Horowitz
Was Right-Hutchinson Wrong.
by Larry Elder
Earl
Ofari Hutchinson is simply too much.
In
the December 18, 1997, issue of the "Los Angeles Times," Hutchinson
responds to David Horowitz's OpEd piece, "Liberals Want a Racial Monologue."
(Maybe next time the "L. A. Times" will allow Hutchinson to go first,
and Horowitz to respond. But that's probably asking too much.)
Sorry
Hutchinson feels bad, but Horowitz simply stated the facts: "Blacks
are under represented at elite universities because their test scores
are abysmal. Blacks are incarcerated in prisons in staggering numbers
because they commit crimes in disproportion to their representation
in the population. Those blacks who are unemployed, not because there
are no jobs, nor because they are barred from jobs by their skin color,
but because they are unemployable: They do not seek work as avidly
as other groups do; they make their neighborhoods unsafe for businesses
to establish operations; and they do not acquire educational skills
or work habits necessary for employment."
In
his attack on Horowitz, and by extension, "conservatives," Hutchinson
conveniently overlooks Horowitz's qualifying expression, "those blacks
who are chronically unemployed."
In
Hutchinson's race-tinted, hypersensitive world, this translates into
"the same tired litany of racial stereotypes and slanders...about
African-Americans." Never mind that Horowitz concluded his article
by saluting the "thriving black middle class" that constitutes the
largest plurality of blacks in America.
But
rather than deal point by point with Horowitz's argument, Hutchinson
writes, "Horowitz claims that blacks are disproportionately unemployed
(lazy), are under represented at colleges (stupid), and have fewer
businesses (lack initiative and discipline)."
Mr.
Hutchinson, is it true or false that blacks are disproportionately
unemployed? It's your call to use the word "lazy." Horowitz doesn't.
Horowitz
did not say that blacks were under represented at colleges; he said
that blacks were under represented at "elite universities"--a distinction
that Hutchinson either didn't pick up or chose to ignore. Actually,
black males are under represented at colleges and universities, whereas
black women enroll in numbers equal to their percentage of the population.
This is true also, by the way, in corporate America.
Hutchinson
then informs us that "most violent crime in America is committed by
whites. Most drug users and abusers are white. Most of the poor and
those on welfare are not black." Not too surprising since whites are
seven times more populous than blacks.
But,
according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1993, blacks (who comprise
12% of the population) accounted for 57.6% of the arrests for murder
and non-negligent manslaughter; 41.3% of the arrests for forcible
rape; and 62.1% of the arrests for robbery. Altogether, blacks accounted
for 45.7% of the arrests for violent crime (murder, forcible rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault).
Actually,
it's much worse. Most of the crime is committed by black men, approximately
6% of the population. Furthermore, most of the crime is committed
by young black men, approximately 3% of the population. Rarely have
so few done so much to so many.
As
for the fact that most drug users and abusers are white, and that
most of the poor are non-black, well, duh. Seven times more, remember?
But ,while 12% of the population, blacks comprise 40% of welfare recipients,
and 50% of the prison population.
Which
brings us to another brain-dead Hutchinson assertion: "The prisons
are increasingly jammed with poor, young blacks due to Draconian drug
laws that target African-Americans." What? When federal and state
legislators around the country drafted anti-drug laws, they slipped
into the back room and said, "Hey, what can we do to nail the brothers?"
While I happen to believe that the war on drugs is stupid and should
be called off, there is a simple way to avoid going to jail. Don't
deal.
Hutchinson
falsely asserts that "the U. S. Sentencing Commission pointed to the
blatant inequality in the criminal justice system when it recommended
that the harsh sentences handed out for drug possession to black offenders,
and light sentences given to white offenders be modified 'or equalized.'"
No, they didn't. They focused on the unequal punishments given to
those busted for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine. The rationale
behind the differences is simple: Reduce the violence attendant to
the crack cocaine trade. Victims of this trade, by the way, are usually
fellow black residents of the inner city. (But who cares about that.)
You may quarrel with the reasoning, but it is most certainly not racist.
In
fact, in 1986 Reverend Jesse Jackson and black New York Congressman
Charles Rangel held a press conference urging the government to do
something about the crack epidemic. Rangel himself voted to impose
harsher sentences for crack offenders.
Besides,
according to a Wall Street Journal article by Wayne Roques, a retired
DEA agent, in 1995, the total number of federal prisoners behind bars
for crack was 3,771, out of a total of 100,000 federal prisoners.
Of the 6,015 federal prisoners for marijuana, how many were black?
442. (Obviously, racism against non-blacks.) Other crimes where white
arrests vastly exceed blacks include busts for drunk driving, prostitution,
and LSD. (Yet, more racism...)
Hutchinson
said President Clinton agreed with the Commission to equalize sentences
for crack and powder violations. No, Clinton didn't. On October 27,
1995, the "L. A. Times" carried a front-page article with the following
heading: "Clinton to Sign Bill Preserving Stiff Crack Rules." (Guess
Hutchinson's paper boy called in sick that day.)
Hutchinson
tells us that 1/6 of California's black youth have records, diminishing
their job prospects. Shocking! You mean, once somebody has a criminal
record, employers are less likely to hire them? Horrors! What will
those dastardly employers think of next!
As
to Hutchinson's implied charge of "blatant inequality in the criminal
justice system," "Investors Business Daily" reports that in all but
two of the fourteen categories of crime, blacks are more likely to
have their cases dismissed and more likely to be found not guilty
than whites. (The two exceptions? Traffic offenses and miscellaneous
felonies, which make up 1.4% of the sample.) Furthermore, careful
analysis of the death penalty shows that whites are more likely to
get it, and that whites outnumber blacks on death row, even though
blacks account for nearly half of the nation's annual 30,000 homicides.
