We Want Equality

by C Douglas Love Love

  In the black community, there has been an ongoing demand for reparations. In reality, from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s what we got, albeit unspecified, weak, and poorly executed. There were laws that stated that certain groups had fewer rights. The 1964 civil rights law said everyone must be treated the same. Legally, this was the equality everyone sought. It, however, didn’t address how citizens treated each other or the huge deficit from which blacks and other minorities were starting. This is why affirmative action was implemented.

  Affirmative action said that, though we are legally equal, there are built-in disadvantages for blacks and we need to create ways to give them assistance. What are reparations if not special treatment due to previous wrongs? The problem with affirmative action is they didn’t specify the reason, didn’t make the plans robust enough, and didn’t set a clear scope or length.

  Instead of affirmative action programs, the right move would have been reparations. My suggestion would have been to give blacks free tuition to state schools for one generation. To prepare them for college, resources would have been given to every public school with a black student population greater than 50%. For those not interested or prepared for college, skills training or free apprenticeships would have been provided. While this would not have addressed the racist problem, it would have gone a long way toward closing the skills gap.

  The plan would also have a sunset date. The expectation would be that as blacks got more opportunities and started to rise, the vitriol against them would continue to subside. Eventually, things would progress to the point that ignoring civil rights laws would be the exception rather than the rule. If we hadn’t reached that point, the plan could have been extended.

  Look at the Chinese. They were racially profiled, violently attacked, and legally suppressed. They had the added challenges of a language barrier, yet, in spite of this treatment, they are among the most prosperous and successful groups in the country today. They have higher household incomes and lower poverty rates than that of whites. Later, we will discuss reasons for this. My point is, had the approach to assist blacks been done properly, we could be performing at the same level.

  What we got, however, were open-ended programs that were, instead of black specific, aimed at ‘minorities.’ It’s been nearly 50 years since Nixon’s executive order, and these affirmative action programs, while still in effect, benefit other minority groups far more than blacks. Unless you’re a straight white male, you’re in a protected class. Not addressing the unique animus towards blacks left them rightfully feeling that enough wasn’t done. The majority of blacks faced open disregard for the newly implemented laws, and these actions were not nearly as broad as the discrimination. Allowing one or two companies to give a few blacks preference is not the same as giving the entire group the opportunity to advance.

  In addition to creating weak programs, which is the primary reason blacks still demand reparations, there were constitutional problems to these actions. What the courts started to do was legislate from the bench rather than interpret the Constitution. You can’t say that a law that discriminates against a person based on innate characteristics is wrong, then pass laws that give preferences on those same characteristics. Whatever your thoughts on affirmative action or these court decisions, you must acknowledge that this is not consistent with the goal of equality.

  If gender can be considered as a positive factor, as in the Supreme Court case against the transportation agency, doesn’t logic portend that considering it a negative factor should also be an option? If one employer can say ‘having a woman in the role would be a plus’, another should be able to say ‘but I don’t think a woman would be a good fit.’ Allowing both of these takes would create a slippery slope, but only allowing one creates inequality.

  The problem is that the civil rights laws had gone about as far as laws could go and maintain constitutionality. What we needed was less racism, not more laws. These moves towards preference were designed to force people to stop being racist. They were doomed to fail because you can’t regulate feelings. If the government passes a law forcing landlords to rent to blacks, racists will just go from posting ‘no blacks’ signs to telling them there were no rooms available.

  Even when steps are taken to help minorities, the results are usually mixed. In the case of minority government contracts, much of the work they’re contracting out is highly specified. Since the past skills gap wasn’t properly addressed, government officials find that there are not enough minority businesses that meet the minimum requirements. The white-owned firms are then given exemptions to contract the work to non-minorities. The results don’t match the mandate.

  Only the sentiments of the majority could change the acceptability of racist actions. Like John Rankin before them, whites who understood that discrimination was a morally repugnant aspect of our nation felt compelled to act. This was a great challenge and would take time but there were signs that the culture was changing.

  In March of 1965, civil rights activists organized a march from Selma to Montgomery to register blacks to vote. After Jimmie Lee Jackson was killed by an Alabama state trooper, a group of protestors began to march to the capital. While crossing the Edmund Pettis Bridge, they were met by state troopers who attacked them with nightsticks and tear gas. Two days later, on March 9th, a crowd three times the size of the previous march, consisting of whites and blacks, approached the bridge again.

  The whites who were present were motivated by the violent beatings from the first attempt, which was aired on TV.108 This is but one example of whites having enough of the mistreatment of blacks. It would take a lot more action to overcome the seething resistance to black equality, but like the abolitionists before them, the moral understanding of right and wrong was there. Unfortunately, it may have taken decades for the motivation of whites to reach the level necessary to affect meaningful change.

