Gates, Obama, and the Empty Black Suit

Here, as an exclusive for VFR, is Professor Joseph Kay’s latest article on the “Empty Black Suit” syndrome that he wrote about at VFR last September.

Empty Suits Enjoy Intellectual Diplomatic Immunity
Joseph Kay

The “professor gone wild” episode involving Harvard professor Henry Lewis Gates, Jr. has generated enormous media attention, but few, if any, commentators have tried to explain why this distinguished African American professor “lost it.” Having personally encountered numerous black affirmative action professors first hand, let me offer an explanation that transcends this particular incident. First, Gates is the classic black “empty suit:” the articulate, well-attired, well-credentialed, superficially scholarly African American who is really an impostor, an actor playing a role. Gullible white outsiders (but not professors in “real” academic departments), are just easily conned by fancy vocabulary, name dropping and similar ruses.

Second, empty suit impostors enjoy what I call intellectual diplomatic immunity on all matters touching on race, a sense of intellectual entitlement that probably began in college, where “compassionate” white professors knowingly tolerate stupid class comments and shoddy papers to “help” strugglers admitted by affirmative action. Of the utmost importance, well-socialized whites simply learn that it is impolite, even potentially dangerous, to dispute these dubious assertions. It is as if empty suits were cars with “DPL” (diplomat) license plates and therefore immune from speeding tickets. Indeed, the more transparent the mendacity, the higher the speaker’s social standing, and the greater the white acquiescence in both.

For example, how many times have these empty-suit black “experts” glibly explained away black crime by insisting that police disproportionately target African Americans, or that blacks perform poorly on standardized tests, since all tests are culturally biased? Or opine that African Americans are virtually debilitated psychologically by white-held “dangerous” stereotypes about their IQ, work habits, or impulse control? Or that corporations and universities still refuse to hire capable blacks despite intense government pressure? Much of Black Studies is little more than such fabrications dressed up in academic jargon. It is not the mere foolishness of these pronouncements that draws our attention; what is remarkable is that whites seldom, if ever, confront the outrageous assertions from the empty suits, let alone defend themselves against baseless charges.

Observing the race-related double standard can be painful for whites. In a public debate over dreadful African American SAT scores a black expert might rave and rant about invisible racism, a Euro-centric curriculum, the lack of black role models and mentors in schools, inattention to the unique learning style of blacks and similar explanations, but it will be a rare day if he or she is called upon to offer any scientific proof. By contrast, his debate opponent will immediately be excoriated if he even dares hint at IQ differences, though copious, detailed citations are immediately provided. Our empty suit impostor will predictably respond with “How can you possibly say that? We all know that no such evidence exists!” The counter-charge—where is your scientific evidence?—will be casually side-stepped, since how can a white tell a well-credentialed black about the black experience.

This immunity has two major consequences. First, the absence of rebuke only strengthens the pontificator’s flawed version of reality. An entire class of people will now occupy a fantasy land; blithely making it up becomes a way of life, a barely noticed habit. Recall President Obama telling his Cairo Muslim audience about how Muslims contributed so much to the building of America, including sports and the civil rights movement. And even that there are seven million Muslims in America. Surely somebody must have read this speech beforehand, but who will bell this cat? To differ in such circumstances is not just the normal give and takes of intellectual argument; objections indicates disrespect (“dissing”), and the stronger the “disrespect” the more vehement the outrage. The process feeds on itself—savvy whites learn that to disagree with those possessing diplomatic immunity only invites avoidable trouble, and like a creature without any predators, the empty suit grows increasingly self-confident, pompous and addicted to deference.

