A reader writes:
I don’t think you summarized Victor Davis Hanson fairly at all, and the “gist” of his article that you quoted doesn’t even include “the talk” or “the advice,” which is exactly the point that you are criticizing. He says that the “sermon” he received from his dad was “very precise,” and then he says that he gave his son a similar talk. Here’s what his dad told him, according to VDH (this is right before the section you quoted):
… he once advised me, “When you go to San Francisco, be careful if a group of black youths approaches you.” Note what he did not say to me. He did not employ language like “typical black person.” He did not advise extra caution about black women, the elderly, or the very young — or about young Asian Punjabi, or Native American males.
So it’s simply inaccurate for you to summarize the advice as “be wary of all young black males that you meet.” The advice is that if a) you’re in an urban setting, b) you are approached by c) a group of young black males, then d) be careful.
I think that’s pretty mild, especially given the other things he said (e.g. his father constantly stressed the importance of treating people as individuals, he was involved in legitimately progressive work with the underprivileged). I don’t know why VDH thinks it important or helpful to write a column about this advice, other than the fact that he uses it to criticize Obama’s speech. And maybe you still want to say this is ridiculous and over-suspicious and stupid. Okay. But it is pretty contextual and definitely more specified than your summary indicates. And you of all people should care about representing that accurately – just think of how you get quoted and decontextualized by those who accuse you of anti-Semitism.
My reader is wrong. Hanson specifically refers to the “talk” that African-American fathers give their sons, as described by Eric Holder, and posits his family’s white alternative. Using the word “sermon” rather than “talk” doesn’t change what he is talking about. And he summarizes the sermon thus:
The advice was not about race per se, but instead about the tendency of males of one particular age and race to commit an inordinate amount of violent crime.
He then cites incidents in his own life that have nothing to do with criminal profiling on the street of “groups” of young black men. He refers to his own experience of one attempted burglary by two black males, and one attempted bike-theft (while VDH was apparently on it) by four black males. Then he says that he “could cite three more examples that more or less conform to the same apprehensions once expressed by a younger Jesse Jackson.” Here is the quote I assume VDH is referring to:
There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.
That’s a broader brush than even Hanson, and I think it makes clear what VDH is saying here. If you see a young black man, go to the other side of the street. Another reader:
I’m going to mount a qualified defense of Hanson.
A perfectly rational actor, working with imperfect information, will not make the blanket assumption that all black men are threats. However, a rational actor will regard an unknown black male as seven (or so) times more likely to pose a threat than an otherwise identical white male. This is the risk ratio the data show, and ignoring the data doesn’t make the risk go away. You and other commentators make it sound like one is either wholly innocent of racial (or gender, etc.) profiling or a deluded, paranoid racist. But this is a false dichotomy. There is a rational, data-driven amount of race, gender, dress, and age profiling that one should do when operating with poor information and a short time-frame (e.g., walking alone at night), and that amount is not zero with respect to any of these.
There are human costs to this, no doubt. I’m a male (Chinese ancestry), but I cannot rationally be offended when a young woman crosses the street when she sees me late at night and I’m dressed scruffily. No one should panic or be paranoid, but you cannot be mad at people for playing the odds in a rational way when their safety is in play. Too many writers try to ameliorate empirical, statistical risks with feelings.
The “human cost” is the unjustified association of any single young black man with criminality. The social cost is the entrenchment of racial segregation. And no, old Chinese men in scruffy clothes do not seem to me experiencing the same thing. Another reader:
There is no such thing as “racial profiling”: there is criminal profiling, and selecting young black males, hoodies, swagger, etc. for profiling is perfectly rational, given who overwhelmingly commits the muggings, assaults, robbery, thefts and general menacing. Likewise, profiling young single white men with social problems and an obsession with camouflage or violent video games is perfectly rational given who overwhelmingly commits mass random shootings.
The Dish 