|
A Depravity of Logic
By
Rodney D. Foxworth, Jr. Establishmentarian or "moderate"
liberals are nearly interchangeable with hardliners and
conservatives, particularly when concerning their views
of the disadvantaged, and specifically, the continued
and worsening plight of disadvantaged African American
youth. New York Times Op-ed contributor Orlando
Patterson, the distinguished professor of sociology at
Harvard and fellow at the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, best exemplifies this with his much circulated
essay, "A Poverty of the Mind."
In response to recent studies
highlighting the "tragic disconnection of millions of
black youths from the American mainstream," Patterson
chastises his colleagues for overemphasizing structural
factors such as low income, unemployment, inadequate
schools and bad housing, while rejecting "cultural
attributes" such as "distinctive attitudes, values and
predispositions, and the resulting behavior" when
explaining for this "tragic disconnection."
Not that Patterson's criticisms are
unique or new. History is ripe with pleas for the
behavioral, ethical and moral uplift of the
disadvantaged to solve for their disheartening plight.
We can all recall Bill Cosby's recent denigration of the
urban poor, whose inability to pull up their pants
relegates them to the slums. Of course, like merit and
industriousness, responsible behavior is one of those
finely crafted myths used to explain for the dire
situation of the truly disadvantaged, thus absolving
structural forces of any responsibility.
Many of the questions posed by
Patterson's essay can be answered with the use of basic
reasoning skills and logic, tactics often underutilized
even by academics and intellectuals.
But Patterson and his ilk must first
come to terms with something quite inimical to the
American ethos: good behavior is no precursor to
"success."
This is not to suggest that we should
not maintain good behavior or lead moral and ethical
lives. But scholars and layman point to
"self-destructiveness" and "self-inflicted wounds" as
root causes for the lack of life opportunities and
options for the disadvantaged as if one implies the
either.
For example, Patterson cites crime,
drug abuse, and "predatory sexuality" and "irresponsible
fathering behavior" as examples of self-destructiveness.
And yet, white high school students are nearly three
times more likely to engage in alcohol abuse as compared
to blacks, while black youth are far more likely than
their white peers to be substance free. Black teens are
less likely to drink and drug, despite having an
unemployment rate of 28.4 percent in February, double
that of white teens.
And while statistics show that black
youth engage in more sex than their white and Hispanic
counterparts and teen pregnancy is significantly higher
amongst black females, condom use by young black males
is actually 10 percent higher than young white males,
and 13 percent higher than their Hispanic peers.
However, black girls are almost three times less likely
to use birth control as compared to white adolescents.
Such data suggests that our own aversion to proper sex
education and the availability of birth control is at
least as responsible for black teen pregnancy as the
"predatory sexuality" of young black men.
Then there is the matter of criminal
activity. In 2004, 11.1 percent of black males ages 20
to 24 were incarcerated, as compared to 1.6 percent of
white males. Patterson asks why young black men resort
to crime, and why they "murder each other at nine times
the rate of white youths?" Though an apples and oranges
comparison, Patterson's academic training at the London
School of Economics should have afforded him the
critical thinking skills necessary to answer such a
flimsy question: young black men in the inner cities
engage in crime and violence because there is incentive
to do so. Financial incentive was the motivation behind
Enron and Worldcom and others to commit massive fraud,
ruining the finances of thousands. Whether or not such
behavior is proper or moral or ethical is another
question, one that Patterson does not pose: he simply
wants to answer the "why?"
That Patterson and others presume
that self-destructive behavior is unique to black youth
culture only illustrates that they work from a faulty
paradigm. The excessive drinking and recreational drug
use associated with middle and upper class white youth
has no bearing on their life opportunities and options;
for example, self-destructive behavior has no adverse
effect on their employment rates. Nick McDonell and
Marty Beckerman, two successful young writers of the
Millennium Generation, launched their careers by
exposing the self-destructiveness and depravity of their
peers—white and middle and upper class—just as their
forefather Bret Easton Ellis before them.
Even the noted author and journalist
Tom Wolfe has expressed his disgust with present-day
(white) middle class youth, most notably in the novel
I Am Charlotte Simmons. Promiscuity, recreational
drug use, binge drinking, conspicuous and wasteful
consumption—all self-destructive behavior as defined by
Patterson—fail to limit the life options for these white
youth.
Logic is absent from Patterson's
essay: culture won't explain for the questions that he
poses. For example, Patterson asks why young black men
are flunking out of school and not going to college.
"We're not stupid!" answers a young
black male.
And they aren't. Studies suggest that
many high school dropouts do so because they are not
academically challenged, nor do they see the correlation
between high school graduation and work and financial
security—perhaps, because for them, there is no
correlation. Patterson and others suggest that jobless
black youths don't seize upon job opportunities like
their immigrant counterparts. Perhaps, though it can
also be argued that employers, who aren't exactly
allergic to cheap labor, prefer immigrants and their
willingness to work for less. And by opting not to
supplement the rising cost of college tuition with
grants, government has hindered several thousands of
qualified low-income students from attending college.
But structural forces aren't quite
good enough for "serious" thinkers like Patterson.
Indeed, it is far easier to point the finger at the
exploited than it is to make demands of those
responsible for the purse strings and policy. Even a
poor mind understands that the plight of black youth
won't be solved by disciplined behavior.
* * *
* * Responses
Rodney, once again, you are on target in this essay.
In the 1950's while everyone watched
"The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriett" and "Father Knows
Best," and before abortions became legal, many white
teenage girls placed their babies "born out of wedlock"
for adoption. (After the passage of the civil rights
bill,in the 60's I worked as a child welfare worker in
foster care and adoptive home placements.)
These young mothers did not end up in
statistical reports as teenage pregnancies. Nor were the
"irresponsible fathering behaviors" of their sexual
partners recorded. The options for employment of these
white teenagers were not affected.
In recent years, American middle
class white families who want to adopt infants have
needed to resort to international adoptions because
abortions became legal. I doubt seriously if the
"irresponsible fathering behaviors" and the teenage
pregnancies of white girls, have become less. Middle and
upper class white families have generally been
privileged to make sure their "family secrets" remain
just that.
— Jeannette
posted 3 April 2006
* * * * *
updated 1 November 2007 |