  In addition to continued racial injustices, there were social problems taking hold of the country. To mitigate them, the federal government began taking actions to help those suffering from a variety of these issues. For the first time in American history, the government was taking an active role in the lives of its citizens on a grand scale. Johnson’s war on poverty, Nixon’s affirmative action, Carter’s Department of Education, and Reagan’s war on drugs are all examples of the government moving in the direction of social engineering.

  While much progress has obviously been made, these efforts did not create the benefits those who implemented them expected. All government actions, no matter how well-intentioned, have unintended consequences, and we were about to learn that they can lead to disastrous results.

  Desegregation was important, but the law only prevented people from being denied access; it could not address white flight. If you look at many neighborhoods and public-school systems, they are still segregated. In some respects, it’s worse. When blacks were not allowed to live in white neighborhoods, it forced middle-class blacks to live among working class and poorer blacks. Once this impediment was removed, more affluent blacks moved to other areas, making former mixed income black neighborhoods predominately poor black neighborhoods.

  Many will say that this is systematic. It is true in some cases, but more often it’s simple economics. Public schools are funded primarily by property taxes. When neighborhoods have mixed income residents and many businesses, schools tend to received adequate funding. When whites moved and affluent blacks followed, the schools were left to rely on revenue from homes with the lowest property values and renters. Without the support of the middle-class incomes, many businesses closed or moved. This had a devastating effect on the tax base. Unfortunately, there is no law we can implement to correct this.

  President Johnson convened a group to determine the best way to implement his war on poverty. He appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, Planning, and Research. His goal was to find the root causes to best attack the poverty
issue. He was surprised by the results.

  In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan submitted his findings: The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. In it, he argued that the rise of single mothers in the black community was contributing to increased poverty rates and warned that if not properly addressed, it would lead to an impending crisis in the black community. He was quickly attacked. Women attacked him for overstating the need for male role models while many blacks chided him for blaming the victim. While he did say the problem resulted from a negative culture, he blamed those cultural problems on slavery and subsequent Jim Crow laws. In spite of his detailed research, few took heed.

  It is clear that not only did his predictions come true, but the effects were far worse. At the time of the Moynihan Report, 24% of black infants and 3.1% of white infants were born to single mothers. The percentage for blacks has nearly tripled but the increase for whites has been nine-fold. Other groups are also high, with Native Americans at 66%, Hispanics at 53%, and Asians at 17%. In fact, the national percentage of 40.6 is 60% greater than the 1965 stat for blacks he thought was at a dangerous level.109 Why is this a problem?

  This was the beginning of a cultural shift. It was so subtle that few noticed it. While this was taking place, there was a generation of young people who were pushing back against traditional norms. The feminist movement and sexual revolution would slowly move our society away from structure or judgment of behavior. What Moynihan saw coming in the black community was about to sweep the nation and would not be confined to the black community or parenting changes.

  People were starting to marry less and have more children out of wedlock, mostly raised without a father. These single mothers were more likely to turn to government welfare programs to make ends meet. This slowly chipped away at the pride and work ethic that was so prevalent in America. In one generation, many went from refusing handouts, even when they were blocked from many opportunities, to expecting government assistance. An entitlement mentality began to take hold.

  As this continued, it was portrayed on TV and in movies which, in turn, was mirrored back into society. We went from TV shows with strong male patriarchs like Father Knows Best and Make Room for Daddy; to dad as buffoon in shows like According to Jim and Married with Children; to absent in What’s Happening and Mom. For years there was a stigma attached to being a single mother. This faded, eventually leading to the rise of Maury, a television program that showcased women willing to confront multiple paramours to determine which was the father of her child, all for the world to see.

  Many people had grown up poor and found a way to make a living. They were frugal and saved. They had to, there were no programs to fall back on. Over time, people started to spend more and save less, partially to keep up with their neighbors and partially to please their children. Parents went from trying to give their children the greatest opportunity to giving them whatever they wanted. They went from strict disciplinarians to friends.

  For decades, the American dream had been to buy a house and save for the future. This grew into living lavishly. We collectively adopted Gordon Gecko’s credo ‘greed is good.’ Middle-class families leveraged themselves to buy the biggest house or fanciest car. Poor people spent an unusually high amount of their income on luxuries. It became common to see people waiting in line for days to buy Michael Jordan’s latest sneakers.

  We had officially reached a level of narcissism never before seen. Over the next couple of decades, people would put their careers before marriage and children and buy into the idea that you can have it all. Those who saw this shift coming dubbed it the ‘Me Generation.’ This created an environment conducive to demand preference. We had abandoned many of our principles, become selfish, and wanted to achieve without putting in the effort. If things didn’t work out, it wasn’t our fault. We had also become less religious and more litigious.