Second, the physical presence of these self-possessed experts renders public intellectual honesty virtually impossible. The empty suit is a human intellectual neutron bomb—his very presence kills off all disagreeable ideas while leaving physical reality intact. At most, a few whites hearing crackpot assertions may sarcastically whisper disagreements to close-by friends or, more likely, later express bewilderment to trusted confidants. Public disagreement is always muted, most likely a quibble than a direct challenge. If the empty-suit, diplomatically-protected speaker states that white suburban schools out-perform black inner city schools because since they spend more money (a bald-faced lie), the typical “challenge” during Q and A might be, “Is money the only factor in academic accomplishment?” The well-socialized white would never, ever say, “Your statistics are hogwash, many black-dominated schools far outspend white schools, and the worst performing but well-funded schools are in places like Washington, D.C. and Newark, N.J. where nearly all the students, teachers and administrators are black. What about Utah where whites perform well despite about average school funding? How do you explain that?”

No doubt, such a “hostile” question would bring an embarrassed silence and scowls from blacks in the room. Rather than receive a serious, detailed answer (probably beyond the speaker’s ability in any case), the questioner would be chided for his impudence. Thus understood, public “Dialogues on Race” or “Conversations” where these protected empty suits assemble are ceremonial professions of faith, cathartic events in which educated blacks gain a modicum of psychological satisfaction by berating hapless white devils. It is no accident that these speeches often occur in black churches and have a revivalist “Amen, brother” flavor. Speakers also gain opportunities to “be important,” burnish professional resumes, practice their impersonation skills and otherwise gain legitimacy as a race spokesman (an achievement far more important than getting the facts right).

To return to Gates and his “gone wild” confrontation, it is no wonder that some working-class, uniform-wearing white who earns a small fraction of his Harvard salary is instinctively judged stupid, disrespectful, and impudent—even a racist cracker—when questioning the highly self-esteemed, often honored professor in his own house. This is not about law enforcement; it is about an artificially inflated ego that has gone unchallenged for decades. Of course Gates said to the cop, “Do you know who I am?” That somebody, let alone a white policeman, might question him and demand his ID, assaults his very persona, like giving the Pope a speeding ticket. What’s next? A lowly Harvard undergraduate demanding Gates supply statistical evidence that the U.S. is hopelessly mired in racism or that the legacy of slavery explains the poor academic performance of blacks? This is all about proper deference, not a burglary investigation. Recall the similar “how dare you?” fury when Harvard President Lawrence Summers told Cornel West, another empty suit professor with DPL plates, to stop trying to be a rap star and do serious scholarship. West was outraged over this dissing and quickly decamped to Princeton where he once again enjoys immunity from reality.

Is this a problem to be corrected? Should whites try to speak knowledge to stupidity? Might roving “truth squads” shadow these black pseudo experts and publicly confront them? This might be tempting, even beneficial for public debate but silence is best. On balance, white anguish aside, these exasperating rituals may be socially beneficial, the best way of coping (odious though it may be) with a hopeless mess. The black intellectual class is kept happy, at relatively little cost (notwithstanding high university salaries for their airhead pontificating), convinced that they are respected serious “scholars,” while whites continue on, doing their own, legitimate academic work. In any case, intellectually upgrading these empty suit scholars would be a waste of time—there are no remedial Ph.D. programs.

Openly challenging these diplomatically protected persons can even be disastrous. Just imagine the social damage if the immunity from criticism were withdrawn, that is, if there occurred an onslaught of rock-solid rebuttals when a putative black scholar claimed once again that blacks are unfairly targeted by racist cops. Or if affirmative action university job candidates were grilled about their research, in the same way that white or Asian candidates are hauled over the coals. Such intellectual challenges to the empty suit would indisputably demonstrate that he is in over his head, a fool who cannot master logic, let alone statistics and scientific evidence. This would cause public humiliation (“disrespect”), the puncturing of an inflated ego, and, worse, a public demonstration that blacks cannot intellectually measure up to whites. The charade would be exposed and the upshot could only be yet more anti-white anger and resentment, as well as increased litigation against various institutions for failing to meet minority recruitment targets.

Thus, on one hand, the Gates episode brings to the surface what has been occurring for decades—intellectually sub-par blacks endlessly shielded from a disconcerting reality in a well-intentioned effort to create racial diversity. On the other hand, accepting that unpleasant reality may be a more prudent course of action than fighting it.

