Discrimination and Disparities

“Just the facts, ma’am.” That was Joe Friday’s interrogation refrain on Dragnet. The same comment could serve as the sub-title of Thomas Sowell’s recent book, Discrimination and Disparities. Few works focused on politically explosive topics maintain such a consistent focus on empirical evidence while avoiding rhetorical jabs at opponents. On the other hand, empirical evidence cuts deep, especially when critics can’t protest the author’s “nasty” style. As radio talker Larry Elder observes, “Facts are to liberals what kryptonite is to Superman.”Sowell’s title, if employed by a member of the leftist intelligentsia, would doubtless imply a causal link between statistical disparities and some form of discrimination--usually racial. Sowell, by contrast, marshals an abundance of evidence to show that this automatic assumption isn’t justified. Focusing simply on statistical probabilities, Sowell notes that if five prerequisites are needed for success in a particular field, and if the chances are two out of three that any person will have each characteristic, the chance of possessing all five characteristics is still only one in eight--a calculation that helps explain why most pro golfers have never won a PGA tournament while Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods have collectively won over 200 times. Consequently, “Given multiple prerequisites for many human endeavors, we should not be surprised if economic or social advances are not evenly or randomly distributed among individuals, groups, institutions or nations at any given time.”Among leftists, however, assumptions about the random distribution of characteristics stand at the heart of various discrimination suits. Thus, if proportionately more blacks than whites are given tickets for speeding, this statistic provides for them prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. Sowell, however, offers clear counter-evidence that black drivers are more likely to exceed the speed limit than white drivers. Similarly, the assumption that racial discrimination is the primary reason blacks are overrepresented in the prison system is countered by noting that blacks are vastly overrepresented as both perpetrators and victims of murder--a crime that’s hard to ignore. Sowell further observes that fatherlessness clearly increases the likelihood that a person will end up in prison since a majority of prisoners “were raised with either one parent or no parent” --a domestic circumstance that applies to well over half of all black kids in the U.S.In short, Sowell shows that many or most of the disparities that afflict black Americans are due to behaviors to which even other blacks have objected. In the early twentieth century, for example, long-time black residents in Chicago publicly chastened new arrivals from the South for behaviors that would, and eventually did, have negative repercussions for the entire community. Today, however, most black leaders ignore the plain fact that merchants in high crime areas, for example, must charge higher prices to squeeze out lower profits than stores in safer parts of town--preferring to blame the proprietors’ racist-fueled greed. Only blacks who’ve moved to safer suburbs can be counted on to protest government policies that again place large groups of unsavory characters near them under the failed assumption that a middle class environment will alter bad habits.Sowell also provides surprising examples of cases where the desire for profit actually won out over racial discrimination. Early in the twentieth century, for instance, attempts to maintain a white Harlem were foiled by the sheer economic advantages available to landlords who ignored the neighborhood’s segregation policy. Likewise, privately owned municipal transit groups and railroads both protested and often ignored laws that mandated segregated facilities. Indeed, railroad management actively worked with Homer Plessy to overturn segregation mandates in that industry--a legal effort that ended unsuccessfully with the Supreme Court’s Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” decision in 1896. Amazingly, Sowell shows how the profit motive often trumped segregation laws or compacts even in apartheid South Africa and in the post-bellum South. Put succinctly, it was racist politicians, not transit owners, who insisted that Rosa Parks sit at the back of the bus.Sowell focuses additional attention on well-intended government policies that succeeded in increasing, not decreasing, racial disparities. In this regard significant space is devoted to the negative consequences of minimum wage legislation. Sowell notes that in 1948, when the minimum wage was economically inconsequential, black teen unemployment was actually lower than white teen unemployment and a fraction of its rate when the minimum wage was substantially increased. Sowell also laments the destruction of a traditionally stellar black educational institution, Dunbar High School in Washington D.C., when self-sorting, education-focused black families and students were subjected to politically-driven and empirically-destructive fantasies that involved bussing and the abolition of selective institutions like Dunbar.Similarly, in order to racially “unsort” neighborhoods (as they “unsorted” schools) politicians ignored economic facts that explained why banks (including black-owned banks) disproportionately rejected blacks’ mortgage applications. Instead, legislators insisted that financial institutions lower lending standards to achieve the politically desired “random” racial distribution of house ownership--a misbegotten policy whose economic chickens came home to roost in 2009. Meanwhile, various government laws that decreased the supply of housing and increased prices were “successful” at reducing the Bay Area’s black population in 2005 to less than half its number in 1970.Throughout the book Sowell discusses a number of other factors that clearly lead to “disparities,” leaving aside the kneejerk assumption of racist motives. Being first-born or an only child, for example, has immense advantages, benefits indicated by the fact that twenty-two of the twenty-nine original Apollo astronauts fell into one of those two categories. Additionally, in a chapter titled “The World of Numbers” the author debunks several beliefs about disparities that are rooted in false assumptions about statistics and the lack of economic mobility. Thus, one study found that 95% of the people in the bottom income quintile were no longer there fifteen years later and that 29% of them had risen to the top quintile. Elsewhere Sowell explains how falling “household” incomes are consistent with rising “personal” incomes simply because the average size of a household has fallen substantially. (A two-person household where each individual earns $20,000 represents a household income of $40,000. But if both members of the household begin to earn $30,000 and establish separate residences, the income of each one-person household is now 25% below what it was before.)Much of Sowell’s book is recapitulated in his final chapter--and with a bit more rhetorical intensity than previously exhibited. A few new topics, however, like the destructive consequences of a grievance mentality and “black English,” are also addressed.Overall, Sowell’s book is a protest against the unfounded assumption that “there would be no disparate outcomes unless there were disparate treatment.” Sowell observes that this ideologically-driven assumption “seems almost impervious to evidence.” Accordingly, those who cling to this dogma with religious fervor will likely avoid Sowell’s fact-filled book like kryptonite. Folks with less dogmatic proclivities, however, would do well to peruse this concise work.Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book Moral Illiteracy: "Who's to Say?"... is also available on Kindle .

