Crucified for the Truth
O.K., this is going to be the most controversial post I've ever done, but since I have so few regular readers, I'm not thinking that that is going to matter much. If you have been following the scandal news of the US of late than you have been unable to escape the story of William Bennett. It seems this former Secretary of Education known for making hateful and bigoted comments was caught yet again spreading racism and prejudice on his nationally syndicated radio talk show. Bennett is absolutely being ripped apart in the press here, by politicians (both Democrat and Republican), commentators, talk show hosts, editorials, you name it, everyone wants to get in on this band wagon and rip this guy a new asshole. Now don't get me wrong here, I am NOT a fan of this man. He HAS said some very hateful, hurtful things in the past. But I think we need to take a closer look at what Mr. Bennett said in this specific case. Here are the comments that have spawned such a virulent backlash:
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.
"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
Look at the whole quote, look at the qualifying remarks, and now understand the context of the comments. Bennett was having a conversation with a listener of his show about the social and economic effects of abortion in this country. During the conversation, Bennett brought up some results published by an economist (Steven D. Levitt) with the help of a freelance writer (Stephen J. Dubner) in the book Freakonomics. Levitt's analysis of the data suggest that the most strongly correlated factor to the significant drop in crime during the decade of the 90's was the legalization of abortion in 1973 approximately 20 years earlier. Levitt doesn't stop there, he analyzes the data further to determine if the correlation suggests causality. To do this, he compared the crime rates of the 5 States that had legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade to those of the other 45 States of the union and discovered that indeed, the crime rates in those States had begun falling years earlier than the crime rates in the rest of the U.S. Then he compared the crime rates in the States that had the highest abortion rates in the decade after Roe v. Wade with those in the States with the lowest abortion rates, and once again discovered that crime rates fell faster in those States where abortions rates were highest. Other statistical analyses confirm these results.
Using this as launching point, Bennett makes the above "controversial" statement. So now let's consider his statement. Bennett suggests that if every black fetus were aborted in this country, we would see a drop in the crime rate. I think we have to assume that Bennett means first, that such a thing would have to happen on a sustained basis for many years, and second that we would see that drop in crime rates in approximately 15 to 20 years after such a scenario started. So, here's the question: is Bennett wrong? No, he isn't. Bennett is absolutely correct in his analysis, and I challenge anyone to produce a sound mathematical/statistical argument to prove otherwise. At the same time, I also think it is quite clear that Bennett is attempting to forward this notion as an absurd hypothetical and that he does not believe that the abortion of all black babies is a reasonable strategy for reducing crime. If Bennett were actually advocating such an idea as a solution to crime in this country, then I could completely understand the indignation and angry responses his statements have engendered. But clearly he isn't. Look what Bennett says next. He acknowledges that such an idea is "impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible." Bennett wasn't calling for the abortion of all black children, he was attempting to make a point with his listener. And while admittedly, he did so quite clumsily, the claim he makes is undeniably true. Further, he qualifies his remarks sufficiently to make it clear that he isn't advocating a policy of forced abortion for black women.
So why is this man being crucified in the public arena in this country? This is political correctness at its absolute worst - a monumental case of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand in order to deny eminent catastrophe. Rather than vilifying Bennett over his comments, we ought to examine what circumstances in this country account for the fact that Bennett's analysis is absolutely correct and reflect on the steps we need to take in this country to remedy those circumstances. It is a national disgrace and disaster that we have created a society and culture that has resulted in Bennett's words being true. Attacking the messenger doesn't do a damn thing to illuminate solutions to the problem.
posted by Faltanus @ 10:48 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Hmm . . . a tricky subject. Racism being the new witchcraft you only have to be accused to be found guilty.
Years ago the Metropolitan Police used to profile crimes by race/demographic group - this was discontinued for the sake of "race relations". The uncomfortable fact was that 96% was commited by Afro-carribean males.
Hiding these facts doesnt do anyone any favours, until we are honest with ourselves we wont be able to try and solve these problems.