- end of initial entry -

Joseph Kay follows up:

Have you noticed how Obama reacts when pressed about the details of his policies? This is the typical empty suit response I saw in the university—moving the words about without saying anything of substance. Also reminds me of Mel Brooks doing his imitation of German: “German” words that make absolutely no sense unless one has zero knowledge of German.

Stephen Hopewell writes:

A very valuable part of Professor Kay’s article is its description of the ethos in which black or other minority academics are not challenged in any serious way by their peers—in a profession which purports to hold the “free exchange of ideas” as its highest value.

As you have pointed out repeatedly, once a formerly-marginalized group is granted membership in leadership positions in our society, the rest of the members in effect lose their freedom to criticize that group. This is why liberal society, in its public discussions, is full of quibbling challenges but without substantive dissent. Once the Muslim politician or the queer-studies “scholar” is your colleague you can only question them on details; you cannot say “I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of your presence here,” unless you’re prepared to fight a war with them.

Gintas writes:

Joseph Kay wrrites:

Thus, on one hand, the Gates episode brings to the surface what has been occurring for decades—intellectually sub-par blacks endlessly shielded from a disconcerting reality in a well-intentioned effort to create racial diversity. On the other hand, accepting that unpleasant reality may be a more prudent course of action than fighting it.

A Potemkin Village of Black Scholarly Achievement, then? Except the folks in the Village really believe it’s real.

LA replies:

Of course I don’t agree with Mr. Kay on this point. I am totally opposed to minority racial preferences.

Mike Berman writes:

Joseph Kay’s article ends like this:

Such intellectual challenges to the empty suit would indisputably demonstrate that he is in over his head, a fool who cannot master logic, let alone statistics and scientific evidence. This would cause public humiliation (“disrespect”), the puncturing of an inflated ego, and, worse, a public demonstration that blacks cannot intellectually measure up to whites. The charade would be exposed and the upshot could only be yet more anti-white anger and resentment, as well as increased litigation against various institutions for failing to meet minority recruitment targets.

Thus, on one hand, the Gates episode brings to the surface what has been occurring for decades—intellectually sub-par blacks endlessly shielded from a disconcerting reality in a well-intentioned effort to create racial diversity. On the other hand, accepting that unpleasant reality may be a more prudent course of action than fighting it.

This is a liberal solution to a problem which one expects to be printed in the pages of lesser outlets. Pay the blackmail or the Jizyah, give up more land for an imaginary peace until there is no land and no peace, surrender until they like us, give them a hand until they take an arm. Isn’t this supposed to be a place where conservatives congregate?

LA replies:

Virtually all of Joseph Kay’s article consists of description, not prescription. The descriptive part of the article is fine. The fact that the prescriptive part, coming at the very end of the piece, makes a point with which I differ doesn’t disqualify the point or the article as a whole from being posted at VFR, especially, when, as is the case here, I stated in a comment following the article (and immediately preceding Mr. Berman’s own comment): “Of course I don’t agree with Mr. Kay on this point. I am totally opposed to minority racial preferences.”

However, perhaps saying that I am “totally opposed” to preferences is insufficient. Lots of people say that they are “totally opposed” to this or that, but would not really do the things needed to end them. So, to remove any possible undercertainty about where I stand with regard to Mr. Kay’s idea that accepting the current racial preferences system in this country is less harmful than seeking to overturn it, here is the closing of my May 2005 article at FrontPage Magazine, “Grutter—A Revolutionary Decision That Must Not Stand”:

Thus “entrenched … group rights” are now a part of “the core of a civil society as understood in the West.” In the aftermath of Grutter, at least as far as liberals are concerned, the group-rights revolution doesn’t even have to be argued for any more. It is taken for granted as an organizing principle of our society. And unless we fight it, it will truly become an organizing principle of our society.

