The Dead End of “Anti-Racist Discrimination”

[Stevicus]

The Dead End of “Anti-Racist Discrimination”

What a failed racial equity program tells us about the pitfalls of race targeting.

jacobin.com

This article details a 2021 program favored by the Biden Administration to give COVID relief to farmers, with half of the aid earmarked for farmers who were socially disadvantaged, or those belonging to groups that have been subject to racial or ethnic prejudice. White farmers sued over that, and a Federal judge blocked the program. The legislation was revised the following year to remove the race-based criteria, but also reduced the available funding and watered down the aid considerably.

Now, the president of the National Black Farmers Association is suing the Biden Administration for shuttering the program.

Three years later, it’s clear that the program has succeeded in only one respect: uniting black and white farmers in a shared antipathy for the president.

While the initial race-based restrictions on the program predictably infuriated struggling white farmers, the botched rollout in turn alienated black farmers who had been expecting debt relief only to find that none would be coming. “They gave us their word. We signed a contract and sent it back in and then they repealed the whole measure. I see it as a broken promise,” John Boyd Jr, the president of National Black Farmers Association, said in 2022. He and three other black farmers went on to file their own class-action lawsuit against the Biden administration for shuttering the program. According to a story this month in the New York Times, other black farmers whose promised aid never materialized are now planning on punishing Joe Biden in November. “I think we did better under President Trump,” one such farmer in Georgia told the paper.

The article then goes on to critique the general philosophy behind anti-racist discrimination and its pitfalls.

The failure of the program — arguably a model of anti-racist policymaking — and the political fallout from the legal battles is instructive. No doubt the impetus to offer debt relief to black farmers sprang from a genuine desire to right past wrongs. But the theory of “anti-racist discrimination” that informed the policy decision resulted in total disaster.

Racial justice advocates have often insisted that race-targeted aid — the Biden administration’s chosen form of redress in this instance — is the only way of ensuring racial equality in the present. In his bestselling book How to Be an Antiracist, guru Ibram X. Kendi famously wrote, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” As he goes on to argue, policies that are race-neutral or universal are not only insufficient but even harmful because they don’t explicitly account for accumulated past discrimination. While Kendi’s star has dimmed somewhat following a recent public scandal concerning his management of a Boston University research center, this framework of anti-racist discrimination still permeates liberal policy circles in the form of enthusiasm for race-targeted measures such as reparations for slavery, basic income programs reserved for black women, and home-buying grants only for black and Latino families.

The article then goes on to suggest that such programs don't really fulfill the purpose of ending discrimination, but instead it obscures and even exonerates the economic system which pushes so many people into a precarious situation to begin with:

But as the discord over the Biden administration’s race-targeted farm aid shows, this particular vision of justice not only generates division and resentment but also serves to obscure — and even exonerate — the broader economic system that has pushed an ever-increasing number of people of all races into precarity over the last four decades.

For instance, in the case of farming debt, legislators’ attempt to address historical discrimination through race-based restrictions ultimately ended up overshadowing conditions of hardship widely shared by independent farmers of all races. Since the 1980s, corporations have aggressively expanded into agriculture, which has resulted in a few giant agribusinesses holding near-monopolies on soybeans, corn, and livestock while thousands of small farms have been pushed into financial ruin.

In the years before COVID-19, severe weather and ongoing trade disputes with Mexico and China had further exacerbated this already dire environment, and a record number of family farms filed for bankruptcy in 2019. “The nation lost more than 100,000 farms between 2011 and 2018; 12,000 of those between 2017 and 2018 alone,” Time magazine noted. “Farm debt, at $416 billion, is at an all-time high.” According to the National Rural Health Association, today the suicide rate for farmers is currently 3.5 times greater than it is for other similar occupations.

The article suggests rejecting two theories of liberal governance to address the issue:

Avoiding this sort of political catastrophe in the future requires rejecting two animating theories of liberal governance that continue to inform progressive policy making. First, we have to reject the zero-sum theory that past discrimination can only be redressed by current discrimination — even if that discrimination is supposedly anti-racist. And, second, we have to reject the “disparitarian” logic that seeks only to ensure that certain racial groups aren’t disproportionately subject to economic hardship, as opposed to seeking to eliminate that hardship itself.

Our conception of the common good should not be determined simply by whether black farmers as a group are compensated for past discrimination, but instead by whether all farmers are able to live decent dignified lives.

Pitting independent farmers against each other under the guise of “racial equity” plays directly into the hands of the Right. But a program of breaking up agricultural monopolies, taxing big agribusiness conglomerates, and using the proceeds to benefit black and white farmers alike is one that might not only slow the trend of farmers turning to Donald Trump for answers but also help forge a new rural political coalition to advance an economically progressive agenda.

