Civil Rights

1. The Civil Rights Vision: A Flawed Cause-and-Effect Theory

The civil rights vision is not only a moral vision of the way the world should be in the future, but also a cause-and-effect vision of the way the world is today.

Vision's core premise. The civil rights vision, born from the fight against blatant discrimination, posits that statistical disparities between groups in income, education, and occupation are primarily caused by societal discrimination. Rejecting innate inferiority as an explanation, this vision concludes that unequal results must stem from unequal treatment by "society."

Implicit assumptions questioned. This cause-and-effect theory rests on unspoken assumptions: that discrimination leads to adverse statistical effects, and conversely, that large statistical differences imply discrimination. The vision assumes a random distribution of outcomes in the absence of discrimination, ignoring numerous other factors that cause group differences.

Alternative explanations exist. Many non-discriminatory factors lead to vast statistical disparities, such as:

• Age differences between groups
• Geographic concentration
• Cultural values and choices (e.g., marriage age, field of study)
• Historical migration patterns
  These factors, often ignored by the vision, profoundly impact group outcomes.

2. The Shift from Equal Opportunity to Group Results

Many Americans who supported the initial thrust of civil rights... later felt betrayed as the original concept of equal individual opportunity evolved toward the concept of equal group results.

From individual rights to group outcomes. Initially, civil rights meant equal treatment under the law for individuals, regardless of group membership. However, the civil rights vision's premise that disparities imply discrimination led to a shift towards demanding equal group results, often through preferential treatment.

Affirmative action's transformation. The term "affirmative action" initially meant ensuring equal opportunity (e.g., outreach). By the early 1970s, it was redefined by administrative agencies and courts to mean achieving statistical "representation" or "utilization" of minorities and women, effectively becoming a numerical concept ("goals and timetables").

Ignoring legislative intent. This transformation occurred despite the clear intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly stated it did not require employers to grant preferential treatment to achieve racial balance. Administrative agencies and courts prioritized the "spirit" of the Act (addressing black economic problems) over its literal words and legislative history.

3. Busing: A Tangled Web Based on Unproven Assumptions

The central assumption behind busing was perhaps nowhere better expressed than by Los Angeles Judge Paul V. Egly, when he declared that minority students would be “irreparably damaged” if busing were even delayed, and that his task was to “make the most efficient use of increasingly scarce white students as possible” by spreading them around for the benefit of the many minority youngsters who constituted a majority of that city’s school children.

"Separate is unequal" rationale. The Brown v. Board of Education decision, while politically masterful, based its core legal rationale on the psychological theory that separating children by race inherently creates feelings of inferiority, thus making separate schools unequal. This theory, attributed to "modern authority," became the basis for demanding racial mixing.

Evolution to mandatory mixing. Initially, Brown called for desegregation "with all deliberate speed." However, the underlying psychological doctrine led courts to demand racial balance as proof of desegregation, culminating in mandatory busing orders even in districts with no history of de jure segregation.

Assumptions vs. evidence. The assumption that racial mixing is necessary for educational equality or self-esteem is not supported by evidence.

• Studies show mixed results on self-esteem in integrated settings.
• Historical data show high performance in ethnically segregated schools (e.g., Jewish, Chinese, German schools).
• Large educational disparities exist between groups even within the same integrated schools.
  The busing mandate stemmed from a vision and unproven theory, not empirical reality.

4. The Special Case of Blacks: Culture, Not Just Color, Explains Outcomes

Blacks may “all look alike” to racists, but there are profound internal cultural differences among blacks.

Beyond unique history. While blacks have a uniquely oppressive history in the U.S., this does not fully explain contemporary outcomes. Other groups, both in the U.S. and internationally, have faced severe discrimination yet achieved higher economic status than blacks, or even the dominant group.

Internal group differences matter. Significant economic differences exist within the black population based on cultural factors.

• West Indian blacks in the U.S. have significantly higher incomes and professional representation than other blacks, even second-generation West Indians born in the U.S.
• Black husband-wife families, particularly young, college-educated ones, have achieved income parity or surpassed white counterparts.
  These differences persist despite all groups being subject to the same racial discrimination.

Cultural factors' impact. Home environment, family structure, educational choices (e.g., math/science vs. education degrees), and work habits significantly impact economic outcomes, often more than racial discrimination. These cultural differences exist within the black community and between blacks and other groups.

