This spirit of this entire piece and most of the comments are right on about being pragmatic, and the spirit of Dr. King in regard to just treating people equally and rising us all up, we do this by treating the real underlying issues not via the performance art or worry about multiple choice tests or getting rid of math. Since this piece makes so much sense, I'm sure that super progressive leftists will hate it because it means that they'll have to work harder and for longer to solve deep seated problems, and I'm sure that super conservatives will hate it, because they really hate not being at the perceived top of the social hierarchy. All in all, great article.
Scanning the comment section, I cannot help thinking that some significant number of commenters are missing one important point MY makes. He wrote, in boldface, correctly I think, "Racial discrimination is a big problem." And it is. To his great credit, MY advances a number of proposals to try to rectify this, mainly through socioeconomic initiatives, and makes most of the points he makes about the difficulties of identity politics from the strategic perspective of how to advance those socioeconomic initiatives most effectively. The fact that for the most recent years information is available, Black median household income was 63% of white median household income and Black median net worth was 15% of white median net worth, is the definition of a social problem, a complex one and one that calls out for a probably complex mix of policy solutions. But benign neglect, which is the flavor of more than a few comments here, isn't really a policy solution.
One major obstacle to moving past this paradigm is the way antidiscrimination protections have been implemented. The EEOC formally recognizes certain racial categories and these definitions seep into allanspect of society.
For decades all sorts of federal forms ask for racial self identification. Private employers are so obligated to track and annually report the racial makeup of their employees. And if someone should be so bold as to not answer the identity question, employers are instructed to record race via "visual identification."
If we really want a new identity paradigm we need to restructure how the Civil Rights Act functions.
The other note I'll make, if only because I've seen this asserted a few times, is that you insist that Kamala Harris was chosen because Biden and his team over-considered identity in his process.
On it's face you could say that. But I'm not sure that exactly bears out. Biden announced his decision in a 1x1 debate with Bernie. Biden, who wasn't the sharpest debater and wanted to win the primary, wisely made the decision to make this announcement. I always figured he did it so that he could (1) make news, (2) provide a contrast with Bernie that normie dems would love, and (3) cast himself as a bridge to the future. I remember the news post-debate, it was all about this announcement and gave Biden even more momentum to crush Bernie. For his campaign, it was a savvy move.
Then in the Summer of 2020 he clearly had a vetting process. Whitmer (and Warren) were finalist. But it was clear Harris was always going to be a top tier contender. Not only was she youthful, she also was a star of the judiciary hearings, a Senator from a large state, and a good fundraiser. She was also a Black and Asian woman at the height of the BLM protest, a major undercurrent in the election. But, she also knew how to talk about that issue. She had some real star-making moments, like her speech on anti-lynching that catapulted her forward. At that moment, she was clearly the right choice, not just because of concerns about identity, but also because of the issues that were at the forefront in that election and how she addressed. Biden also needed the anti-Trump suburban vote, something that I think Harris' time on the judiciary helped with.
It's easy to look back and say Dems are too concerned about identity. But, Biden's decision was a smart political one in the moment. Yes, Amy Klobuchar is an electoral beast and probably should have been given a stronger look. But, Harris felt younger and more exciting, and Amy Klobuchar basically ran in years where every Senate Dem over performed.
Sure, I'm not deep into the selection criteria validation literature, and I'm open to the idea that the line should be drawn in a different place. I just think that it's fundamentally reasonable to require employers to think hard about how necessary their selection criteria are if those criteria are resulting in a disparate impact.
Also, I'm not sure if you mean that police forces across the state use the test or if other government bodies use it, but if it's the latter that actually cuts against the quality of the test as a predictor of job success. And I also don't think it's self-evident that being able to define "felony" is a particularly predictive qualification for a police officer. Seems like something one could easily learn on the job to me.
I'm gathering from several comments here that there is a fairly widespread belief that using racial preferences to place Black candidates in visible positions of elite power and authority is unambiguously "good" or "nice" or having the effect of "moving the ball forward." I'm skeptical because:
1. How exactly does placing elite candidates - who are disproportionately well-off and from mixed race and/or recent immigrant backgrounds (i.e. Caribbean or African) - tangibly benefit those African-Americans who are actually affected by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc who lack the minimum quals and pipeline access to be candidates in the first instance?