If Dred Scott “shall stand for law,” wrote the journalist William Cullen Bryant in 1857, then slavery is no longer the “peculiar institution” of fifteen states but “a Federal institution, the common patrimony and shame of all the States…. Hereafter, wherever our … flag floats, it is the flag of slavery…. Are we to accept, without question … that hereafter it shall be slaveholders’ instead of the freemen’s Constitution? Never! Never!” As Bryant said of Dred Scott, so must we say of this hideous Grutter ruling and its corrosive lies: that we will never accept it, never give into it—even if generations must pass before it is finally overturned.

August 9

LA writes:

Let me add a further point. A writer who identifies a problem that threatens the very nature of our society, such as racial preferences, and then says that it’s better to accept it and not do anything about it, has consigned himself to moving forever in orbit around that problem.

It’s like Robert Spencer and Islam. Spencer has two contradictory impulses when it comes to Islam: his belief that Islam is bad and can’t be reformed; and his lack of desire decisively to oppose Islam. The latter leads him blatantly to contradict his argument that Islam can’t be reformed, by saying, over and over, “Ok, where are the imams who are going to reform Islam and make Islam something we can get along with? I’m still waiting, still waiting…” Just as a satellite around the earth is affected by two opposing forces, its momentum away from the earth, and the earth’s gravity pulling it toward the earth, and the balance between those two forces puts the satellite into a circular orbit around the earth, in the same way the two contradictory impulses that control Robert Spencer’s thought process leave him moving in a circle around Islam, endlessly repeating the same contradiction. The only way to escape the endless contradiction, the only way to free oneself from the trap of criticizing a deadly threat without opposing it, is to increase one’s speed and break free of the orbit that has one in thrall.

And I would say the same about Joseph Kay. When he describes the deadly race preferences system that has been imposed on us, and then adds that fighting it or getting rid of it would be worse, he is influencing readers to accept the unacceptable. He imagines that the race preference system is a viable compromise with which we can live. He doesn’t see that the demand that drives race preferences has not been pacified by this compromise, but that it will continue to demand more and more and more. All of which explains why Mr. Berman objected so strongly to the ending of Mr. Kay’s article.

LA continues:

To continue with the orbit analogy. The orbiting intellectual such as Kay or Spencer imagines that he can remain in his orbit forever. He imagines that the planet around which he is orbiting is in a condition of stasis. But it’s not. That planet is expanding. Islam is expanding. The demand for group equality of outcomes is expanding. The gravity of these expanding planets is steadily increasing. The orbit in which the Kays and Spencers imagine themselves to be safely established will not last. If they remain in that orbit, and we with them, then they—and all of us—will be pulled to the earth and destroyed.

Hannon writes:

Joseph Kay ends his illuminating article with

“On the other hand, accepting that unpleasant reality may be a more prudent course of action than fighting it.”

I agree with the subsequent dissent by Mike Berman and yourself to this throwing in of the towel. I also wonder about the latitude of the term “fighting” in this case, as well as his “may be” qualifier. It seems impossible to discern from this article alone but perhaps Mr. Kay here is referring to active, assertive fighting, which would certainly cause rage and outrage in the current climate, as opposed to an initially more passive raising of consciousness regarding this issue. Arguably the latter condition is a phase that we are living through now.

I would expect that the awareness building and subsequent action sought by those who seek truly to subvert affirmative action to arrive in the form of a landmark court case. The effectiveness of such a case in starting a trend away from race-based preferences established in law would depend on the then-current disposition of the polity. The fight must be directed at change and not merely mounted as a defense required to absorb the onslaught from the left. An open fight now would be a waste of resources, possibly a serious setback, and I suspect this may be what Mr. Kay is suggesting indirectly.

This is of course a more passive view of possible events, but the general aim is the same as for those who would approach the problem more directly. It recalls the Chinese maxim, “Wait long, then move quickly”.

Is Mr. Kay saying that we should not even maintain this patient sort of strategy, raising awareness along the way—as his article does? Is this awareness merely a dead end? Reading his article it is not exactly clear.

