Anti-black discrimination still rampant; more racial preferences needed

Thanks, Bob. The New York Times’ one-note black columnist, Bob Herbert (the one note being peevish resentment against America for its racism, inequality, and general meanness), inadvertently lends support to my idea that the system of racial preferences and double standards for blacks cannot be ended by blacks, but only by whites, who created the system in the first place.

In Herbert’s fevered imagination, far from there having been any diversity-driven racial favoritism for Jayson Blair and other blacks in today’s newsrooms, there is still systemic racial discrimination against blacks, a racial double standard that is artificially keeping down the number of black journalists. (See excerpt below.)

Where could Herbert have gotten this incredible notion? I submit he’s gotten it from the surrounding white liberal culture, which keeps telling blacks that as a group they are equally as talented intellectually as whites. From this premise it follows that the only explanation for the paucity of blacks in intellectually related jobs is some external force, which in the end always boils down to racial discrimination. Of course, mainstream conservatives have their own theory for the shortage of blacks in high positions; they say it is the result of the racial preference system itself, which lowers black standards and aspirations, and which is also a type of white racism. Either way, the black intellectual deficit is seen as the consequence of some wrongful thing which whites are doing to blacks, and which is therefore within the power of whites to end; but which, for some wicked or perverse reason, they don’t end. So the whites blame themselves; or, rather, the white liberals blame the white conservatives, and the white conservatives blame the white liberals; and the blacks, following the whites’ lead, also blame the whites.

The problem points to the solution, which is that whites, instead of speaking pious lies about racial equality, need to start speaking the forbidden truth about race differences—that blacks on average are significantly less intelligent than whites. Most importantly, they need to emphasize that the percentage of blacks with IQs of 115 and above—the threshold for people in intellectually demanding professions—is only one-sixth the percentage of whites. This IQ gap, not white racism, explains the shortage of blacks in intellectual fields.

It is the false belief in a racial equality of abilities, and its corollary of white racism, that have so incensed blacks such as Herbert, and led to unattainable and unappeasable demands for racial proportionality of outcome. Therefore, the only way to calm the waters and bring back some kind of livable racial peace in this country is to stop inculcating the false belief in a collective racial equality and to start telling blacks the truth.

And that, by the way, would be the real compassionate conservatism.

Here is the key excerpt from Herbert’s column, “Truth, Lies and Subtext”:

Listen up: the race issue in this case is as bogus as some of Jayson Blair’s reporting….

But the folks who delight in attacking anything black, or anything designed to help blacks, have pounced on the Blair story as evidence that there is something inherently wrong with The Times’s effort to diversify its newsroom, and beyond that, with the very idea of a commitment to diversity or affirmative action anywhere.

And while these agitators won’t admit it, the nasty subtext to their attack is that there is something inherently wrong with blacks.

Jayson Blair should have been yanked away from his computer long ago. There had been plenty of warnings. The failure to act on those warnings was a breakdown in management for which the paper is paying a heavy price. I don’t want to hear that the devil—in this case a devil named diversity—was to blame.

Herbert seems not to know that own boss, Howell Raines, explictly admitted that his desire to advance a black was the reason he kept giving Blair more opportunities despite his troubled record. Herbert continues:

The idea that blacks can get away with the journalistic equivalent of murder at The Times because they are black is preposterous.

There’s a real shortage of black reporters, editors and columnists at The Times. But the few who are here are doing fine and serious work day in and day out and don’t deserve to be stigmatized by people who can see them only through the prism of a stereotype.

The problem with American newsrooms is too little diversity, not too much. Blacks have always faced discrimination and maddening double standards in the newsroom, and they continue to do so. So do women, Latinos and many other groups that are not part of the traditional newsroom in-crowd. [Italics added.]

So let’s be real. Discrimination in the newsroom—in hiring, in the quality of assignments and in promotions—is a much more pervasive problem than Jayson Blair’s aberrant behavior. A black reporter told me angrily last week, “After hundreds of years in America, we are still on probation.”

I agree. And the correct response is not to grow fainthearted, or to internalize the views of those who wish you ill. The correct response is to strike back—as hard and as often as it takes.

So, in the classic manner of today’s leftist New York Times, it doesn’t even occur to Herbert that there are good-faith, rational arguments on the other side; anyone criticizing the Times’s diversity policy simply wants to harm blacks and should be harmed in turn. Behold the charming fruits of liberal egalitarianism in a racially mixed society.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 21, 2003 01:30 PM | Send