INSTEAD, WE GET THIS :

When Color Should Count (GLENN C. LOURY, July 28, 2002, NY Times)

[R]ace-blindness is a narrow, technical aspiration and not a genuinely moral end. In matters of race, the most fundamental moral question is not about blindness at all. It is about what I call "neutrality." Race-blindness means having no information about a person's race, while race-neutrality means having no interest in the racial aspect of a social disparity. Blindness asks about what a public decision-maker can know; neutrality deals with the goals that a decision-maker can rightly pursue. Mr. Connerly and his opponents are arguing over whether we should be race-blind. But a question of far greater consequence is whether we should be race-neutral. Although a majority of voters may find race-blindness to be an attractive ideal, I believe many fewer are prepared to endorse race-neutrality because, in light of our history, race-neutrality is not a very attractive moral stance.

The single-minded adherent of race-neutrality would see no problem in the fact that black Americans are vastly overrepresented among those going to prison and among those infected with the AIDS virus. If one begins seeing the race of an inmate or AIDS victim as a matter of no moral relevance, one might conclude that we should pay no heed to the racial dimension of such problems. But racial inequality in the United States is a problem that profoundly affects the entire society regardless of whether it is due to current racial discrimination. I believe a great many Americans, even those who firmly oppose racial preferences, would agree with me about this. They want race-blind law enforcement, but they also worry that some 13.4 percent of black males age 25 to 29 were in prison or jail in 2001, compared with 1.8 percent of whites in the same age group. They endorse the race-blind provision of health services, but are disturbed to learn that blacks, about one-ninth of the population, were over one-third of Americans living with AIDS in 1999. They may want to use non-discriminatory college admissions rules, but are not indifferent to the racial composition of the entering class.

The distinction between blindness and neutrality becomes clear when one considers that often a choice must be made between alternative race-blind policies, some of which ameliorate and others that exacerbate the social disadvantage of blacks. While a race-blind public policy explicitly intended to harm blacks would never be acceptable, race-blind policies adopted for the purpose of reducing racial inequality are commonplace and well accepted.

To ask that results of racially neutral policies be likewise neutral is in itself racist. Suppose the government gives Ed $50,000 to start a company and Joe $50,000. Three years later Ed runs a multimillion dollar enterprise and Joe is broke. if both were black or both were white, this would be sad for Joe but none of our business otherwise.
Posted by Orrin Judd at July 29, 2002 8:23 PM