Color Conscious - The Political Morality of Race, by K. Anthony Appiah and Amy Gutmann:

At the beginning of the twentieth century W.E.B. Du Bois wrote that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line.” Most observers agree that we have failed to adequately address this problem, and that therefore the challenge remains to be met in the twenty first century. At the close of the twentieth century, then, the two authors of this work take up the challenge to do the following: (i) to analyze how it is that the vast majority of our people hold such erroneous notions about race, and (ii) what can our public institutions and policy makers do to set about deliberately to restore the balance.

At the outset Appiah performs what can be called linguistic archeology: to dig up among the writings of leading intellectuals from the seventeenth century to the present for how the word “race” is used. From such an analysis, or at least from the specific examples that are chosen, it becomes clear that during the seventeenth century, differences in body - of color, or of morphology - were considered as “signs” or markers of differences in character. As the pseudo-scientific branch of natural history blossomed in the eighteenth century such bodily differences were considered to be the “causes” of differences not only in character, but also in mental abilities, literary aptitudes, temperament, and moral fiber. A theory of race was therefore born, and was taken as science. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was not only an abolitionist (and this is the good part), but also an advocate of apartheid and a race theorist, as extensively described in his writings.

The notion that “group characteristics” has a significant and independent existence is an idea that has been developed in numerous writings since the eighteenth century. This idea has found a large following and has been firmly rooted in the popular consciousness of many people. It maintains that individual human beings can be grouped together biologically, and the members of the group share certain biologically significant features through inheritance. Further it maintains that there is a correlation between these (in reality minor and superficial) biological indicators and mental or moral characteristics. Writers such as Arnold, Herder, and Taine thus correlate “race” of Saxons, Celtics, Normans, Semitics and the Irish with the qualities of mind and spirit evidenced through their literature. The prevailing confusion in this notion uses words such as race, blood, nation and group as interchangeable. That such examples are taken from among groupings within what is considered the white “race” helps in understanding the root causes of the problems associated with race theories.

Science has long since shown the unequivocal falsity of such notions. To begin with, race theories have no theory of inheritance. Children of mixed marriages either remain unclassified (and are dismissed) or else are arbitrarily allocated to one race. Since the whole notion of race is a social idea such allocations are based on power relations. Therefore sometimes the rule is that “one drop of blood” from a black person in the line of ancestry will render the person as black despite the actual color of the skin! In US two thirds of the African Americans have “white blood”, two fifth have “Indian blood”, and some twenty to thirty percent of their genes come from European or American Indian ancestors. Conversely it is estimated that five per cent of whites have African roots.

Since the time of Darwin it is known that there are no biological lines between the races. Those who are labeled as black may share in some apparent features such as color, and morphology of face and head. These features are always of the most obvious and superficial kind. But beyond these there are no other biological traits that they share. The average genetic difference between any two randomly chosen persons is two-tenth of one percent. Of this small difference most diversity can be found between neighbors. Only a minute amount (twelve-one-thousandth of one percent) can be attributed to large geographical separation. Therefore if we consider Europeans and Asians as separate races only this minute difference in genes can be attributed to their “race” compared to the greater diversity within the same race. No gene has been found for race while there are established chromosomal differences for gender. There are also no race related genetic tendencies, such as disposition to illness. In short, while there are differences in color, from the point of view of science of biology there are no such things as groupings of human beings into races.

The notion of race is clearly a social construct masquerading as science. During the twentieth century as sciences of anatomy, physiology, psychology, philology (historical linguistics), sociology and anthropology advanced it became clear that since there is no evidence for the biological idea of race, that therefore there is no correlation between the fiction of race and variations in culture, values, and traits. If today there are observable differences among populations of different color then we must look to the history of developments within, and interaction between, societies including the legacy of race relations.

It is a fact that in our societies people are labeled by race. Conceptions of group characteristics exist for such labels, and people’s actions are influenced by such conceptions. Racial identities and identification therefore is a fact of modern life. What we have here is then a set of prejudices, say on the part of those who are not black, that lead to expectations of how the black people would or should behave. Equally a person who identifies himself with being black may then decide to organize his life around this identity. The problem is that there is in reality no “proper” way of being black! Such expectations of others, or of oneself, are totally fictitious. On close examination there are also no such things as African-American culture any more than there is a monolithic white American culture. Allocations of cultural products such as Shakespeare to white children and jazz to black ones are entirely arbitrary since both groups can enjoy both products. People who form an identity based on race rarely share same values, and those who really share a quality, such as being clever, or charming, never form a group with social identity. The root of the misunderstanding that African-Americans have a common culture comes from the assumption that the slaves shared a common culture in Africa. There is as much diversity in either black or white groups as there is in the whole of mankind. Those who today view the continent of Africa and its peoples as a monolithic mass are guilty of the same deep-rooted racism that has beset much of the world.

