Economist
Thomas Sowell has yet another book out: Wealth,
Poverty, and Politics. He did an interview on Uncommon Knowledge, which
came out this week. I’ve only just become aware of the
book, so I haven’t read it yet, but the interview had some themes worth
mentioning.
Here at
the Spherical Model, we notice the interrelationships of things political,
economic, and social. Thomas Sowell does that as well. Then entire interview
(and so I’m assuming the entire book) covers a great deal more than what I’ll
look at today. But a middle segment of the discussion takes on a couple of
issues we can just lift out and benefit from.
First is
his assertion about diversity—that it does no inherent good. I’ve long believed
that. I remember the first time Mr. Spherical Model came home and discussed
diversity training at work. They had been taught that they benefited from
diversity. And I said, “You mean you learn how to get along despite diversity?”
No, they were supposed to see that they got additional viewpoints from ethnic
diversity.
That
struck me as pointless. There are types of diversity that can help benefit the
whole: variations in thinking style, attention to detail, energy for leadership,
different talents. You get a diverse team, and you all benefit from each other.
But skin color and ethnic background don’t provide you with that addition. In
international business you do benefit from someone on your team familiar with
the culture you’re doing business with. But a basic classroom in America doesn’t
benefit educationally from having students with different amounts of melanin in
their skin. It's not relevant to learning.
Thomas
Sowell grew up poor and Black in Harlem, New York. So he can safely say things
others may not be able to without backlash. Or he’s immune to the backlash.
This
starts at about fifteen minutes into the conversation. The interviewer is Peter
Robinson:
PR: In Wealth, Poverty, and Politics you
describe three very selective—they’re public high schools in New York, but they’re
very selective. You have to test to get into them. They’re Stuyvesant High—your
Stuyvesant High—Bronx Science, and Brooklyn Tech. Quote:
“The
triumph of egalitarian principle and demographic ‘diversity’ in the rest of New
York’s education system has not resulted in an increase in the number or proportion
of Black or Hispanic students passing the admissions tests to get into
Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech. On the contrary, the numbers and
proportions of Black and Hispanic students have declined substantially over the
years at all three institutions.”
So,
telegram to Mayor DeBlasio: As diversity becomes championed in the city of New
York over the last forty years, fifty years, diversity actually diminishes at
these very selective high schools. Why?
TS: Well,
diversity really doesn’t do anything for you. There are many cultural…
PR: Doesn’t
do anything for you as a society?
TS: As a
society, or the people in whose interest you’re promoting diversity. In other
words, when Black and Hispanic kids go to schools other than those three, they
get a load of diversity. It doesn’t do them any good. For example, as of about
2012 or 2014—I forget the exact one—the percentage of Blacks at Stuyvesant High
School was one tenth of what it was 33 years earlier. There’d been a major
retrogression. So while they’re being taught, filling their heads full of
diversity, the Asian students are learning math and science. Plus, the schools
are also… Another point against
diversity is that in years past, those schools were so heavily Jewish that
Stuyvesant was referred to once as a free prep school for Jews. Well, they
weren’t diverse, but it was very successful.
And now,
Asian Americans outnumber whites by more than two-to-one in all three of those
schools. It’s still not diverse. But they’re turning out people who do
marvelous things. And that’s what they’re there for—to benefit society, not to
present this tableau that will please a handful of people.
If
only we would deal with the content of character, rather than color of skin. I
think someone said that once.
The
next portion of the conversation looked further into that word retrogression.
Things haven’t progressed under progressives; they have gone backward. Why?
PR: Political factors—this is the
last of the large factors you discuss in Wealth,
Poverty, and Politics. Quote: “Black Americans, a group often identified as
beneficiaries of the welfare state in America, made considerable economic progress
in the twentieth century.”
Thomas Sowell: screen shot from Uncommon Knowledge interview |
Fine. Of
course. “But much, if not most…” This is
the thing with you: the dependent clause is where the sting is. “But much if
not most of it was prior to the massive expansion of the American welfare
state.”
That is so
counter—I want to say counter-intuitive, because we hear so much about
African-American progress and civil rights and the establishment of the welfare
state, that it really has become kind of an American intuition. Explain
yourself, Dr. Sowell.
TS: Well, as of 1940 87% of Black
households were in poverty. Over the next 20 years that declined to 47%. This
is all prior to the civil rights laws, prior to the social welfare policies of
the Johnson administration. Over the next 20 years it fell an additional 18
points. But that was just the same trend continuing—at a reduced rate.
Affirmative
action is even worse, because, as I remember—I’m trying to think now, the
numbers—I think it was something like, the poverty rate was something like 30%
among Black households before affirmative action. And a decade after affirmative
action it was 29%. This is not the same as the 40% decline that occurred before
there were any civil rights laws and before there was any social welfare state.
PR: So, what happened between 1940
and 1960 was the post-world war economic boom.
TS: It was that, but it was also the
massive migration of Blacks out of the South.
PR: So they’re getting better
education and jobs?
TS: That’s right.
PR: OK. Now, you mention cultural and
social retrogressions. Again I’m quoting you: “Arguably the most consequential
of these was the decline in two-parent families.”
Explain
that one—among African-Americans, we’re still talking about.
TS: Yes. You know, when they talk
about things like this, they talk about the legacy of slavery.
PR: Right.
TS: And I argue, empirically it’s not that; it’s
the legacy of the welfare state. Because, as of 1960, which is almost a hundred
years after slavery ended, the majority of Black kids were being raised in
two-parent households. But within one generation after the welfare state, that
had dropped down to a minority. So the majority of Black kids today are raised
in one-parent households. When you think about it, I mean, centuries of
slavery, generations of Jim Crow did not destroy the Black family. But one
generation of the welfare state did.
PR: The
Moynihan report, what was it, a call for national action—“The Negro Family: A Call
for National Action,” was 1965—fifty years ago. And his principle point of
alarm—and again, now I’m trying to recall the statistics—but I believe the
out-of-wedlock birthrate among African-Americans in 1965 was 25%.
TS: Something like that, yes.
PR: And he
was so alarmed that he wrote this report. And today it’s over 70%. And, by the
way, the rate among whites is one third at this stage.
TS: Yes.
PR: So, how does the family breakdown
fit into an economic understanding? Is the social breakdown of the American
family something that we have to understand aside from the tools of economics?
It just doesn’t fit into the supply and demand curve?
TS: This occurred at a time when the
black income was rising. And so, we’re saying that previous generations of
Blacks with lower incomes and more racial barriers—the family stuck together
under those conditions. And under the new conditioned, which were advertised to
make for great progress, in fact created great retrogressions. And I think many
people who were gung ho for the idea that this was going to be progress simply
cannot bring themselves to look at the evidence and say, “My God! We made
things worse.” (ending 22:39 or 43:06 minutes)
There are
two Spherical Model principles illustrated here:
·
Whenever
government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection
of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly
opposite to the stated goals of the interference.
·
Civilization requires strong families. Anything that decays the strong family—in which married
mothers and fathers together raise their children in love and security—leads to
increased less civilization, prosperity, and freedom.
Freedom,
prosperity, and civilization are closely interrelated. The way to get the
positives we want require living the principles in all three spheres at the
same time. But the starting place is the social sphere. Family is the basic
unit of civilization. One strong family is its own civilization. Yet another
strong family, and another, builds to thriving communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment