Explain Mae Jemison. She was born in Alabama in 1956. Her mother was an elementary English/math school teacher and her father was a maintenance supervisor. Her family moved to Chicago to give her better educational opportunities. She graduated high school in 1973 and went to Stanford at age 16, graduating 4 years later with a B.S. in chemical engineering and B.A. in African/Afro-American studies. Engineering professors would pretend she wasn’t there. Her family was always encouraging, though. She got her M.D. in 1981 at Cornell.
Explain Dr. Ben Carson, Dr. Charles Drew, or countless others less famous. Explain my African-American next-door neighbors, both of whose kids have masters’ degrees. I can explain their success: My neighbors married before the kids were born and have lived in the same house since the ’80’s. They sacrificed a ton to make sure their kids got a solid start in life.
It’s time we asked a different question: When government takes away from those who worked for their success and gives it to those who didn’t, does it subsidize failure? When government subsidizes failure, do we get more of it?
Vic Nicholls lives in Chesapeake. For more on the topic, she recommends viewing Walter Williams’ speech, “How much can discrimination explain?” on the video above.
Bacon's Rebellion is Virginia's leading politically non-aligned portal for news, opinions and analysis about state, regional and local public policy. Read more about us here.
We welcome a broad spectrum of views. If you would like to submit an op-ed for publication in Bacon's Rebelllion, contact editor/publisher Jim Bacon at jabacon[at]baconsrebellion.com (substituting "@" for "at").
Forgot Your Password?
Shoot me an email and I'll generate a new password for you.