Posted on 03/05/2014 5:43:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
President Obama announced last week a new race-based initiative, My Brother’s Keeper.
According to the White House, the program will coordinate government agencies and private foundations to help young men and boys of color. “Of color” basically means blacks and Latinos. In fact, it’s pretty obvious the program is aimed at young black men.
This fact has invited some conservative criticism. The Weekly Standard’s Terry Eastland notes that the program is likely unconstitutional. Doling out benefits explicitly based on race is generally a no-no, according to the Supreme Court.
Even more frowned on: discrimination against women. The program will categorically exclude women and girls. In 1996, when the court (wrongly, in my opinion) ordered the historically single-sex Virginia Military Institute to admit women, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruled that blanket sex-based discrimination requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification.”
For me, My Brother’s Keeper meets that bar. The statistics are gloomy and familiar: One out of 15 black men is behind bars; one out of three can expect to be incarcerated at some point in his life.
The simplistic talk about how this is all the result of white racism misses the scope and nature of the problem. The vast majority of interracial violent crime is black on white. But most violent crime is actually intra-racial (i.e., black on black or white on white). Still, blacks are far more likely to die from homicide; half of murder victims are black, which may partly explain why black men in prison have a higher life expectancy than black men out of prison. And this leaves out all of the challenges — educational, economic, etc. — facing black men that don’t show up in crime statistics.
Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, also thinks the program is unconstitutional because there is no “compelling” government interest here: “It may be that a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos are at-risk, but many are not, and many whites, Asians and others are. This is just another kind of ‘profiling.’”
Yes and no. Obviously there are at-risk youth of all races, but the problems facing young black men are so disproportionate, the difference of degree becomes a difference in kind. Yet, I also think Clegg is obviously right that this is another kind of profiling.
There’s an intriguing double standard that tangles up the Right and the Left. We’re told it is outrageous for government to assume that a young black male (in some contexts) is more likely to commit a crime; we’re also told that government should target young black men for help because they are more likely to commit crimes. Most liberals hate law-enforcement profiling but support — for want of a better term — social-justice profiling. For conservatives, it’s vice versa (though Clegg opposes both kinds of profiling, it’s worth noting). Yet the empirical arguments for positive and negative profiling are the same: The plight of young black men is different.
Clegg says that the initiative should be aimed at all at-risk males. Maybe that would be ideal — on paper. The hitch is that a program that appeals to all young males may not be as effective as one that focuses on young blacks in particular. Relatively benign appeals to racial solidarity and pride by definition don’t work on groups of different races.
The point is even more obvious when you consider sex differences. A strong male role model can tell boys to “act like a man” in ways women can’t. Sure, a woman can say the words, but she can’t be a man. For some boys, particularly ones without fathers at home (the majority of at-risk youths), that’s still a huge distinction.
That’s why I agree with those liberals who think Obama should have done more sooner for young black men. It may be irrational in a legalistic sense, but in human terms it is utterly obvious that the first black president of the United States — raised by a single mother no less — might have special standing with at-risk black youth.
Real life happens outside the neat boundaries of rigid legalisms. It also happens upstream of government. I’m very skeptical this program will do much to fix the deeper problems, but if it causes Obama to focus on them, it’s probably worth it.
— Jonah Goldberg is the author of The Tyranny of Clichés,
Government can’t ‘give’ these young men ANYTHING without first taking it from the one who earned it.
Stop taking the fruit of a man’s effort by force.
You aren’t God.
You don’t KNOW that some other man (who didn’t earn it) somehow ‘deserves’ it more.
Charities which operate on freewill DONATIONS should address these problems.
The program is exclusionary and racist. Disgusting.
1) Pay attention in school.Listen to various comments that Bill Cosby,a billionaire,has made on the subject.
2) *No* drugs...and use alcohol sparingly,if at all,and do so *only* after reaching 21.
3) Marriage.Children in traditional families do far,far better than others.Same goes for their mothers.
4) For black people in particular,watch Chris Rock's performance,available on youtube,from his "Bring The Pain" tour of a few years back.Pay particular attention to the part he calls "blacks versus niggas".
There's more...but that's a start.
Anybody realize that this will probably end up a Muslim outreach program for black youth? I doubt very much his program is going to help any ‘white hispanics’.
I’m waiting for a definition of “person of color”. Usually when I ask I don’t get a definition, I get my motives attacked for asking. I’ve got a great-great-grandmother and a great-great-great-grandmother of African origin. Am I a “person of color”? According to the “one-drop” rule, I am.
A “person of color” is a leftist who can credibly claim black African or aboriginal American (North or South) ancestry. “Leftist” is a necessary condition for being a “person of color”.
RE: I’m waiting for a definition of “person of color”. Usually when I ask I don’t get a definition
Traditionally it used to mean a BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN. Today, in a multi-ethnic America, it has lost its original meaning.
How will we help them?
Free government money to groups that pretend to help them.
The more the government encourages looting, the deeper a hole the parasites will be in when there’s no one to loot from.
Yep. That's the way all this feel good stuff always works out. Most of the money for this 'outreach' will never get outside the beltway, and what little does escape will end up in the pockets of local parasites just as bad as the parasites in DC.
Call me cynical, but I have never seen a government social program actually accomplishe anything.
They pay “justice” groups who, in turn, help get out the vote. It would be interesting to see how many “justice” group leaders are precinct captains.
Racial solidarity and pride 60% of black unwed mothers disagree.
Worse than that, once any organization lets the government in the door, the original intent of the organization becomes corrupted and eventually buried in too many bureaucrats and oppressive paperwork requirements.
Government is a vampire. Permit them to enter your home and kiss your ass goodbye.
Let them use the Nuremberg rules of a single drop of (black) blood to determine race. The irony suits them.
“Government can’t ‘give’ these young men ANYTHING without first taking it from the one who earned it.”
Exactly!
“60% of black unwed mothers”
And that is the problem!.
Stop having freaking kids you can’t support!
Indeed so much for all the free birth control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.