5. The Special Case of Women: Economic Realities Beyond Discrimination

The big difference is not between men and women, but between married women and everyone else.

Debunking the "59 percent" cliché. The widely cited statistic that women earn 59% of men's income is misleading. It compares all women to all men, ignoring crucial differences in hours worked, continuous years of experience, and occupational choices.

Marriage and motherhood's impact. The primary factor explaining the overall income gap is the economic consequence of marriage and motherhood.

• Single women working full-time earn significantly closer to single men (around 91%).
• Married women work fewer hours and have more career interruptions than married men.
• Marriage often increases a man's earning potential while decreasing a woman's options due to domestic responsibilities.

Occupational choices and history. Women historically gravitate towards occupations with slower skill obsolescence, allowing for career interruptions. Historical data show women's representation in high-level fields fluctuating with birth rates, not just political or legal changes. Black women, with a history of higher labor force participation, achieved income parity with white women decades ago.

6. Politics: Earmarked Benefits vs. Concealed Losses

Politically, however, it makes far more sense for a black leader to fight tooth and nail for a hundred more CETA jobs in the Philadelphia ghetto than to fight for an end to taxi licensing restrictions, even though the latter would probably mean thousands more jobs for blacks—jobs with far higher pay than CETA jobs and of permanent duration.

Political incentives shape agenda. Black politicians and civil rights leaders are incentivized to pursue "earmarked benefits" for their constituency – programs explicitly labeled for blacks or minorities. These provide visible political gains, even if small or temporary.

Ignoring concealed losses. Policies that harm blacks as members of the general public, but are not explicitly racial, are often ignored or even supported if they benefit political allies (e.g., labor unions supporting minimum wage laws that harm black teenagers).

• Minimum wage laws increase black teenage unemployment.
• Occupational licensing laws restrict entry into well-paying fields (e.g., taxi drivers).
• Unionization and regulation have historically pushed blacks out of certain industries (e.g., railroads, trucking).

Net effect on the disadvantaged. The focus on earmarked benefits, often achieved through political logrolling, can result in substantial "concealed losses" that disproportionately harm the most disadvantaged blacks, who may not benefit from the earmarked programs at all. Affirmative action, an earmarked benefit, primarily helps already advantaged minorities while potentially harming the less qualified.

7. Rhetoric vs. Reality: Economics, Standards, and Marketplace Signals

From an economic point of view, to say that any group is systematically underpaid or systematically denied as much credit as they deserve is the same as saying that an opportunity for unusually high profit exists for anyone who will hire them or lend to them.

Marketplace corrects inefficiencies. In a competitive economy, systematic discrimination that results in underpaying or underutilizing a group represents a profit opportunity for competitors. Businesses that hire these undervalued workers gain a cost advantage, pressuring discriminatory firms to change or fail.

Standards are economically rational. Employers use standards and qualifications not out of bias, but because they matter economically. Even for seemingly "unskilled" jobs, reliability, punctuality, and attitude impact productivity and profit. Disparities in these traits, not just technical skills, affect hiring and performance outcomes.

Reality beyond perceptions. Economic realities, like supply and demand or differences in group characteristics and choices, are transmitted through the marketplace regardless of "perceptions" or "stereotypes." The success of institutions like the Bank of America, founded by Italian immigrants to serve their community, demonstrates how marketplace realities can override biases.

8. The Degeneration of Racial Controversy: Evidence is Ignored

Not since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy has the drive to discredit so overridden every other consideration.

New McCarthyism. The debate on race has become poisoned by a disregard for truth, characterized by ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation of arguments, and the creation of straw men to discredit critics of the prevailing civil rights vision.

Ignoring inconvenient facts. Evidence that contradicts the vision (e.g., black economic progress before civil rights laws, internal black differences, women's economic progress tied to demographics) is often ignored, suppressed, or dismissed with ad hoc explanations lacking empirical support.

Vision over evidence. For many proponents, the civil rights vision is a substitute for evidence. Conclusions are accepted because they logically follow from the vision, not because they are supported by facts. This leads to blaming "society" or "racism" even when other factors provide clearer explanations.

Consequences of the climate. This climate of intolerance hinders rational discussion, prevents understanding the true causes of disparities, and risks alienating potential allies, ultimately harming the very groups the civil rights vision claims to champion.

Last updated: June 2, 2025