You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat it Too: Why We Will Never Agree on Race

While writing this post, the following clip from Fiddler on the Roof came to mind:

One man argues that worrying about the world outside is useless. Another argues that we can't close our eyes to the outside world. "He's right, and he's right... they can't both be right." ... "You are also right"!!

Tevye humorously illustrates an important issue about which religious folks and social scientists often disagree. That is, while we allow for the differences in perspective and cultures, Christians recognize that there are sometimes two things which cannot simultaneously be right.  Social scientists are adamant about their own fundamental uncertainty about truth, and point to the vast relativity in perception and morality that exists between cultures. However, unless you are Nietzsche, you must acknowledge that some fundamental realities exist outside of our conception of them. There is either an afterlife or there isn't. Jesus either rose from the dead or He didn't. Yesterday was the same 24 hours long as the day before. I am currently in my apartment, and not in Spain.

Sometimes, however, we want two contradictory realities to both be right - thus the expression, "you can't have your cake and eat it too". You can either eat the cake, or leave it on the plate and continue to hungrily lust after its buttercream frosting. You can compromise - eat half of it, and keep half of it - but the whole cake cannot be on your plate and in your stomach simultaneously. You must choose.

This year, a ballot is being put forth in the Colorado legislature regarding the concept of "feticide" - the killing of an unborn child - and whether it should be considered illegal. Years ago I read an interesting example of this dilemma: a very pregnant woman was robbed on the street and stabbed in the stomach. She survived but her unborn child did not. When the man was apprehended and taken to court, she was dismayed to discover that there were no laws in her state against "fetal homicide" (12 states do not). In an interview, she affirmed that she considered herself pro-choice, but was still frustrated by the lack of legal protection for her baby. Unfortunately, she was confronted by the dilemma of both wanting a fetus to be a person, and also not a person, depending on whether the mother wanted it or not. Like the cake, we cannot have it both ways.

Here is another dilemma: Does race matter, or not? Here are some scenarios to check your racism meter. Which of the following would you consider to be examples of racism?

1. In the movie Star Wars: Phantom Menace, one alien race all have Jamaican accents
2. A TV show has very few non-white actors in its cast, and those who have "have had their identity minimized."
3. When asked which of the women in the shop was Melissa, she said, "The black one."
4. White American women don't tend to be attracted to Asian guys.
5. Once a year, we have "Black History Month" but there is no equal representation for Hispanic or Asian Americans.
6. A white guy hosts a Mexican-themed party where the guests arrive in sombreros and ponchos and watch The Three Amigos. 
7. A black girl straightens her naturally curly hair to style it like her caucasian friends.

Here's a surprise: the answer to all of these is absolutely yes, or no, depending on your answer to the following question... 
What is racism? 
Your definition of racism actually depends a great deal on your definition of race, and whether or not you think it matters as a meaningful and fundamental part of one's identity. Here are three of the most common definitions of racism:
1. Racism means acknowledging race, and pointing out racial differences --> racial stereotyping.
2. Racism means NOT considering race, treating everyone like white people, pretending "blackness" doesn't exist and hoping any differences you do notice go away.
3. Racism is just another word for racial discrimination - viewing and treating people of other races as inherently inferior. 
While I think everyone can get behind #3, there is a vast difference between racism definitions 1 and 2. What do we do with these three definitions which are so different?

Fundamentally, our national dilemma is whether race matters or not. Does race make you the same, or does it make you special and unique? We can't seem to agree. All of our difficulties in discussing race seem to flow from this basic conundrum: are we the same, or are we special? Are differences real or not? Are they important or trivial? Should we ignore race or celebrate it? Here is an example of each approach. 
Celebrate it: This year President Obama and his family sent their prayers and best wishes to those celebrating Kwanzaa, stating that "Kwanzaa celebration highlights the rich heritage of African Americans."
Ignore it: In an interview with Mike Wallace in 2005, Morgan Freeman called Black History Month "ridiculous" - saying that relegating one month to one race's history puts up unnecessary boundaries between blacks and whites. "Black history is American history", he said:

So, which is better? Which approach do you believe will do a better job of eliminating racial inequality and tensions? 

Those who argue for color-blindness believe in equality and not considering your race when making assessments about you; they see that every attempt to categorize people by race and discuss their differences accentuates the problems and the sense of "other"-ness that lead to stereotyping and discrimination (this concept when applied to gender is widely accepted by most social scientists).