2. Isn't it more likely that racial preferences in elite positions are mostly designed to address the aesthetic tastes and guilt complexes of non-Black co-elites, who just find it more pleasant and less "problematic" if their milieus look like Benetton ad campaigns from the 1990s? (TBH I personally feel this way).
3. Racial preferences are unconstitutional if used in public settings.
4. Whatever the intent behind them, racial preferences violate the laudable principles endorsed in Matt's article here.
5. Racial preferences generate (often reasonable) backlash and resentment on the part of individuals and groups that are (unfairly) disadvantaged by them.
6. Racial preferences are broadly unpopular, even among the demographic groups they are supposed to benefit.
In re #1, I believe the typical response would be that there's a role model/atmospheric benefit to "ADOS" individuals from seeing black people in leadership, management, etc. without regard to the actual personal history/ethnic background of the person in that position. (Which may seem condescending, but also literally appears to be what's demanded by some non-trivial part of the population -- see the gushing over the character of T'Challa/Black Panther by African-American commentators as an uplifting example of a "black superhero," despite the actual narrative of the story making him utterly culturally alien to the ADOS experience.)
I think the specific example Matt uses of disparate impact employment discrimination analysis misstates the legal standard. The problem isn't that the test produces a disparate impact, it's that the test isn't sufficiently validated as being necessary to do the job. Tests that are sufficiently validated as being necessary for the job are fine even if they produce a disparate impact. I think there is room for this discrete type of disparate impact analysis in the vision Matt outlines here. If you want to make the legal standard for validating a test more lenient, that's a reasonable argument, but I don't think requiring employers to articulate a legitimate justification for employment tests is particularly problematic in the abstract.
I think you're correct about the legal standard. I wonder, from the DOJ's POV or just the societal bleacher seats, how much validation should we expect and is helpful vs how much should we trust institutions and interviewers to be able to develop their own screens and filters?
From what I understand of the case, the department was using the same written standard that the entire state of Indiana uses. It feels reasonable, to me anyway, to allow the South Bend PD to rely on a mix of common sense ("yeah, it's not unreasonable to ask candidates to define felony" or whatever) and precedent "the whole state uses this test" rather than expect them to have been tracking this. Or at least threaten a law suit if they don't start tracking it.
Matt didn't say anyone claimed calling for Biden to step aside was racist against white people. (The exact wording was, "During the July Days crisis, we had people saying it was racist to ask the white president to step aside.") It was instead claimed that it was racist against *BLACK* people to ask Biden to step aside: https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/black-voters-matter-biden-drop-out-democrats-rcna161953
When understanding what's going on with identity politics on the left I think it's important to pay attention to the role fear/awkwardness plays.
The real reason democrats have taken the approach they have isn't because it won out in some policy debate but simply because everyone wants to avoid being called racist. Yes, the policies you suggest are great the problem is that it requires standing up and telling some minorities they are wrong to call some practice out as racism. This is something that white progressives find deeply uncomfortable.
The problem is that we adopt policies to signal our values and it's really hard to tell the difference between someone who doesn't give a fuck about racial injustice and someone who cares alot but just doesn't believe that AA or whatever is helpful so people support the view which advertises their values even when it doesn't achieve them
This is why it tends to go better when the left nominates blacks who can more credibly claim to care but disagree with a method.
Thank you! The way disparate impact has been used over the last decade sounds like a GOP conspiracy theory from the 90s.
I don’t care that school shooters are mostly white. If you shoot up a school you should go to prison.
I don’t care that most folks that do drive by shooting are black. If you’re going to shoot up a neighborhood in a car you should go to prison.
In Chicago we are doing everything possible to lower the number of arrests of black people illegally carrying a concealed weapon. The former DA promised to bring charges if someone was caught with an illegal gun during a traffic stop.