We define ourselves by choices that we make. But the list of available choices that are presented to us are determined by the society. Clearly this list is a function of the labels of identity and associated misconceptions. Racism therefore is practiced both deliberately, and inadvertently as a result of ignorance. Even “rational” and unbiased decisions based on “average” performances of groups leads to unfair treatment of the individuals. This is so because blacks are disproportionately among the economically poor and the poorly educated. Therefore public policy must provide solutions to help individuals break out of a cycle of deprivation. And good public policy should aim to achieve the socially desirable effect of fairness to the disadvantaged individuals without treating others unfairly.

Appiah concludes his work by recommending to African-Americans to have a racial identity, but also to be aware of the fundamental moral unity of mankind. Gutmann on the other hand points out the dangers of race identification, prescribing instead that all people should equally join the fight against racial discrimination.

On the negative side the authors are identified as passionate democrats. Because of the ideological package that such identification carries with itself this approach is not conducive to open enquiry in such a divisive subject matter. Also when examining issues of racial identification Appiah appears to feel a social pressure to defend collective actions of African-Americans in their fight against racial injustice; he treads cautiously and declares sympathy even when his own views differ from the mainstream.

Gutmann begins her essay by declaring that color blindness is not a moral principle in itself; fairness is. After exposing the fiction of race, and demonstrating the falsity of some recent pseudo-scientific attempts at race theories, she declares that in an unfair society color conscious policies make for fairness, as long as they do not violate individual rights. The issue is that being offered a particular job is not always a “right” that we can earn by becoming qualified for it. For some jobs it may be possible to define the minimum necessary qualifications. In general however finding appropriate criteria to establish both the necessary and desirable qualifications is not easy, and is normally subject to reasonable disagreements. The social functions of a job maybe many, evaluated on some decreasing scale of importance. Such social functions may include being role models, or attracting the trust and good will of the clients, etc. Therefore issues of color, ethnicity, language, or geographical origins may indeed be counted as valid qualifications. In many university admissions for example, place of residence – to obtain geographical diversity - is considered as a valid qualification. Even prior to affirmative action earned “merit” was not the only criterion.

In this controversy the common ground is that in an ideal society employers should be colorblind. Non-discrimination and fairness are the basic principles. But the list of qualifications may include such “unearned” qualities that will serve the social purpose of the job. If becoming a role model is counted among such qualifications then a black person who is otherwise equally qualified would have higher “qualifications”, just like a tall person would have an unearned higher qualification in a game of basketball.

Beyond the social functions of breaking down stereotypes, preferential hiring serves the cause of fairness, since the life chances and educational opportunities of a black person were far more probably severely limited. Affirmative action to enhance such opportunities needs to be more proactive than merely preferential hiring or university admissions, which only benefit the better qualified African-Americans. Both class conscious and color conscious policies are needed.

Affirmative action generates negative emotions among many whites. It is well documented that significantly more people are prepared to change their negative attitudes after they are exposed to articulated arguments than vice versa. This fact indicates that through public debate, views of the majority can be altered through the inherent moral force of the arguments. To be sure there are better and worse policies. It is best to avoid such controversial terms as affirmative action and instead choose among the more effective color conscious policies. Whenever such policies are universally accepted, the society is matured, and then there may not be any need for them! But in the mean time such policies are needed to bring some measure of fairness to those who find themselves continuously treated with prejudice.

Many other issues such as ideational and referential meanings of race, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, authentic identity, and politics of recognition of identity are also discussed in this book. Two constitutional court cases bearing on color conscious staffing and electoral unit re-districting are analyzed. Numerous other fine arguments on either side of controversial color issues are discussed.

The principles of the New World Order of Baha’u’llah protect and support the disadvantaged minorities and seem to support some form of well thought out color conscious policies. This book helps in thinking through the relevant moral arguments. I enjoyed reading the book and believe that it is useful in dealing with issues of integration in our expanded Baha’i community.