Following up on “Critical Race Theory: The New BYU Honor Code?”
Manhattan Institute Study, “The Social Construction of Racism in the United States”
It turns out that, contrary to what one would believe after reading the report offered by the BYU Committee on race, equity, and belonging, it is possible to do very detailed, scholarly, quantifiable research on the issues of race and racism in America. An excellent example of this is the study shared by Eric Kaufmann of the Manhattan Institute that I’ve linked here (https://www.manhattan-institute.org/social-construction-racism-united-states). The study is exhaustive, but well worth the read if you have the time (in my older, crustier days, I’d have said, “Make the time”…). I’ll obviously leave that to you. But here’s Kaufmann’s conclusion:
“This paper began by noting the Tocquevillean paradox that concern about racism has risen even as racist attitudes and behaviors have declined. Across a range of surveys and questions, I found that ideology — and, to a lesser degree, social media exposure and university education — has heightened people’s perceptions of racism. Depression and anxiety are linked to perceiving more racism. The level of racism in society reported by whites appears to be driven more by political leaning than the level reported by blacks. Nevertheless, ideology plays an important part among African-Americans in shaping national perceptions as well as reported personal experiences of racism.
Surveys showed that liberal whites are more supportive of punitive CRT [critical race theory] postulates than blacks, who are more likely to aspire to agency and resilience. Moreover, CRT appeared to have a detrimental effect on African- Americans’ feeling of being in control of their lives. This makes CRT a poor choice for policymakers seeking to improve outcomes in the black community.
Finally, my survey results indicate that as much as half of reported racism may be ideologically or psychologically conditioned, and the rise in the proportion of Americans claiming racism to be an important problem is largely socially constructed.
None of this means that racism has been eradicated. Nevertheless, the policy approach that follows from the findings in this paper is unlike the narrative of “systemic” racism that is increasingly prevalent in professional settings. This approach would replace the narrative common among activists and diversity administrators in elite institutions, which is based on anecdote-driven reasoning, sweeping CRT narratives, and conclusions drawn from bivariate race “gaps.” (emphasis added) In their stead would come measurable indicators and tests to explain disparate racial outcomes that control for confounding factors such as educational qualifications, and in which claims of racism achieve validity only when alternative explanations such as qualification level fail to explain differences. Racial disparities that stem from education and class can be addressed with less contentious, race-neutral economic initiatives.
Where racial bias continues to manifest itself, mentoring, nudges such as name-blind CVs, and the use of randomized control trials to ascertain which interventions work should be favored over shaming, virtue-signaling, and quotas. The realization that all groups discriminate against all groups can also help lower the divisiveness of a debate often cast in binary “majority-minority” terms. In Britain, a recent survey shows that nonwhites, who make up only 20% of the population, accounted for over 40% of reported ethnic and racial discrimination against black Britons. Policymakers should avoid unnecessarily generalizing about, and impugning the reputation of, an entire racial group such as white Americans. (emphasis added) Targeted, evidence-led, progress on correcting unexplained racial disparities — as with the rougher treatment of black suspects by police or lesser likelihood of prescribing black people pain relief — is vital, but policymakers should interpret subjective perceptions of racism with care.”
Kaufmann’s study was published on April 7, 2021. My first essay on CRT and BYU was published on March 23, 2021. In my view, the two taken together make an important case for BYU’s administration to avoid taking the rote CRT path as prescribed by “the Committee,” and performing the kind of university-specific, scholarly research the issue calls for. Doing so will most certainly lead to “less contentious, race-neutral” — and more effective — solutions to whatever race problem might actually (and provably) exist at the university.