LA replies:

I believe the meaning of “fighting” is not relevant here. From previous acquaintance with Mr. Kay’s ideas, I believe he means that it’s better to leave the race preference system in place than to overthrow it. He’s welcome to clarify.

Mike Berman writes:

The analogy which Mr. Kay is fond of is how one treats a disease. To his mind there are diseases which can be cured but there are also those which can best be handled by properly managing them (arthritis, some forms of cancer, etc.). This is a term which is very appealing to Mr. Kay. He likes to manage those problems which he feels don’t present practical solutions.

LA replies:

Yes, and the analogy is not correct. As I said before, Mr. Kay is imagining a situation of stasis. He is ignoring the dynamic, spiritually greedy, ever-expansive nature of the left. He’s also ignoring the ongoing dynamics of the racial transformation of the country, which (perhaps he has not noticed this) has not stopped. It may be that his view of the racial problem is colored by his focus on blacks. Since the black population is not expanding in relation to whites, or at least not that much, he doesn’t notice the society-altering expansion of the nonwhite population as a whole.

August 10

Joseph Kay writes:

First, racial preferences are not “deadly” let alone destructive of U.S. society. While black on white violence continues on, none of it is organized. This is a far cry from the 1960s when black violent anti-white groups abounded. Stupid “random” shootings have replaced “revolution” and I honestly believe that affirmative action played a role here.

Second. the parade of inept black affirmative action doctors, lawyers, professors and all the rest have only a slight impact on the well-being of whites. So long as whites can avoid these impostors—and most can—there is little personal damage. Let Michael Jackson be treated by a black doctor.

Keep in mind that nearly all black crime in the U.S. is black-on-black, especially homicides. By contrast, Muslims want to kill non-Muslims.

The racial spoils system is profoundly different from Muslim efforts to capture American society. Blacks just want to gorge themselves on consumption and affirmative action supplies the loot. Radical Muslims, by contract, tend to be ascetic and seek totalitarian conquest. Life would be simple if they could be seduced by trinkets. I personally take the Muslim threat far more seriously than what occurs with racial preferences.I am an absolute hard liner when it comes to dealing with Islam—guilty until proven innocent.

Third, a degree of corruption is essential for society to function. Colleges depend on donors and their children do get special treatment in admissions. It is only a matter of degree, not kind.The last figures I saw was that legacy admits scored nine points lower on the SAT; the figure for black affirmative action admits was 200. If you really want to see educational corruption just look at Division I-A football and basketball (and this includes whites). Ridding society of these preferences is a cure worse than the disease—people want dumb jocks at Harvard if this brings a championship.

Overall, I view racial preferences more as a tax than a threat. And like all taxes, it has both benefits and costs. Those of us who recall the racial riots of the 1960s (there were over 350 of them) can well appreciate these benefits though we often complain (justifiably) that the “tax rate” is just too high.

I would certainly abolish racial preferences if I had the slightest opportunity. But there are other things I worry about much more.

Joseph Kay replies to Hannon:

Resistance is tricky business. All sorts of stealth weapons in our arsenal and we should use them. Universities, for example, segregate ill-prepared black students in special classes where their stupidity will not disrupt regular classes. States permit black only professional schools where unqualified black doctors can heal fellow blacks. White parents have devised multiple ways to escape dumb black teachers. And so on.

I agree that legal options must be pursued vigorously (and I financially support several anti-affirmative action groups). This nibbling at the edges has proven very effective and it should continue.

One of my favorites resistance tactics is to expand it. Today, blacks comprise only about 50 percent of affirmative action beneficiaries (I can’t recall the source here but it seems reasonable). The beauty of all this is that blacks barely notice—they just believe that “supporting affirmative action” is good for blacks even as their numbers fall.

In other words, a war of attrition.

[Note: this discussion continues in the entry “Joseph Kay, Robert Spencer, and the trap of criticism without opposition.”]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 07, 2009 03:56 PM | Send