In 1964, America’s most eminent sociologist, Talcott Parsons, and its most eminent black academic, Kenneth Clark, collaborated on a magisterial tome called The Negro American. What is most striking about the book today, which is as dated as its title, is that it has no index entries for either ” racism” or “white racism.” Nor does Howard Ehrlich’s 1973 work The Social Psychology of Prejudice, which reviewed 600-plus studies on ethnic prejudice. Differences between blacks and whites were thought to be caused by other forces, like the cultural legacy of slavery, unequal access to economic resources, educational inequities. The real culprit, as Ehrlich’s title indicates, was not “white racism” but “prejudice,” which was certainly considered a formidable impediment to black progress, but not a decisive one. Moreover, it was clear to all and sundry that prejudice was a condition of ignorance, for which education and ever greater interracial contact were the cure.
Today, of course, “white racism” is endlessly invoked, measured, dissected, and employed as an allpurpose explanation of African-American malaise. There are, perhaps, as many varieties of “white racism” as Eskimos have names for snow — “crypto-racism,” “neo-racism,” “meta-racism,” and “kinetic racism,” among many others. College administrators vie with black activists in passionately calling for antiracism wars, while white liberals flagellate themselves and their fellow Caucasians.
Almost any failing can be, and has been, excused by “white racism.” One study, for example, argued that a racist, sexist, Eurocentric bias in mathematics blocked the scientific and intellectual development of minorities (Anderson, Journal of Negro Education, 1990). Traditional explanations of the absence of an entrepreneurial culture among American blacks, for example, are not only quickly dismissed, but the mere mention of them is itself considered evidence of a white-racist “mind-set.”
After decades of false leads, it seems, the problem’s root cause has been finally exposed. Compared with, say, the century or so it took for the public to accept the notion that germs cause disease, the embrace by universities, businesses, and government of the “white racism” explanation took but a historical millisecond. Why the dramatic change? There are two possible explanations for the sudden popularity of the “white racism” argument. One is scientific: Empirical evidence proves it. The other is that the “white racism” argument is politically convenient. Let me address each in turn.
The science of white racism is based on three simple propositions. The first is that nearly all whites, consciously or unconsciously, hold negative views of blacks. These views vary from old-fashioned stereotypes — e.g., blacks are childlike and excitable — to pseudoscientific notions — e.g., blacks are genetically less intelligent.
The second proposition is that these ideas deeply permeate society, are transmitted by books, films, art, music, and wherever else information is conveyed, and are implicitly written into our laws and institutional arrangements. All together, this constitutes white racism on a grand cultural scale.
The final and critical proposition is that white-racist beliefs are readily absorbed by blacks themselves and work their destructive power from the inside out. At its core, the incapacitation is psychological. White racism is a cognitive virus, inculcated by whites and passed on to blacks, that eventually creates the all-too-familiar tangle of pathologies.
Clearly, many whites harbor negative images of blacks. And it is equally true that many blacks passionately believe their difficulties flow from white racism. But to my knowledge, no scientific research demonstrates how white racism — as a mental state among whites — incapacitates blacks. PsycINFO, a database that covers the field of psychology, features 87 entries from 1967 to 1995 when you use the keywords “white racism.” None of these studies, however, attempts to explain just how white racism operates; its negative impact is merely assumed. Books by Cornel West, Derrick Bell, and others who analyze the destructive costs of white racism are likewise mute when it comes to offering hard evidence. Nor have inquiries to fellow scholars concerned with this subject elicited help in finding a single study to confirm the hypothesis that white racism harms blacks.
To appreciate the unsound empirical foundation of white racism’s impact, consider one purported example of its documentation. It is offered by a wellpublished, Harvard-trained research professor at the University of Florida, appears in a scholarly journal, and is allegedly scientific in design. In “The Continuing Significance of Racism,” published in the June 1992 Journal of Black Studies, Joe R. Feagin asks the question: What explains growing black attrition at predominantly white colleges? After reviewing other possible explanations — lack of financial aid, family deterioration, growing drug use, a disdain for education — Feagin sets off to demonstrate that the real culprit is the racist environment at white- dominated colleges and the ways in which blacks on campus routinely encounter debilitating hostility from white students, professors, administrators, even alumni.