If guns are so bad they need to be tightly controlled why do we not enforce these laws? If it’s no big deal that people have hand guns concealed without the required licenses why do we require licenses? It doesn’t make sense. I’ve literally never seen anyone even attempt to reconcile how they are pro gun control but antigun control enforcement.
Why does the color of folks breaking the law change how we enforce the law?
"But the upshot of not doing this is that my son sees a math tutor after school for more challenging work. The kids who actually lose out are the talented low-income kids whose parents can’t give them this kind of extra support."
This reminds me of a concept from the rationalist community called the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics" which I first read from Zvi Mowshowitz - https://thezvi.substack.com/p/asymmetric-justice
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular."
I think a lot of progressive thinking runs afoul of this. In Matt's example, eliminating advanced classes does not reduce racial disparity, and talented poor kids are worse off. But because these effects are caused by non-state actions (Matt getting a tutor for his kid) the state is blameless.
I do understand the human-nature of this. It's the same reason that getting a one penny tip feels more insulting than no tip at all. But a lot of policy is about finding ways to make things just a little bit easier on people and we shouldn't reject ideas that help people just because they don't solve all social ills.
I suppose this is a long-winded way of saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" but I find it to be a useful concept, and sometimes it's helped when talking to someone who supports de-tracking or similar ideas.
There's something odd about this piece. It's clear from the start and the end that you acknowledge injustice in various parts of our legal system and discrimination (something that I think gets under discussed compared to more complicated ways of discussing racism). But the prescription, to embrace King's "content of your character" doesn't seem particularly useful. I think it's the right thing to do, but the big schism we're seeing now among those who actually care about issues of fairness and inequality is exactly how to .ensure the content of one's character is what matters. I think the heart of the challenge isn't that progressives/liberals/SJW want to embrace identity politics. It's that they want to figure out how to ensure that institutions are fair in a world that they view as marked by discrimination. Focusing on character doesn't eliminate the issues with identity politics you raise because they are all viewed as in line with achieving King's vision.
It's clear that you're arguing that the current methods has failed politically and in its own stated cause of advancing justice. In some ways that's true. But actually doing that takes more than just re-quoting King or critiquing the overuse of a disparate impact lawsuits. It takes actual policy solutions aimed at systems that encourage/allow discrimination (e.g., the red light cameras you discuss, eliminating pre-textual stops, getting rid of onerous school rules that keeps Black kids out of class, etc.). That's difficult. It's also challenging to do in a country where we (1) see a right-wing increasingly embracing discriminatory identity politics and (2) indifference and discomfort with admitting and addressing issues related to discrimination and racism.
King discussed the "white moderate," and without addressing that head on, I think it's going to difficult to deal with many of the real issues we have and how they weigh on our politics.
Maybe many average progressive feel the way you describe in their hearts, but the trouble is it never seems to play out that way in practice.
So instead of Harvard favoring disadvantaged members of disadvantaged minorities, we have Harvard admitting the children of rich African government workers, or upwardly mobile Caribbean immigrants from NYC who live in the same places and have the same backgrounds (more or less) as the disfavored Asian immigrants.
Taking a couple steps back: we saw the aftermath of 2020 leading, directly or indirectly, towards every social, economic and education-gap widening between Black and non-Black people, and tens of thousands of excess Black deaths from Alcohol, homicide, drug overdose and car accidents. In net, the above increased more in blue-governed areas and the most among the very demographics Team Blue claims to care about. So forgive me if I'm deeply skeptical that the left has any clue on how to make life better for minorities.
You mentioned blue-governed areas, but in these areas, we have countless data of police officers engaging in work stoppages when they were upset about criticism. Just this week a report revealed that the NJ state police slowed down enforcement of traffic laws after a report revealed discrimination. Car accidents increased. I think looking at this issue requires us not just to look to the "left" but to also pay attention to the complex set of actors and their motives.
Of course we see challenges when things play out in practice (though I would challenge your perspective of upwardly mobile Caribbean immigrants). But, my core point is that we should consider what the solutions are to rebut discrimination that's happening and just how challenging those are to achieve. Yes there are problems, but we can't just turn away or rely on slogans to fix very real problems.
