Colorblindness

Jamelle Bouie points out that Americans have developed a tendency to rule out anything as racist that doesn't explicitly mention race. He describes ways in which laws can appear "colorblind" but in practice have very racist consequences.

Arizona’s immigration law is obviously not the same as Jim Crow, but it’s animated by the same basic idea of “colorblindness” — if something doesn’t explicitly mention race, then it can’t be racist. And the converse is also true, anything that mentions race is de facto racist, even if it’s designed to ameliorate racial prejudice.

He's right to say that the AZ law isn't quite Jim Crow, and I don't think Arizonans (and a majority of white Americans, btw) are looking for ways to discriminate against latinos, while Jim Crow was specifically designed to discriminate against blacks. His main point is that the effect of the law will indeed impact latinos disproportionately - and by effect, we should be clear we're talking about major civil rights violations.

The fact that white people are so willing to go along with this "sacrifice of rights" would be evidence of implicit racial bias.  This is exactly the sort of thing that is impossible to prove, yet falls into a larger pattern of not being as tolerant of latinos as other racial/ethnic groups: they need to assimilate, they don't learn the language, they have too many kids, they are lazy, they are criminals, they are a burden on the system, etc.

And that's not even illegal immigrants, who are spoken of in outright hateful terms and accused of things that are extremely unrepresentative.  Race theory predicts that the assumed proportionality of crimes increases the more a marginalized a group is.  So even if the same number of illegal immigrants steal cars as the rest of the population, when an illegal immigrant does it the crime is assumed to be more representative than it really is.  Psychologists refer to this form of cognitive bias as illusory correlation.

You know what really gets me about this whole debate though, is that I’ve yet heard an example of how this law might be prosecuted. For instance, what exactly would constitute “probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes that person removable from the United States”, and arrestable without warrant?

I mean, unless you overhear someone say “I am here illegally”, what is probable cause? Can someone be ratted on? Can I call in an anonymous tip on my neighbors? Does that mean anyone can do that to me? And when the cops show up without a warrant they can arrest me unless I show them documentation?

Hate Crimes as Cultural Terrorism

Andrew Sullivan gave a great speech recently at Princeton entitled, The Politics of Homosexuality.  In a section on liberalism, he argues against hate crime laws.  He worries that as an extension of identity politics, they contribute to a "balkanization" of  society.  That instead of protecting minority rights, it actually threatens them further by provoking resentment in those who don't seem to enjoy the same protections.




I'm not sure I agree with him on this.  To me, the strongest argument for hate crime laws is the public acknowledgment of a special kind of culturally and institutionally polluting act.  Our species has lived with all manner of xenophobia and ethnic hatred.  In the same way that certain crimes against the state are deemed terrorist, or treasonous, I can see how a special category of crime can be applied to hate-based acts, those targeted toward a group that has historically been the victim of majority group discrimination.  Because what is a hate crime really but a form of cultural terrorism.

To the degree that some people might be provoked to resent discriminated groups even more, why should we make apologies for their bigotry?  In a practical sense, does Sullivan actually think that the existence of hate crime laws has contributed to any greater level of discrimination and violence?  By calling Mathew Shepard's brutal murder a hate crime, it highlighted the narrative of hatred in the crime.  It was a public shaming, a spotlight on a part of our society that we are definitively and forcibly making clear that we shall not tolerate.  If it had been considered nothing more than another random, senseless murder, the narrative lies fallow, hidden away to succor within our dangerously forgetful collective unconscious.

Maybe hate crimes have no real effect on future acts.  That seems an unknowable prognosis.  But they do have symbolic significance.  They mark a clear line in the sand as to what we as a society are trying to be.  And they are acknowledging that we are still not there yet.  Maybe their real achievement will be when we no longer have to employ them at all.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

My morals on death are determined by reasonable social cost, and pain and suffering of the individual. Until a baby is birthed, into our society as an individual with a birth certificate, I see no real social cost in killing it. As long as its suffering is not too terrible, I see no problem killing it. A baby in the 8th month of gestation having its skull drilled in and crushed is fine with me.

The above may seem cruel and unsavory - but only in the context of a society in which many view the fetus (even the zygote, often) as a complete human being. I find the hunting of large mammals as cruel and unsavory - especially the part where they are stuffed and hung on the wall. But I recognize that my feelings are relative to my own moral compass, its bearings aligned with my religious, political, and cultural views. There is no overwhelming rational clarity that places either abortion or hunting into a clear moral category.

Unlike, say, the murder of a ten year old, the gutting of a family pet, or incest. Those fall into specific moral domains defined by broadly agreed upon - universal among humans - moral and social codes. These codes may someday change, and individuals may develop personal convictions contrary to norm, but until they achieve politically viable status, they will remain subject to democratically achieved laws. This has no bearing however, upon whether any of them are morally correct - that will be up to the individual to determine for him or herself.

But governing laws are not passed on the moral compass of individuals, but on that of the state, representative of the will of the people. Thus, while I personally feel hunting as despicable, not only do I respect my fellow citizens' moral trajectories, more importantly I respect the will of the people and all laws it passes within that context. Were my convictions strong enough, I would be well within my ethical rights to break the law in order to do what I felt was right. Legal rights, of course not, but ethically speaking, yes. If a ten year old boy was going to be murdered legally before me, I would be ethically obligated to stop the act, as long as I felt sufficient conviction (I would!).

So while it would be ethical to oppose abortion (or hunting), one would have to be sufficiently confident enough in their convictions to oppose its legal practice, much less otherwise illegal personal actions to stop it. And yet while I am confident in my ability to evoke powerful logical and rational arguments against murdering ten year old children and having most reasonable people accept them, I am not nearly as confident in my ability to persuade foes of abortion or hunting enthusiasts. Thus I cannot expect fellow citizens to consider banning either. Until abortion or hunting become as morally compelling to the will of society as murdering young boys, we cannot expect others to go along with our personal convictions on the matter.