Almost 200 middle-class African Americans were interviewed during 1988-89 to determine the source of the black exodus from college. Unpleasant memories are the only data Feagin presents. The views of relevant whites and other potentially pertinent information — academic records, for example — are not supplied. The interpretations of the black ex-students are not challenged, and corroborating details are not solicited.
A few such encounters are objectively hostile acts — being called “nigger” in public, for example, or racially charged encounters with police. Such clearly defined hostility might well have a negative impact on academic performance. But such hostility is the exception, not the rule, in Feagin’s research. Most professors would recognize the vast majority of Feagin’s tales if they came from white students: They are the lame, desperate excuses common to the academically and personally troubled. Several respondents complain about feeling unarticulated aversion to their personal features, like black hair or black speech inflection. Others believe they are not being treated as distinctive individuals. White professors made students feel bad by fretting about their poor attendance and correcting their English.
But in Feagin’s research all these woes — remarkably similar to the woes of the adolescent in every novel, every television show, every cliche, trying to find a place for himself or herself in a cold, cruel world — are considered the result of white racism. It was, Feagin says, a ceaseless part of campus life, permeating everything from the secret meaning of casual conversations to the official “white” literary style. The campus environment cannot help but take an enervating toll. After experiencing all the unexpressed, nearly imperceptible, but “real” antagonism towards their very blackness, black students find dropping out a survival technique.
In legal language, these are all unsupported accusations — no evidence is offered of malice, physical intimidation, or slander. But this is the very nature of the charge of white racism. When we are asked to consider whether someone was discriminated against, we can do so because discrimination is objective in character. An academically well-qualified black who is denied admission to a college that accepts less qualified whites could justifiably claim discrimination based on race.
But white racism is subjective by definition. According to Feagin and its other theorists, even though white racism may be invisible to all but the recipient, if the recipient feels it, the feeling itself validates the existence of the phenomenon. The intent of the white racist is irrelevant; for example, a white teacher disproportionately praising black students might be guilty of racism if blacks sense that the praise is given solely because they are black. Because of white racism’s fundamentally subjective character, anti-discrimination laws aimed at overt behavior cannot banish it even if such laws are effective. Therefore, eliminating bias in and of itself cannot bring racial harmony.
Not only does the white-racism theory lack scientific support, its deficiencies are obvious. Contradictory evidence abounds. Thomas Sowell has pointed out that blacks from the British West Indies exceed both native black Americans and whites in their professional and economic attainment. If white racism is so deeply ingrained, how can we explain all the white- dominated government and corporate efforts to ameliorate past discrimination? What about all the blacks elected in cities and congressional districts with white majorities? Nor can all the poll data depicting the absence of racist views among whites be ignored.
What is especially remarkable is the contrast between the intensive scrutiny given The Bell Curve and other statistical examinations of racial differences and the credulousness with which the white-racism theory has been treated. While The Bell Curve and its variants have produced an industry of hostile symposia placing every shred of evidence under a microscope, the white-racism theory escapes inspection.
This is hardly accidental.
If white racism is such a frail explanation, why does it have such cultural reach? Why do social scientists, who are so expert at devastating flimsy arguments, buy it so unquestionably? Why are white public officials, even outspoken conservatives, silent when society’s racism is invoked as an all- purpose explanation of our ills? The answer is simple: The white-racism theory of injury has enormous appeal — to whites themselves. The theory’s allure rests on its political and psychological utility.
First, consider simple monetary costs: “Curing” white racism may not work, but white-racism theorists themselves can be bought off pretty cheaply. Balance the outlays for diversity workshops, cosmetic educational adjustments, modifying public vocabulary, and other largely symbolic anti-racist gestures with, say, creating effective social-welfare programs, guaranteeing educational attainment, or strictly enforcing the criminal code, and you see how it works.