We don't have "countless data on work stoppages". We have anecdotal reporting that seems to demonstrate a trend, but varies quite widely in how it assigns blame or frames the way police are working now compared to how they were pre-George Floyd.
The framing of "silent strike" is basically at one extreme. At the other end are perspectives like "the community asked us to refocus on violent crime and avoid dial back enforcement of gun possession, traffic laws, drug crimes, etc". Or "with a decreasing staff, we've had to shift our focus to respond only to the most serious crimes". Or "we've adopted the deescalation techniques, protocols and reporting standards the community asked for, consequently our time per arrest went up by 60% and we can respond to fewer calls".
Under all of these other framings, it's blue governance and blue community leaders that asked police to change the way they are policed, and now are finding ways to blame the police for the consequent rise in crime and disorder.
Tying this back to discrimination and disparate impact, traffic deaths rose 12% for Whites, and 27% for Blacks! Homicide went up 21% (W) vs 38% (B) and drug overdoses 97% vs 44%!
We can talk about how complicated it is and how unfortunate unfair biases are, to the extent that they exist, but the proof is in the pudding here. The left wanted changes and tens of thousands more young or middle-aged people, most of them Black or Latino, died tragic or violent deaths. I have no patience for letting the left continue to kill people.
Similarly with Harvard admissions, where "Social Justice" and "Diversity" has is just a PR program that slightly changes the complexion of the wealthiest Harvard admits (the poorest Harvard admits tend to be Asian, not Black or Latino). So no, I don't trust the Left on these things. It's like communism, nice idea in theory, but we seem to get Stalin, Mao, the Kims and Pol Pot kind of a lot.
This spirit of this entire piece and most of the comments are right on about being pragmatic, and the spirit of Dr. King in regard to just treating people equally and rising us all up, we do this by treating the real underlying issues not via the performance art or worry about multiple choice tests or getting rid of math. Since this piece makes so much sense, I'm sure that super progressive leftists will hate it because it means that they'll have to work harder and for longer to solve deep seated problems, and I'm sure that super conservatives will hate it, because they really hate not being at the perceived top of the social hierarchy. All in all, great article.
Scanning the comment section, I cannot help thinking that some significant number of commenters are missing one important point MY makes. He wrote, in boldface, correctly I think, "Racial discrimination is a big problem." And it is. To his great credit, MY advances a number of proposals to try to rectify this, mainly through socioeconomic initiatives, and makes most of the points he makes about the difficulties of identity politics from the strategic perspective of how to advance those socioeconomic initiatives most effectively. The fact that for the most recent years information is available, Black median household income was 63% of white median household income and Black median net worth was 15% of white median net worth, is the definition of a social problem, a complex one and one that calls out for a probably complex mix of policy solutions. But benign neglect, which is the flavor of more than a few comments here, isn't really a policy solution.
Heavily profiled groups generally earn their discrimination, and all of law enforcement is profiling.
Disparate impact is so destructive and I can't believe we even have to explain that.
"Forward to 'A Freedom Budget for All Americans'” should be "Foreword to...."
Please edit that line and feel free to delete this comment.
I wonder how many other people Googled "Ezra Klein Brazil" while reading this.
At least someone on the internet feels like Vox deserved more diversity points:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/10h0ue0/i_just_realized_that_ezra_klein_and_matt_yglesias/
One major obstacle to moving past this paradigm is the way antidiscrimination protections have been implemented. The EEOC formally recognizes certain racial categories and these definitions seep into allanspect of society.
For decades all sorts of federal forms ask for racial self identification. Private employers are so obligated to track and annually report the racial makeup of their employees. And if someone should be so bold as to not answer the identity question, employers are instructed to record race via "visual identification."
If we really want a new identity paradigm we need to restructure how the Civil Rights Act functions.
The other note I'll make, if only because I've seen this asserted a few times, is that you insist that Kamala Harris was chosen because Biden and his team over-considered identity in his process.