This article suggests something that I've observed for quite some time, in that identity politics is ostensibly designed to divide and pit the lower classes against each other to the benefit of the upper classes. This would suggest that upper-class liberals are likely more driven to protect the interests of the upper class more than actually being liberals.

The link in the article referencing "disparitarian logic" was to this article, which also made some interesting points about economic disparities: The Trouble with Disparity – Nonsite.org

Thoughts?

 

[Revoltingest]

...politics is ostensibly designed to divide and pit the lower classes against each other to the benefit of the upper classes. This would suggest that upper-class liberals are likely more driven to protect the interests of the upper class more than actually being liberals.

Why invent a conspiracy theory, when there's
a great alternative natural explanation....
Noble intentions are thwarted by incompetent
consideration of unanticipated consequences.

 

[Stevicus]

Why invent a conspiracy theory, when there's
a great alternative natural explanation....
Noble intentions are thwarted by incompetent
consideration of unanticipated consequences.

The other natural explanation is that the upper classes naturally want to stay in the upper classes.

 

[icehorse]

This article suggests something that I've observed for quite some time, in that identity politics is ostensibly designed to divide and pit the lower classes against each other to the benefit of the upper classes. This would suggest that upper-class liberals are likely more driven to protect the interests of the upper class more than actually being liberals.

IMO, identity politics has become a widespread cancer on society. I think we were making great progress when MLK's ideas were at the forefront. Not overnight progress, but good progress.

And yes, much of IP is needlessly divisive.

 

[Revoltingest]

The other natural explanation is that the upper classes naturally want to stay in the upper classes.

True, but less explanatory power.
No conspiracy needed.

 

[Stevicus]

True, but less explanatory power.
No conspiracy needed.

Just suggesting a possibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just suggesting a possibility.

Many things are possible.
But what is most likely?
What is evidenced?
What explanation relies upon better assumptions?

 

[idea]

Within higher education we track student success by race, attend professional development around creating more inclusive space, have student organizations centered on supporting specific groups, scholarships for specific ethnic groups, and entire colleges who cater to specific groups such as HBC's and I would add HWC's (not named as such, but that is what they are) Practice includes replacing pictures in course materials (old textbooks only show white men in their illustrations), using diverse names, creating captioned accessible translatable lectures - if lectures are recorded, they can be translated into other languages. I teach illegal immigrants. I have had so many different cultures and countries represented in class. Palestinians sit next to Jews, India and Pakistan, Chinese and Korean students, Africa, South America - all mixed together in class. Our inclusion programs make this diverse environment possible, and I fully support assisting misrepresented and under represented students. When I grade, everyone is treated equally. Some do come from rough backgrounds and do need a little more help getting in the door, and feeling welcomed when they have made it in. Some of my brightest students are there in part through scholarships and programs targeted to their various groups. Those programs are needed as racism is real.

 

[Stevicus]

Many things are possible.
But what is most likely?

That can be discerned by observing the track record of policymakers and the ways and means by which policies are formulated. Past behavior can sometimes indicate present or future behavior.

What is evidenced?

Some things can be regarded as self-evident.

What explanation relies upon better assumptions?

We don't have to make any assumptions. All we have to do is look at the results. I believe that, in any human endeavor, if it turns out to be unsuccessful or leads to poor results, then either the plan was flawed from the start, or somebody screwed something along the way. Maybe they did it by intention, or maybe it was just a case of bad judgement, incompetence, or whatever it may be.

I suppose it's not as important as identifying the specific flaws in question, rather than who might have done it or what the reason might be.

 

[icehorse]

Within higher education we track student success by race, attend professional development around creating more inclusive space, have student organizations centered on supporting specific groups, scholarships for specific ethnic groups, and entire colleges who cater to specific groups such as HBC's and I would add HWC's (not named as such, but that is what they are) Practice includes replacing pictures in course materials (old textbooks only show white men in their illustrations), using diverse names, creating captioned accessible translatable lectures - if lectures are recorded, they can be translated into other languages. I teach illegal immigrants. I have had so many different cultures and countries represented in class. Palestinians sit next to Jews, India and Pakistan, Chinese and Korean students, Africa, South America - all mixed together in class. Our inclusion programs make this diverse environment possible, and I fully support assisting misrepresented and under represented students. When I grade, everyone is treated equally. Some do come from rough backgrounds and do need a little more help getting in the door, and feeling welcomed when they have made it in. Some of my brightest students are there in part through scholarships and programs targeted to their various groups. Those programs are needed as racism is real.

Sounds more like classism than racism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some things can be regarded as self-evident.

Oh....that argument.

 

[idea]

Sounds more like classism than racism?

I believe that class and racism are interconnected, and that higher education has often served as a platform for perpetuating both.