Race Cards and Level Playing FieldsRichard Thompson Ford takes readers' questions about real and percieved forms of bias.

Slate contributor Richard Thompson Ford was online at Washingtonpost.com on Jan. 24 to discuss his new book, The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse, and offered ways to separate valid claims of prejudice from mere bellyaching. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

(Continued from page 1)

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

_______________________

Ocala, Fla.: Let me preface my remark by saying that I am a white man. Although there have been strides in our society, the reality is that millions of white men still deny black/Mexican men two of our basic freedoms, whether inwardly or outwardly: the freedom of association, and the freedom to live where they want to. In other words, they think "don't even think about trying to move next door to me, and don't you dare try to get close to my daughter." I don't see a change in those freedoms for another three or four generations. Until then, race is the issue in our country.

Richard Thompson Ford: One issue I spend a lot of time on in the book is residential segregation. I think this is the single more severe racial problem in the United States today and a lot of the other racial injustices we face—poverty, joblessness, poor schools, crime, and disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates—are all either caused or exacerbated by segregation. I agree that there are still a lot of old school bigots with the attitude you mention. Nothing I've written is meant to suggest otherwise. But that doesn't mean that people don't also use and exploit these real racial injustices by claiming bias where it's not really at issue. Moreover—and this is the heart of the book—there's a lot of legitimate disagreement about when racism is in play, how to define racism and how many of today's social evils are caused by racism as opposed to other forces—poverty, the change from an industrial to postindustrial economy, etc. We've sort of run aground in terms of race relations because so much of debate hinges on finding a racist—the left too often insist that if there's a racial problem, there must be a blameworthy racist to pin it on, and the right insists that if you can't find an evil racist, then there's no problem and no obligation to do anything about the many racial inequities that still face us. This leads to the problem of "The Race Card"—people insist on racism because that's the only way to get anyone to address pressing social evils. But insisting on racism leads other, often decent and fair minded folks, to get defensive and resentful. Everybody winds up bluffing and posturing and as a result, race relations are worse. It's possible that race is the issue—or at least a major issue—but the response needn't be to look for a racist every time.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I really enjoyed your Slate article and have many questions for you. However, as a white woman, I have been told that I am not allowed to have an opinion because I don't understand. Just saying...

Richard Thompson Ford: Point taken. I think "it's a Black Thing—you wouldn't understand" is as insipid a statement as "My Country Right or Wrong." We're all in this together and if white people are unable or unwilling to weigh in candidly on racial issues, I don't think we'll get very far in cross-racial understanding. Your concern is one of the main reasons I wrote this book—to try to open up a little space for people to discuss racial issues without honestly and without censorship. Right now, we have two extremes: politically correct tiptoeing and shock-jock provocation. I hope you change your mind and go ahead and ask your questions and voice your opinions

_______________________

New York: Is it your contention the disparate sentences for crack versus powder cocaine are not the result of willful racial bias?

Richard Thompson Ford: Let's unpack this for a minute. Criminal sentencing legislation is the result of a lot of different people coming to a compromise for a lot of different reasons. Do I suspect that some of the people who supported these sentencing guidelines were motivated by racial animus. Yes, I do. Do I think everyone who supported them was? No, I don't. Crack cocaine was a huge problem in inner city communities in the 1980s—not just addiction and all of its horrific effects, but also the turf battles and violence that came with it. Power cocaine did not by and large produce similar problems. And it was black communities that suffered the most from the crack cocaine trade. So the sentencing was also motivated by a legitimate desire to stamp out an extremely destructive criminal trade with lots of bad consequences for African Americans. I personally don't think the War on Drugs crackdown was sound policy and I do think the incarceration of lots of black men for relatively minor crimes is both a mistake and an injustice—one of the worst racial injustices our society faces, along with the residential segregation that keeps these ghetto neighborhoods vulnerable to crime and violence in the first place. But I think the question of whether the disparity in sentencing is the result of racial bias is more complex than your question suggests

_______________________

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

SPONSORED CONTENT

• Fiance on the Down Low
  Prudie counsels a woman whose partner has secret sex with men—and other advice seekers.
  Nov. 30, 2009
• Thanksgiving Misgivings
  Prudie talks turkey with advice seekers about the upcoming holiday and all its pitfalls.
  Nov. 23, 2009
• Must We Bear Hugs?
  Prudie counsels a woman wary of her father-in-law's inappropriate embrace—and other advice seekers.
  Nov. 16, 2009
• Search for more Chat Room, The articles
• Subscribe to the Chat Room, The RSS feed
• View our complete Chat Room, The archive