On it's face you could say that. But I'm not sure that exactly bears out. Biden announced his decision in a 1x1 debate with Bernie. Biden, who wasn't the sharpest debater and wanted to win the primary, wisely made the decision to make this announcement. I always figured he did it so that he could (1) make news, (2) provide a contrast with Bernie that normie dems would love, and (3) cast himself as a bridge to the future. I remember the news post-debate, it was all about this announcement and gave Biden even more momentum to crush Bernie. For his campaign, it was a savvy move.
Then in the Summer of 2020 he clearly had a vetting process. Whitmer (and Warren) were finalist. But it was clear Harris was always going to be a top tier contender. Not only was she youthful, she also was a star of the judiciary hearings, a Senator from a large state, and a good fundraiser. She was also a Black and Asian woman at the height of the BLM protest, a major undercurrent in the election. But, she also knew how to talk about that issue. She had some real star-making moments, like her speech on anti-lynching that catapulted her forward. At that moment, she was clearly the right choice, not just because of concerns about identity, but also because of the issues that were at the forefront in that election and how she addressed. Biden also needed the anti-Trump suburban vote, something that I think Harris' time on the judiciary helped with.
It's easy to look back and say Dems are too concerned about identity. But, Biden's decision was a smart political one in the moment. Yes, Amy Klobuchar is an electoral beast and probably should have been given a stronger look. But, Harris felt younger and more exciting, and Amy Klobuchar basically ran in years where every Senate Dem over performed.
Sure, I'm not deep into the selection criteria validation literature, and I'm open to the idea that the line should be drawn in a different place. I just think that it's fundamentally reasonable to require employers to think hard about how necessary their selection criteria are if those criteria are resulting in a disparate impact.
Also, I'm not sure if you mean that police forces across the state use the test or if other government bodies use it, but if it's the latter that actually cuts against the quality of the test as a predictor of job success. And I also don't think it's self-evident that being able to define "felony" is a particularly predictive qualification for a police officer. Seems like something one could easily learn on the job to me.
I'm gathering from several comments here that there is a fairly widespread belief that using racial preferences to place Black candidates in visible positions of elite power and authority is unambiguously "good" or "nice" or having the effect of "moving the ball forward." I'm skeptical because:
1. How exactly does placing elite candidates - who are disproportionately well-off and from mixed race and/or recent immigrant backgrounds (i.e. Caribbean or African) - tangibly benefit those African-Americans who are actually affected by the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc who lack the minimum quals and pipeline access to be candidates in the first instance?
2. Isn't it more likely that racial preferences in elite positions are mostly designed to address the aesthetic tastes and guilt complexes of non-Black co-elites, who just find it more pleasant and less "problematic" if their milieus look like Benetton ad campaigns from the 1990s? (TBH I personally feel this way).
3. Racial preferences are unconstitutional if used in public settings.
4. Whatever the intent behind them, racial preferences violate the laudable principles endorsed in Matt's article here.
5. Racial preferences generate (often reasonable) backlash and resentment on the part of individuals and groups that are (unfairly) disadvantaged by them.
6. Racial preferences are broadly unpopular, even among the demographic groups they are supposed to benefit.
In re #1, I believe the typical response would be that there's a role model/atmospheric benefit to "ADOS" individuals from seeing black people in leadership, management, etc. without regard to the actual personal history/ethnic background of the person in that position. (Which may seem condescending, but also literally appears to be what's demanded by some non-trivial part of the population -- see the gushing over the character of T'Challa/Black Panther by African-American commentators as an uplifting example of a "black superhero," despite the actual narrative of the story making him utterly culturally alien to the ADOS experience.)
I think the specific example Matt uses of disparate impact employment discrimination analysis misstates the legal standard. The problem isn't that the test produces a disparate impact, it's that the test isn't sufficiently validated as being necessary to do the job. Tests that are sufficiently validated as being necessary for the job are fine even if they produce a disparate impact. I think there is room for this discrete type of disparate impact analysis in the vision Matt outlines here. If you want to make the legal standard for validating a test more lenient, that's a reasonable argument, but I don't think requiring employers to articulate a legitimate justification for employment tests is particularly problematic in the abstract.
