If social inequality results from discriminatory behaviors or policies based on membership in a race and ethnicity, as it certainly has in the U. S., should policy in a liberal society offer group-based benefits? The civil rights era answered positively. Identity politics, diversity rationales, and pressures for color-blind policy are challenging that answer. What and how we measure is in the middle of the argument.
Framing the Issue
Nations vary in the diversity of their population—here using “diversity” to reference some or all of the following: ethnicity, religion, language, race, ancestry, tribe, and caste. The U.S., Canada and Australia are generally cited as more “diverse” than other OECD countries. There is a large literature indicating that governing demographically diverse populations challenges statecraft in ways not experienced in nations with more homogeneous populations. Diverse populations, for example, are generally assumed to be more prone to internal conflict than more homogenous societies, giving rise to research on how to manage conflict rooted in cultural differences. The conflict may pit group against group. Under some conditions, the conflict expresses itself as a demand for more autonomy, even separation, by the aggrieved group—especially where political power is monopolized by a religion or ethnicity that does not adequately serve or protect the aggrieved group. Where separation is impractical or fiercely resisted—apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland are examples—armed uprising can occur.
Nations vary in the magnitude and patterns of their social inequality—which does bring us nearer to our topic. The U.S. and Europe are, of course, often contrasted in how much inequality they tolerate—more in the U.S., less in Europe.
Here I start with the observation that demographic diversity and social inequalities have to be jointly examined. What policy responses are appropriate in liberal democracies when social inequalities map to demographic diversity? More specifically—how far should the liberal state go in remediation of inequality by providing group rights or group-targeted benefits? My comments offer the U.S. as a case in point…
…Racial Classification in the United States
In the U.S., more than three centuries of racist doctrine planted racially inscribed inequalities deep into the society, polity, and economy. The civil rights movement in the 1960s attempted to end this history through a policy regime that used race to undo racism. Making policy distinctions based on race came to be accepted as the only way to overcome the legacies of a racist history.
Now, nearly a half-century into that policy regime, strong reservations are being voiced. Political arguments echo the “dilemma of recognition”—do race-based policies not defeat their own purpose?…
…More than a century and a half of discriminatory social policy designed to protect the numerical and political supremacy of Americans of European ancestry needed a classification system that assigned everyone to a discrete racial group. Census categories provided this classification, as did vital statistics and, eventually, all administrative records. This measurement system is the basis for presuming that separate and distinct races constitute the true condition of the American population, and can thereby provide the basis for law and public policy. Because there are measurable groups, there are traits that are differently distributed across these groups–including, of course, traits such as intelligence, social worth, moral habits. On this foundation was constructed a race-based legal code and social and economic practices that haunts American history. Ironically, the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s gave fresh momentum to racial measurement. Laws and policies were still to be based on racial classification, but in a 180-degree policy reversal the task became to ensure civil rights that prior uses of racial classification had denied…
…The classification adopted in 1977 and used in the 1980 and 1990 censuses seemed secure and capable of discharging its civil rights purposes in policy arenas. But by the middle of the 1990s, the political landscape was transformed by demographic changes, by the rise of multiculturalism and by the multiracial movement. New political demands called into question the existing racial and ethnic categories–and also the public purposes they were thought to serve.
The OMB again took up the task of reviewing the nation’s official racial classification system, and adopted two changes. The most commented upon change was to allow census respondents to mark one or more to the race question, finally putting to rest the one-drop rule that had worked so hard to preserve the myth of racial purity. This multirace option expresses the obvious—laws against miscegenation notwithstanding, reproduction across racial lines has been a constant in American history for four centuries.
There was a second change. The prior OMB standard had placed Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders within the more general Asian race. Advocates argued that the census should recognize Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders as a separate racial category. The OMB held public hearings and examined research showing that Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders did differ from Asians more generally; it agreed to the separate category. In the mid-1990s the official primary race groups of the United States went from four to five, unwittingly reproducing the Blumenbachian pentagon from two centuries earlier…
…Classification as the Site of Identity Politics: Multiracial rhetoric came to the fore in the 1990s, when advocates insisted on explicit recognition of multiracialism in federal statistics. What was striking about the debate that erupted is what the advocates wanted—not civil rights, but demands for recognition, choice, and identity. In congressional testimony, the Association of MultiEthnic Americans, though recognizing that the multiple-race option would make it harder to enforce civil rights law, nevertheless insisted on “choice in the matter of who we are, just like any other community.” This testimony found it ironic that “our people are being asked to correct by virtue of how we define ourselves all of the past injustices of other groups of people.”
Of course, correcting past injustices was what the traditional civil rights organizations were all about. Their cause was thus threatened by talk of choice and identity. Self expression, they insisted, was not a good reason to revise the government’s scheme of racial and ethnic categories. In its testimony, the NAACP pointed out that the current racial classification was fashioned “to enhance the enforcement of anti-discrimination and civil rights law,” and warned that “the creation of a multiracial classification might disaggregate the apparent numbers of members of discrete minority groups, diluting benefits to which they are entitled as a protected class under civil rights laws and under the Constitution itself.”…