An excellent discussion of the misuse of statistics in current political discourse. This book is essential reading for anyone exposed to current political rhetoric which, of course, is everyone. As an added bonus the book is short. This means anyone who reads it will quickly be able to recognize how ubiquitous misleading statements are. Indeed, misleading statements seem to be the rule rather than the exception these days. After reading this book you will likely think "I knew the situation was bad but it is even worse than I imagined!" Indeed, one even gets to the point of looking at a statement by the media or a politician and thinking "what is the worst case scenario that would make the statement technically true when the reality is close to the opposite of the impression trying to be conveyed."Sowell is excellent at providing examples to show common problems in the presentation of statistics. For instance, crime statistics are often presented as "black people make up 13% of the population but are many times more than 13% of those stopped/arrested/incarcerated. The shows racism at work.". Sowell compares this to concluding that since NBA referees call fouls on black players much more than 13% of the time the reason must be racial prejudice. Sowell shows that it is not nearly that simple. For example the average age of the populations matters since younger people are more likely to engage in crime than older ones. The amount of crime actually being committed matters as well. Sowell mentions, as an example, experiments with radar cameras showing the black people, in fact, are more likely to speed.Sowell's writing is not only concise but also very clear and well organized. For example, to head off any ambiguity he clearly distinguishes three types of discrimination and labels them separately. One type of discrimination is good: discernment between individuals based on their individual characteristics and not race. One type is the bad kind: prejudicial attitudes toward a group based on false beliefs about them. A third type is in between: attitudes towards a group based on things statistically true about some but not all members. Sowell uses the example of criminal background checks to show how not allowing the good type of discrimination leads to some unexpected consequences. Employers will then use the statistical type of discrimination and end up hiring fewer members of the group than if background checks are allowed. Think disparate impact laws can be added to prevent that? Employers will just locate to places where there are fewer members of the group. Similarly, Sowell shows how the presence of a particularly problematic subset of a group can cause businesses to increase the price of their product which is then misinterpreted as a "tax" on the all members of the group including those who do not engage in the behavior. The business may even decide not to do business in certain areas at all. This is highly timely given all the businesses shutting down recently due to increased shoplifting and "smash and grab" attacks.This books contains bits of history which caused me to rethink others books I have read. For example, black incomes did rise after the Civil War until 1900 faster than those of whites. This is not something you are going to hear about in books which treat post-Reconstruction as a virtual reset to slavery. For all its statistical detail The Republic for Which it Stands did not discuss it. Neither did The Black Tax which explicitly counts the period from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights era as equivalent to another 100 years of slavery when figuring how big "the black tax" has been over the years. Sowell also mentions that school desegregation was already happening in the North, was welcome and was being enforced by courts until southern black immigrants who were more prone to crime arrived.Sowell also mentions the rather remarkable phenomena of survey data being used as a key component in decrying wealth inequality. For example asking lower paid worker how many hours they work compared to higher paid workers and treating lower paid workers' self reporting as fact, which then turned out to be false. Although Sowell does not mention it, self reporting statistics are often key in claims about disparate rates of arrest and incarceration during the war of drugs.Beyond racial disparities there is also a good discussion of how statistics regarding income disparities involving "the bottom 20%", "the top 20%" or the "the top 1%" are highly misleading given how fluid who is in these groups is.I could only find a few minor flaws with the book. For example when comparing the United States to other nations when calling Marxists' claims into question Sowell says that other nations are not doing as well as the United States despite all the capitalists there. Any Marxist worth his salt would, of course, instantly point out that perhaps the United States is doing so well because of its capitalists exploitation of the globe. Similarly, attacking the Soviet Union as a Marxist state is a straw-man. Just because the Soviet Union said they were Marxists does not mean they actually were. Finally, Sowell's belief is that the rise in crime starting in the 1960's was due to leftist ideologies being more tolerant of undesirable types of behavior. This is possible but the consensus is that the exact causes are not well known other than there being an explosion of young people, those most likely to be involved in crime, due to the baby boom.