I think you're correct about the legal standard. I wonder, from the DOJ's POV or just the societal bleacher seats, how much validation should we expect and is helpful vs how much should we trust institutions and interviewers to be able to develop their own screens and filters?
From what I understand of the case, the department was using the same written standard that the entire state of Indiana uses. It feels reasonable, to me anyway, to allow the South Bend PD to rely on a mix of common sense ("yeah, it's not unreasonable to ask candidates to define felony" or whatever) and precedent "the whole state uses this test" rather than expect them to have been tracking this. Or at least threaten a law suit if they don't start tracking it.
Thanks. Well done. Again.
I must have missed this, but there were people who said that asking Biden to step aside was racist against white people? Was this just GOP trolls?
Matt didn't say anyone claimed calling for Biden to step aside was racist against white people. (The exact wording was, "During the July Days crisis, we had people saying it was racist to ask the white president to step aside.") It was instead claimed that it was racist against *BLACK* people to ask Biden to step aside: https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/black-voters-matter-biden-drop-out-democrats-rcna161953
When understanding what's going on with identity politics on the left I think it's important to pay attention to the role fear/awkwardness plays.
The real reason democrats have taken the approach they have isn't because it won out in some policy debate but simply because everyone wants to avoid being called racist. Yes, the policies you suggest are great the problem is that it requires standing up and telling some minorities they are wrong to call some practice out as racism. This is something that white progressives find deeply uncomfortable.
The problem is that we adopt policies to signal our values and it's really hard to tell the difference between someone who doesn't give a fuck about racial injustice and someone who cares alot but just doesn't believe that AA or whatever is helpful so people support the view which advertises their values even when it doesn't achieve them
This is why it tends to go better when the left nominates blacks who can more credibly claim to care but disagree with a method.
Thank you! The way disparate impact has been used over the last decade sounds like a GOP conspiracy theory from the 90s.
I don’t care that school shooters are mostly white. If you shoot up a school you should go to prison.
I don’t care that most folks that do drive by shooting are black. If you’re going to shoot up a neighborhood in a car you should go to prison.
In Chicago we are doing everything possible to lower the number of arrests of black people illegally carrying a concealed weapon. The former DA promised to bring charges if someone was caught with an illegal gun during a traffic stop.
If guns are so bad they need to be tightly controlled why do we not enforce these laws? If it’s no big deal that people have hand guns concealed without the required licenses why do we require licenses? It doesn’t make sense. I’ve literally never seen anyone even attempt to reconcile how they are pro gun control but antigun control enforcement.
Why does the color of folks breaking the law change how we enforce the law?
"But the upshot of not doing this is that my son sees a math tutor after school for more challenging work. The kids who actually lose out are the talented low-income kids whose parents can’t give them this kind of extra support."
This reminds me of a concept from the rationalist community called the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics" which I first read from Zvi Mowshowitz - https://thezvi.substack.com/p/asymmetric-justice
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular."
I think a lot of progressive thinking runs afoul of this. In Matt's example, eliminating advanced classes does not reduce racial disparity, and talented poor kids are worse off. But because these effects are caused by non-state actions (Matt getting a tutor for his kid) the state is blameless.
I do understand the human-nature of this. It's the same reason that getting a one penny tip feels more insulting than no tip at all. But a lot of policy is about finding ways to make things just a little bit easier on people and we shouldn't reject ideas that help people just because they don't solve all social ills.
I suppose this is a long-winded way of saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" but I find it to be a useful concept, and sometimes it's helped when talking to someone who supports de-tracking or similar ideas.
There's something odd about this piece. It's clear from the start and the end that you acknowledge injustice in various parts of our legal system and discrimination (something that I think gets under discussed compared to more complicated ways of discussing racism). But the prescription, to embrace King's "content of your character" doesn't seem particularly useful. I think it's the right thing to do, but the big schism we're seeing now among those who actually care about issues of fairness and inequality is exactly how to .ensure the content of one's character is what matters. I think the heart of the challenge isn't that progressives/liberals/SJW want to embrace identity politics. It's that they want to figure out how to ensure that institutions are fair in a world that they view as marked by discrimination. Focusing on character doesn't eliminate the issues with identity politics you raise because they are all viewed as in line with achieving King's vision.