  All of this led us to our current state of self-absorption. Smart phones and social media have given us a world lacking conversation. Because of this, interaction, emotion, and connections are now manufactured. People post their entire lives on social media, hoping ‘likes’ will replace what we used to get from interpersonal relationships. Reality TV shows are everywhere; each upping the ante on bad behavior.

  Now everyone wants to be famous. Worse, they don’t even care what they’re famous for. They’ve seen people become household names for riding a bicycle off of a roof, making a sex tape, hooking up with strangers, and being the worst contestant in a singing competition. Then there are the people we look at to make our lives seem better like the hoarders, 600-pound people, ‘housewives’ who show that money doesn’t make you happy, and live police chases.

  Only time will tell where we go from here. Hopefully, the pendulum hasn’t swung too far. Much of this dramatic shift that’s taken place over the last 50 years is due to social experimentation that got out of hand. We can’t say for sure how much would be different without it, but the evidence is clear that government intervention along with the abandoning of traditional values accelerated the shift.

  Being young as this was evolving, it took a while for me to understand that things were changing. At first, I ignored it. Then I thought it was odd but didn’t see it as a larger problem. In the last ten years, things have gotten so extreme that it’s hard to miss and none of us should ignore it. Now, I actively fight the negative cultural shift and speak out whenever possible. It’s been twenty years, but I still remember the first time I truly noticed the shift. It was Tuesday, February 24, 1998.

  My best friend and I were watching ESPN and the women’s basketball game between UCONN and Villanova had just started. At the tip, a Connecticut player controlled the ball and passed to Nykesha Sales who gingerly motioned toward the basket and scored an uncontested layup. A Villanova player was allowed to do the same on the other end. This, we later learned, was pre-arranged by the two coaches.

  Sales was a star player for the UCONN team. In the second-to-last game of the season, she ruptured her right Achilles’ tendon. Her season was over, and as a senior, so was her career at UCONN. At the time of her injury, she was two points from breaking the all-time scoring record at UCONN, held by Kerry Bascom.110

  UCONN coach Geno Auriemma, decided it would be a ‘sign of gratitude’ from the university for all that Sales had given the program. My friend said, “Wow, they just let Nykesha Sales break the UCONN scoring record!” to which I replied, “Did she really break it?” I felt something wasn’t right, and for the first time, I said something. I went on, “Is this fair to the current title holder?”

  Nothing about this is fair. I’m sure no one had ever stood aside while Bascom made a shot. And while Sales was far more talented than Bascom, doesn’t that make Bascom’s achievement all the more important? What about all the other talented players who didn’t achieve everything they were capable of due to bad luck? It’s unfair that Jim Kelly doesn’t have a Super Bowl ring because some other guy missed a routinely made field goal ‘wide right.’ Can we just etch his name on a trophy?

  When you give someone something and take from someone else, it’s not equality. With another game and the tournament to follow, Sales would have easily broken the record had she stayed healthy; but she didn’t stay healthy. Let’s look back at Bascom’s career. Maybe we’ll find that she missed some games due to illness. Should we give her make-up games to increase her scoring total?

  This is just one example, but from there I noticed it more. People say they want equality, but do not understand what they are complaining about is the lack of equal outcome, not equal opportunity. This desire to control the outcome of a situation generally starts with good intentions. Either a concern for someone’s feelings or trying to right a perceived wrong. Unfortunately, the very nature of this interference is aiding in the inequality one is trying to prevent.

  Those with traditional values and those who fought simply to level the playing field are dinosaurs. Today they put qualifiers around dem
ands. Instead of justice they demand ‘social justice’ and instead of the truth they openly tell ‘my truth.’ This new outcome-based equality makes it easy to justify any means to achieve their utopian goals.

  Too many poor people? Tax the rich more. Not enough blacks enrolled at your college? Lower the standards. Someone loses a race? Give him a trophy. Responding to perceived injustices may feel good and give a façade of equality, but all it does is give a false sense of progress, to the detriment of innocent bystanders. Let’s review the new move to minimize competition.

  We used to think that competition was good and helped build character. We promoted teamwork, and taught children to be good winners and, better, good losers. It was supposed to give you a feeling of accomplishment when your hard work paid off; that has all changed.

  First there was the move to give participation trophies. Giving people trophies for showing up minimized the accomplishments of the winners. Worse, once you take this step, it becomes easier to go further down this destructive path. Many schools implemented the mercy rule, stopping games when a team has what is considered an insurmountable lead. If it’s done to prevent injury that would be fine, but in most cases, it’s done to prevent hurt feelings. “Why should kids have to go through that humiliation?” some would ask. Wouldn’t it be better to use the loss as a teachable moment? Also, it eliminates the opportunity for the winning coach to give his players who don’t see much action a chance to play.

  Next was the pitch to have kids play organized games and not keep score. There is no plausible reason to do this. The logical response to this is that kids will keep score in their heads anyway. If that’s the case, we should just make it easy for them and put it on the scoreboard.