Imagine a college dean who is under pressure to ensure the graduation of hundreds of poorly prepared minority students. That is a formidable task; progress would be expensive, the labor would be intensive, and the result uncertain. But if this savvy bureaucrat proclaims white racism the culprit, one that can be conveniently addressed by mandatory four-hour sensitivity workshops, his burden lightens immeasurably.
There is no end to the novelties our college dean could propose to satisfy the white-racism theorists. An African-American cultural center. A few multicultural courses, maybe even a sub-discipline. And, of course, if he resists these solutions, that resistance will help confirm white racism’s lingering, tenacious grip on him.
Those who choose to face race issues head-on must accept the eventuality of well-publicized marches, demonstrations, takeovers, lists of non-negotiable demands, lawsuits, boycotts, and possible acts of violence. Thus, agreeing with militants that white racism is to blame should be considered an act of diplomacy.
The theory offers well-meaning whites easy salvation compared with previous redemptive paths. Since, according to the theory, black problems originate in white minds, the responsibility of whites is to think “good thoughts.” Atonement and a state of grace are achieved by using the proper terminology (e.g., “African-American community,” not “black neighborhood”) and disassociating from anything critical of the white-racism theory. Thus, on a college campus, reading The Bell Curve is itself a sin. By expunging dangerous negative stereotypes and inappropriate cultural expectations, whites can achieve a form of earthly salvation — yen as other responsibilities seem to lighten. The obligations of the 1960s — sending kids to integrated schools, making financial donations, occasionally walking a picket line — are now unnecessary. Indeed, these once-virtuous gestures may actually reflect the white-racist idea that blacks cannot manage their own struggle!
The white-racism theory excuses whites of the 1990s from the good deeds that offered salvation in the 1960s. They no longer have to participate in interfacial dating. They need not seek out black friends or fund civil-rights organizations. Instead, they can perfect their attitudes privately.
And for those old-fashioned white liberals from the 1960s, the white-racism theory is deliverance. It drives out more disturbing, awkward, and embarrassing explanations of racial differences in outcomes that were not supposed to persist after the efforts of the Great Society were undertaken. How do they reconcile $ 5 trillion in Great Society programs with the decimated black family and a ghetto in worse condition than it was before the 1960s?
The white-racism theory offers the answer. Not only does it bestow responsibility “where it belongs,” but the guilt is virtually immutable, incurable. The masochistic liberal may have an impeccable public record, but he knows his racist soul to be beyond purification. After all, doesn’t he avoid rundown black neighborhoods? Doesn’t he fear lower-class black males when they pass him on the street? Such uncontrolled reactions confirm the key element in the whiteracism argument: All whites, regardless of deeds and denials, harbor anti-black feeling. Authoritatively telling a 1960s liberal that he suffers from racism is like telling a hypochondriac that he is ill.
The white-racism theory has created a booming business for whites and blacks alike — those skilled at hunting white racism down, exposing its destructive power, and hectoring its perpetrators. It offers them a lucrative lifetime career in academia and diversity-counseling and provides similar remuneration to the bureaucrats who hire them. Governments have no choice but to create paid task forces to examine school textbooks, curriculums, even school disciplinary actions. Though these expenditures constitute little more than high-minded extortion, they can be publicly justified as a small price to pay for the promise of racial peace.
Thus, the white-racism argument offers something for everybody. Even conservative unbelievers may (privately) acknowledge that its official acceptance maintains an uneasy social peace without leading to skyrocketing deficits. Realistic liberals frustrated by government’s failure receive some psychological comfort: Social-welfare expansion, court-imposed integration edicts, anti-discrimination laws, preferential-treatment programs, and so on were good, well-intentioned ideas, but they could do nothing about the true sickness.
Something for everybody — yes, except the black kids in Feagin’s study and their cohorts who are sentenced to a lifetime of believing that they are hated, that they will always be hated, and that there is nothing they can do about it.
Robert Weissberg is professor of political science at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana.