Oops! just read my last comment and the crime I was referring to was Mugging NOT 96% of all recorded crime. Sorry!
malik, you're wrong. People aren't outraged by Bennett "implying" that black people and crime are "intrinsically" linked (most people don't even begin to understand the subtlety of what you are trying to get at in that statement), they are outraged that he is linking black people and crime...period. because in this hyper politically correct climate we live in, "polite" people don't make that link.
Next, you've made several significant errors and oversights in your rebuttal. First of all, a change in violent crime from 2.3% to 2.0% isn't a 0.3% reduction - that is simply the difference in percents. Think about it - if we could reduce crime to 0% would you argue that we had only reduced crime by 2.3% and wow - what a small percentage that is. Nope, you would say that crime had been completely reduced! What a major event! What you need to do with you result is to find the percent that 0.3 is of 2.3 - it turns out to be 13%. That is, a 13% reduction in violent crime. Not significant?
Next, you've missed one of the most significant implications of Bennett's scenario. That is, in 15 to 25 years, Bennett's scenario doesn't eliminate all Black people, it eliminiates Black people between 15 and 25 years of age. I don't have the exact statistics at my fingertips, but how many of the 5 crimes you mentioned would have been committed by that specific age subgroup? 4 of them? So let's reduce the population by 40 (a significant over estimate), rather than 120, but still reduce the number of violent crimes by 4 and now what is the change? A reduction from 2.3% to 1.8% or a drop of nearly 22%.
My point in ALL of this is that the real implication of Bennett's comments, what we should all be walking away from those comments with, is an indictment of a social, political, economic system that perpetuates a cycle of almost institutionalized poverty that preys disproportionately on a specific minority group in this country. So let's focus on the problem illuminated by the comments, and not on the commentator himself.
malik, I don't want you or anyone to take away from my post or this discussion that I am attempting to defend William Bennett as a person. I started out the post acknowledging that Bennett is a bigot and spreader of hate. I am trying to make 2 points here. First that the statement Bennett made here, as a statement of mathematics and statistics is in fact true. On that point, you are wrong about Levitt's analysis, it is not about a random reduction in population, because as Levitt points out, abortion is, for numerous reasons, used disproportionately by women from lower socio-economic classes. In fact Levitt makes it clear that it is this very fact that brings about the strong statistical correlation between abortion and reduction in violent crime. Why? Because violent crimes are committed in greater proportion by young adults from the lower socio-economic classes. So the effect of abortion was not a random reduction in population as you assert, it was (and continues to be) a selective harvesting of a particular segment of our population. In particular, abortion serves to reduce a very specific phenomenon - unwanted children. Unwanted children tend to grow up abused and neglected and are much more likely to become violent criminals as a result.
Now, of course, it is not true that we can extend that idea to a scenario in which all black children are forcible aborted. We have to believe that the majority of children born to black parents are wanted, are loved, are not neglected and abused. But acknowledging that fact, it doesn't change the fact that from a strictly mathematical/statistical standpoint, Bennett is correct, violent crime rates would be reduced.
The second point - the really important point - and I tried to make this point in both my original post (I don't think I made it forcefully enough) and in my first rebuttal to you (I think I made the point more strongly there) - is that despite the fact that Bennett is a hateful bigot, in attacking Bennett and his comments, his attackers are deflecting attention from the real problem. Poverty preys disproporionately on certain minority groups in this country and considering the fact that we are the richest country in the world, the fact that we have a social, economic and political system that allows this to continue to happen, generation after generation is deplorable, and even more than that, it is dangerous. More than any other nation in the world, the United States has the resources to battle this problem head on, and the simple truth of the matter is, we don't. Rather we spend our time and energy attacking ignorant radio talk show hosts for perceived violations of political correctness.
i definitely understand what you are saying malik, and i agree that the issues you raise need raising, need discussion, need to understood and addressed. in fact i don't think that the point i was trying to make is too terribly different from your own. maybe i just didn't do a very good job in making clear that a statistical link between two things does not in any way, shape or form "prove" or even really imply a causal or intrinsic connection between those two things. but a lot of people try to use statistics to make that very argument, and you are right, it is inappropriate to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home