Hutchinson
also trots out the catch-all liberal saw, that the media creates a
"perception" that blacks are "inherently violent and prone to crime."
Hutchinson
made this point repeatedly in his wrong and wrong-headed book, "The
Assassination of the Black Male Image." In fact, the media leans over
backwards to avoid the perception that it is racist, and studies show
that blacks are more likely on television to be portrayed as doctors,
lawyers, or managers than is the case in real life, and is less likely
to be portrayed as common street thugs than is the case in reality.
An
exhaustive series by the "L. A. Times" shows that this newspaper covers
but a small fraction of urban crime compared to suburban crime. The
newspaper, like most, under-reports black and urban crime.
Hutchinson
remains in denial, but honest blacks are not. In their book, "Scar
of Race," authors Paul Schneiderman and Thomas Piazza note that blacks
are more likely than whites to say yes to the following statements:
Blacks are aggressive or violent; blacks are boastful; blacks are
complaining; blacks are lazy; and blacks are irresponsible. They write,
"Plainly, large numbers of whites are perfectly willing to express
frankly negative evaluations of blacks...but the national study adds
a new element altogether. In every case, blacks are at least as likely
as whites to hold a negative view of blacks."
Horowitz's
common-sense and blunt solution is simple. Blacks must enthusiastically
embrace education. But, but, but, says Hutchinson, "The bad news is
that many blacks who want college degrees are losing ground. Since
1994, elimination of scholarships, grants and financial assistance,
funding cuts and the pulverizing of affirmative action have badly
thinned the ranks of blacks and Latinos admitted to medical and law
schools at several University of California campuses." What "elimination"
of scholarships, grants, and financial assistance? Most white kids
at Harvard are on some form of financial assistance, as are most college
kids everywhere. If scholarships, grants and financial assistance
have dried up, it sure as hell is news to me.
Again,
ignoring Horowitz's point about the "under representation of blacks"
at elite schools, Hutchinson ignores the fact that at some of the
less competitive UC graduate schools, blacks saw an increase in admissions
to medical and law schools. And what of historically black colleges?
There is now a boom in applications because of the demise of racial
preferences. I would think Mr. Hutchinson would cheer the revival
of these institutions.
Hutchinson
says Horowitz is "stone silent" about the segregation and funding
shortfalls that keep ghetto schools poor. I'm not quite sure what
Hutchinson means by segregation. If he's talking about housing and
neighborhood patterns, most people live where they live because they
want to. If he suggests that blacks can't learn unless sitting next
to whites, well, I think I once heard David Duke say something like
that. If he is suggesting that ghetto schools are bad because of insufficient
funds, he just doesn't know that he's talking about. Funding for public
schools in the last generation has exceeded inflation. In Washington,
D.C., the per capita expense is nearly $9,000 per student, with abysmal
results. Urban Catholic schools outperform public schools while spending
substantially less. It ain't the money, dude.
Hutchinson
then tells us that 97% of senior managers of Fortune 1000 corporations
are white men. Voila, racism!
First,
it takes nearly thirty years to get to the top of a corporation in
America. Was it tough for a black man to get a gig at a Fortune 1000
corporation thirty years ago? Yes. Is it difficult for a qualified
black to get into a Fortune 1000 corporation today? No. When I was
in law school at the University of Michigan back in the mid-seventies,
my black roommate majored in engineering. Corporations recruited him
the way the NBA did Shaquille O'Neal.
And,
as earlier stated, black women are in corporate America in numbers
consistent with their population. Of the Fortune 1000 middle-level
positions, nearly 50% are occupied by women. Besides, the small business
sector creates most jobs.
And
when you compare apples to apples, a black man with the same quality
of education and years of experience to a similarly situated white
man, there is no difference in income. In fact, a black college-educated
couple, with the same years' experience as that of a similarly situated
white actually out-earns the white couple.
And,
finally, Hutchinson slaps Horowitz for taking Clinton to task for
using Colin Powell to justify affirmative action preferences. Hutchinson
implies that Powell himself admits that he benefited from affirmative
action preferences. "Powell," he said, "understands that fairness
is not preferences..."
Actually,
Powell understands no such thing. What Hutchinson wants is flat-out
preferences--that certain persons be given bonus points because of
the color of their skin. In his book, "My American Journey," Powell
carefully drew a distinction between affirmative action (the promotion
of equal opportunity in making sure the talented are not overlooked)
and preferences like those supported by Clinton and Hutchinson. What
Powell said is this: "Equal rights and equal opportunity, however,
mean just that. They do not mean preferential treatment. Preferences,
no matter how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the
non-preferred, and preferential treatment demeans the achievements
that minority Americans win by their efforts...If affirmative action
means programs that provide equal opportunity, then I am all for it.
If it leads to preferential treatment or helps those who no longer
need help, I am opposed. I benefited from equal opportunity and affirmative
action in the Army, but I was not shown preference. The Army, as a
matter of fairness, made sure that performance would be the only measure
of advancement."
Hutchinson
does great damage to blacks by defending, explaining away, excusing,
or justifying bad behavior and the failure to emphasize hard work
and education. As long as the black community's Hutchinsons, Maxine
Walters, Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, and Willie Browns stay in control,
solutions remain elusive. They refuse to face the facts, the hard
truths, and ask the hard questions.
This
is precisely why the President's so-called "Dialogue on Race" is so
stupid. Horowitz attempts a dialogue. What happens? Hutchinson accuses
him of "slandering" blacks. If this is dialogue, pass the Advil.
Larry
Elder