Fiddling Away Black Futures
Most black politicians, ministers, civil rights advocates and professionals support Hillary Clinton’s quest for the presidency. Whoever becomes the next president, whether it’s a Democrat or Republican, will mean little or nothing in terms of solutions to major problems that confront many black people. We’ve already seen that even a black president means little or nothing. Politics and political power cannot significantly improve the lives of most black people and may even be impediments.
Blacks hold high offices and dominate the political arenas in Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore and other cities. Yet these are the very cities with the nations’ poorest educational outcomes, highest crime rates, high illegitimacy rates and other forms of social pathology. Let’s look at this pattern, focusing just on Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore, cities with large black populations and black-held political power for nearly a half-century.
In Philadelphia, only 19 percent of eighth-graders score proficient in math and 16 percent in reading. In Detroit, there is only a 4 percent proficiency level in math and 7 percent in reading. In Baltimore, it’s a 12 percent proficiency in math and 13 percent in reading. These results are even more depressing when one tallies the percentages of students scoring “below basic” on the National Assessment of Education Progress test, often referred to as “the nation’s report card.” Below basic means that a student is unable to demonstrate even partial mastery of knowledge and skills fundamental for proficient work at his grade level. In Philadelphia, 47 percent scored below basic in math and 42 percent in reading. In Baltimore, it was respectively 59 and 49 percent. In Detroit, 73 percent scored below basic in math and 56 percent in reading.
In terms of murders, shootings and other kinds of criminal behavior, these three cities are at or near the top. They also experience high rates of illegitimacy and single-parent households. Let me be absolutely clear about what I am saying. I am not saying that blacks having political power is the cause of these problems. What I am saying is that the solution to the problems confronting black people will not be found in the political arena. I am also saying that blacks working to secure the presidency of Hillary Clinton or Sen. Bernie Sanders are wasting resources that could be better spent trying to reverse the tragic destinies of so many black youths.
The Obama administration, as well as black and white liberals, expresses concern with disproportionate numbers of black students suspended or expelled. They have created a practice called “restorative justice,” where students are called on to repair the harm caused by their bad behavior. Under this regime, cursing a teacher or assaulting a teacher is no cause for traditional discipline. Instead, there’s talking and pleas. But I’ll bet the rent money that the black and white liberal elite would never send their own children to schools where teachers are routinely assaulted and cursed. They would never send their children to schools so unsafe that students must enter trough metal detectors so as to prevent the introduction of guns, knives and other weapons.
The disgraceful academic performance by black students is not preordained. In other words, it just doesn’t have to be that way. The Washington, D.C., Opportunity Scholarship Program, a school-choice voucher program, has an excellent record, with 91 percent of its “at-risk” students graduating. But the Obama administration, doing the bidding of teacher’s unions, has attacked the program. U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., questioned Secretary of Education John King Jr. about the D.C. scholarship program during confirmation hearings. King replied, “I do not personally believe that vouchers are a scalable solution to the equity and excellence challenge and prefer the route of public school choice.” I would have asked Mr. King how that position differs from a position that says: “No black children shall be saved unless and until all black children can be saved.” I don’t think black people can afford such a policy perspective.
Common Sense
Republican presidential aspirant John Kasich stirred up angry words from women’s organizations and the Democratic party by his response to a question from a female college student at a town hall meeting in Watertown, New York, regarding sexual assault. Kasich said all the right things about prosecuting offenders, but what got the Ohio governor in trouble with leftists was the end of his response: “I’d also give you one bit of advice: Don’t go to parties where there’s a lot of alcohol, OK? Don’t do that.” Let’s examine that advice. To do so, let’s ask some general questions about common sense.
Does one have a right to put his wallet on the hood of his car, attend a movie show, return and find his wallet and its contents undisturbed? You say, “Williams, you’ve lost it! Why would one do such a crazy thing?” If that’s your response, you miss the point made by Kasich’s critics. People are duty-bound to respect private property rights. So why shouldn’t one feel at ease leaving his wallet on the hood of his car and expect it to be there when he returns?
If the person’s wallet were stolen, what would you advise? Would it be to counsel people to respect private property rights? Put into the context of feminists’ responses to Kasich’s suggestion, you might argue that it’s outrageous to suggest that people “restrict their behavior.” Plain, ordinary common sense would say yes, a person has the right to lay his wallet on the hood of his car and expect it to be there when he returns. But we don’t live in a world full of angels; therefore, the best bet is for one to keep his wallet in his pocket.
Here’s a does-the-same-principle-apply question. Does a voluptuous, scantily clad young woman have a right to attend a rowdy fraternity party, dance suggestively, get drunk and face no unwelcome sexual advances? My answer is yes. Her body is her private property, and she has every right to expect that her inebriated state not be exploited. Suppose you were the young woman’s father. Would you advise the following? “Go ahead and wear scanty attire, dance suggestively and get drunk. If a guy makes unwelcome advances, we’ll catch him and bring rape charges.” I’m betting that most fathers’ advice would be the opposite, namely: “Dress and behave like a respectable lady, and don’t attend drunken parties and get drunk.” It’s similar to the advice about leaving a wallet on the hood of a car. People are not angels, and one’s conduct ought to take that into consideration.
Suppose you have a well-behaved, law-abiding son whose friends are not so well-behaved and law-abiding. They do drugs, shoplift and play hooky. Your son does none of those things. As a responsible parent, your advice to your son would be that it is better to be alone than in the wrong company and that people judge you based upon the people with whom you associate. Your son might respond by saying, “I have rights. If I’m not doing something wrong, I shouldn’t be judged based on what my friends do!” Your response should be, “You’re right, but unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way.”
Here’s another common-sense issue particularly relevant to today’s police/citizen relations. Suppose it’s the middle of the night and a police officer is suspicious of a young male driver. The officer uses the excuse that the young man made an illegal lane change to pull him over. If the driver were your son, what would you advise him to do, exercise his free speech rights to berate the officer for making a stop on such a flimsy basis? Or would you advise him to quietly give the officer his license and registration and answer the officer’s questions, which probably would allow him to drive away without a citation at all?
To teach young people, particularly young men, Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is a challenging task. But it is the job of adults to get such common-sense messages across, even at the cost of leftist condemnation.