It's clear that you're arguing that the current methods has failed politically and in its own stated cause of advancing justice. In some ways that's true. But actually doing that takes more than just re-quoting King or critiquing the overuse of a disparate impact lawsuits. It takes actual policy solutions aimed at systems that encourage/allow discrimination (e.g., the red light cameras you discuss, eliminating pre-textual stops, getting rid of onerous school rules that keeps Black kids out of class, etc.). That's difficult. It's also challenging to do in a country where we (1) see a right-wing increasingly embracing discriminatory identity politics and (2) indifference and discomfort with admitting and addressing issues related to discrimination and racism.
King discussed the "white moderate," and without addressing that head on, I think it's going to difficult to deal with many of the real issues we have and how they weigh on our politics.
Maybe many average progressive feel the way you describe in their hearts, but the trouble is it never seems to play out that way in practice.
So instead of Harvard favoring disadvantaged members of disadvantaged minorities, we have Harvard admitting the children of rich African government workers, or upwardly mobile Caribbean immigrants from NYC who live in the same places and have the same backgrounds (more or less) as the disfavored Asian immigrants.
Taking a couple steps back: we saw the aftermath of 2020 leading, directly or indirectly, towards every social, economic and education-gap widening between Black and non-Black people, and tens of thousands of excess Black deaths from Alcohol, homicide, drug overdose and car accidents. In net, the above increased more in blue-governed areas and the most among the very demographics Team Blue claims to care about. So forgive me if I'm deeply skeptical that the left has any clue on how to make life better for minorities.
You mentioned blue-governed areas, but in these areas, we have countless data of police officers engaging in work stoppages when they were upset about criticism. Just this week a report revealed that the NJ state police slowed down enforcement of traffic laws after a report revealed discrimination. Car accidents increased. I think looking at this issue requires us not just to look to the "left" but to also pay attention to the complex set of actors and their motives.
Of course we see challenges when things play out in practice (though I would challenge your perspective of upwardly mobile Caribbean immigrants). But, my core point is that we should consider what the solutions are to rebut discrimination that's happening and just how challenging those are to achieve. Yes there are problems, but we can't just turn away or rely on slogans to fix very real problems.
We don't have "countless data on work stoppages". We have anecdotal reporting that seems to demonstrate a trend, but varies quite widely in how it assigns blame or frames the way police are working now compared to how they were pre-George Floyd.
The framing of "silent strike" is basically at one extreme. At the other end are perspectives like "the community asked us to refocus on violent crime and avoid dial back enforcement of gun possession, traffic laws, drug crimes, etc". Or "with a decreasing staff, we've had to shift our focus to respond only to the most serious crimes". Or "we've adopted the deescalation techniques, protocols and reporting standards the community asked for, consequently our time per arrest went up by 60% and we can respond to fewer calls".
Under all of these other framings, it's blue governance and blue community leaders that asked police to change the way they are policed, and now are finding ways to blame the police for the consequent rise in crime and disorder.
Tying this back to discrimination and disparate impact, traffic deaths rose 12% for Whites, and 27% for Blacks! Homicide went up 21% (W) vs 38% (B) and drug overdoses 97% vs 44%!
We can talk about how complicated it is and how unfortunate unfair biases are, to the extent that they exist, but the proof is in the pudding here. The left wanted changes and tens of thousands more young or middle-aged people, most of them Black or Latino, died tragic or violent deaths. I have no patience for letting the left continue to kill people.
Similarly with Harvard admissions, where "Social Justice" and "Diversity" has is just a PR program that slightly changes the complexion of the wealthiest Harvard admits (the poorest Harvard admits tend to be Asian, not Black or Latino). So no, I don't trust the Left on these things. It's like communism, nice idea in theory, but we seem to get Stalin, Mao, the Kims and Pol Pot kind of a lot.