Those who argue for multiculturalism believe the solution to racial problems is by acknowledging, not ignoring, race; they believe that celebrating and seeing the value in one's racial background builds self-esteem and strength in individuals and communities.

To be honest, I don't know the answer, but what is clear is this: these perspectives are mutually exclusive. Race, like gender, cannot both be both trivial and special. Over and over again, our attempts to ameliorate race relations problems in this country either causes us to acknowledge, measure, and discuss race, which annoys the color-blinders, or to ignore race and focus on unity, which offends the multiculturalists.

This is not fun for any of us though, because it means regardless of which viewpoint we adopt, we must recognize and accept all of the consequences of our chosen package, good AND bad:

If we ignore race in our efforts to promote equality, we lose the cultural identity that gives many people a sense of pride and community. We leave the door open for people who do still harbor racist ideas to segregate and discriminate, whether they do it knowingly or not. By making race irrelevant, we no longer have a way to quantify and address problems that are clearly driven by racial attitudes, and we leave whole swaths of the population at a historically perpetuating disadvantage. We say we believe in the equality of all men, but as President Obama has said: "Those self-evident truths have never been self-executing."

On the other hand, if we continue to use race as a salient characteristic of certain groups of people, the younger generation continues to grow up learning that some people are different than we are, and that they need to be treated differently (given extra help, etc.). If it matters, and it IS a relevant part of one's identity, then one's race matters and can therefore be used to make judgments about them - both good AND bad. For example--That's called stereotyping. Are we okay with that? 

Whether we ultimately choose to eat the cake or gaze longingly at it, we must recognize that there will be negative consequences either way, and a lot of people are going to be unhappy about it.

What is the official stance of the government? The Supreme Court's position is that in a federal case, the race of the plaintiff or defendant is not to be considered, UNLESS race is being considered in an effort to justify past racial discrimination, or to promote diversity in higher education (Fisher v. University of Texas and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In other words - race is a meaningful component of one's identity.... or not... depending on whether it's considered a worthy cause.

What is the stance of the NAACP? The organization seems to straddle both sides as well, claiming to both use "affirmative action" with regards to race and other statuses, AND to be an "equal opportunity employer". But legally, this doesn't work. The concept of "equal opportunity employment" as stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246 by Lyndon Johnson refers to a prohibition on discriminating against employees on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, color, or national origin. And discrimination means recognizing differences between people, and then treating people differently as a result of those differences. Isn't that what affirmative action is doing?

Here's the thing though - affirmative action might be the right thing to do. Discriminating in one direction may be the best way to address historical discrimination in the other direction. But it is still discrimination. It is still differentiation of people based on their race. And that approach has both positive and negative outcomes. We just have to recognize that that is in fact the case, and then make the decision about whether or not it's worth it.

Unfortunately, like the Supreme Court's confusing position on race, it is irrational to decide whether something like race is real and meaningful and important only when we want it to be. The shoe that you drop on the floor will still be there when you're stumbling around in the dark, whether you want it to be or not. The alarm clock you set will go off, regardless of how little sleep you've gotten.

So how do we choose? Like all of our actions in society, our decision about how to treat race should not focus on theory (what sounds good), but on outcomes (what actually works) - (see this lesson from Moneyball). Recognizing the deeply sensitive nature of this issue, we should be wise, acknowledge the fact that either decision has pros and cons, and then have the courage to choose the approach that will ultimately lead to the most equality, the least discrimination, the most inclusiveness and happiness.

In the spirit of outcomes, and in an effort to avoid researcher bias, I think one helpful approach would be to study the current and historical approaches of other societies that seem to be ahead of the curve on racial equality, such as (in my opinion) the United Kingdom (<-- this post is fascinating. Experiences of black individuals who have lived in both the U.S. and the U.K.. I will talk about this more in my next blog post about my own experience with racism).

Until we recognize that there is in fact two mutually exclusive opinions on race and racism, we will continue to fearfully avoid discussions of race and condemn any mention of race with blind indignity, for fear of being considered either racist version #1 or #2. 

As far as theoretical paradigms go, I am not a conflict theorist - I believe most people genuinely want racial equality. I believe we are all trying to accomplish the same objective, but that we have different (and admittedly contradictory) approaches to solving it. We need to stop condemning people as "racist" because their strategy differs from ours, and not "make a man an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21). Whatever WE decide to do with the cake, let us be loving and patient with others who are still struggling with the decision. However we choose to view race, the logical result will have positive and negative outcomes for everyone. Let's be both sensible and sensitive as we work together to find solutions.