America's Racial Contract

Charles Mills, PhD
Northwestern

A racial contract is a conceptual metaphor for our philosophy for dealing with each other. The problem is that it is a philosophy vased on white Europeon thought. It asserts:

• We are all equal
• The law treats us all equal
• The government governs equally/no exploitation
• There is transparency in treatment of people
• There is objectivity in threatment of people

John Rawls book, A Theory of Justice, originated the "veil of ignorance" principle which accepted the conceptual metaphor as fact. It was first published in 1971. The claim was that a society is a coopeerative venture for mutual advantage, regulated by rules, that benefits everyone. This assumption was fundamentally flawed.

The conceptual framing for the US portrays racism as an anomoly. Much relied on work of Immanuel Kant and John Locke who on the surface appear to support equality. Deeper research identifies significant racial overtones in their writings.

Mills argues that what we have is not a social contract but a racial contract. We need to accept that and look at how to dismantle the racial contract if we want to procede. Today, there is less individual racism but the system of structural and institutional racism sustains racism. One of his arguments is the systemic white advantage of wealth. As the $9 trillion in wealth is passed down in the next few years it will be passed from whites to whites and thus will sustain white preference. Mills argues that wealth disparity is a connection to the past and, as such, carries forward the racism of the past.

Mills suggests that to create change the interests of African Americans have to converge with the interests of whites. He feels the most likely place for this to occur is between people of color and the working class whites. Income for working class people in the US has been stagnant since the 70's.

Immigration and Anti-immigration

I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation yesterday by Dr. Evelyn Hu-DeHart,
Professor of History and Ethnic Studies, Director, Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America (CSREA), Brown University, about America's love/hate relationship with newcomers. Today several hundred high school students jointed in the conference and were present for this talk. Here are some key points:

• America's immigration "story" has always implied an inclusive, welcoming country. "Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses, yearning to be free."
• The reality has been one of exclusion - except for Europeans.
• The main reason we have sought out immigrants over the years is for their labor...first the African slaves, then Asians, and finally Mexicans.
• Slaves were excluded from citizenship because they were "property". The first US Naturalization Law in 1790 only allowed citizenship for white immigrants. Asians were specifically named as excluded in the first immigration law in 1882.
• I wasn't certain of the date but I think early 20th century Asians were described as "aliens ineligible for citizenship."
• Mexicans were really interesting. Until the 1950's the US Census counted Mexicans as "white". Before the depression they could move freely back and forth across the US Mexican border. The depression resulted in Mexicans being rounded up and deported. After WWII Mexican labor was again needed and a formal agreement brought Mexicans back to work in the US but re-classified them as non-white without citizenship. The term "illegal immigrant" was coined to describe those workers who built a life in the US and wanted to stay.
• Racial restrictions on immigration were finally changed in 1965 but new restrictions were imposed on numbers of immigrants by category. We can argue, for example, that Mexicans should go home and use the legal immigration process to come back into the US. However, many of the Mexican workers who come here work in the unskilled service industry and the quota for unskilled workers in the current immigration law is 5,000 worldwide and last year two of those positions were allocated to Mexico. This, in spite of the fact that there are 12 million Mexican immigrants in the US - and half of them are undocumented.
• It is only recently that the term "illegal alien" has been applied to immigrants. It is today's version of "alien ineligible for citizenship". Alien has connotations of hostile, suspect, and evil that only serve a political purpose.

I hope I got all the facts right. Actually Dr. Hu-DeHart was so interesting I will be doing some reading on the history of immigration to get it all straight in my mind. Once again, it was a wonderful presentation and a terrific opportunity to participate in a valuable learning experience.

Health Care and Communities of Color

I'm writing this morning out of frustration, not at any individual, but at one of my "communities". The James Madison College here at MSU is putting on its 6th national conference on Race in 21st Century America. The general topic this year is Health Care and Communities of Color. This is of interest to me because nutrition is such an important component of people's health and there are such great disparities in health between people of different races and ethnicity.

The opening keynote for the conference was delivered by Dr. Jocelyn Elders. Dr. Elders was Surgeon General of the US during the Clinton presidency. She was the first African American to hold that post and she was the first Surgeon General to use the post as a "bully pulpit" to promote prevention. She was the first Surgeon General I ever knew existed. She spoke at 1:00pm in the auditorium at the Kellogg Center. My frustration came from the fact that I was one of about 75 people to attend.

Then I went on to a panel discussion with three distinguished scholars who were also African American. Dr. Darren Davis, University of Notre Dame, Dr. Bill Larson, University of Memphis, and Dr. Clarence Lusane, American University. Their topic was Race and the 2008 Presidential Election and their presentation and discussion was enlightening and challenging. Two political scientists and a distinguished philosopher, talking about the most fascinating election in history. Unfortunately, I was among less than 50 people in attendance.

This is something I have noticed since I joined the university community five years ago - long term members in the community don't seem to value the benefits of belonging. Certainly the opportunity to be challenged by other scholars, to ask questions about other viewpoints, and to be on the cutting edge knowledge should be a perk. But when I go to presentations, too often I feel like "that guy". I'm the one person in the room who nobody knows. I'm the only person out of my element. People like Dr. Elders, who should draw standing room crowds are lucky to fill a few rows. That's frustrating.

Here's a bit of what I came away with.

I was fascinated by the fact that even after all these years away from the Surgeon General post, Dr. Elders is an expert at talking in sound bites. She used anagrams quite often. She started off reminding us all that she was the first Surgeon General who publicly admitted that, yes, Americans have sex. AIDS was growing and her first anagram of the day was A B C D.

• Abstinence
• Be Faithful
• Condoms (latex)
• Do other things

She said it was the "Do other things" that got her in so much trouble that she finally lost the position. She pointed out that now, African Americans are 14% of the population but have 50% of the HIV. Later in questions she also pointed out that African Americans only make up 3% of the doctors in the US in spite of being 14% of the population. She talked about our sick care system and our need for a health care system. She pointed out the three "simple" goals that she put forth in 1985:

1. Improve quality of health for all Americans
2. Reach 100% access to health care
3. Reach 0% disparity in health care

Among other comments along the way was that 25% of girls 15 - 19 have a sexually transmitted disease and the mind numbing statistic that infant mortality in Detroit is 25%.

Dr. Elders gave us five "c"s for leadership

1. Clarity of vision
2. Commitment
3. Consistency
4. Concern
5. Control

She also shared a tale that was relayed to her early in her fight for change:

• When you're dancing with a bear, you have to keep dancing until the bear gets tired.

For Dr. Elders fixing the education system is the key to fixing health care.

Then I went on the the panel on the 2008 Presidential Election. Dr. Davis suggested that the election was not about race. He stated:

1. Obama ran a de-racialized campaign - what he had to do to secure support
2. Obama became an exception to the rule - even people with negative beliefs about African Americans could support Obama because they could declare him an exception - Harvard education, multiracial, Hawaiian birth, etc.
3. Obama did a good job of reminding people that America is about equality and since Whites believe that they are not racist that encouraged their support for a person of color.
4. Most whites did not vote for Obama

Dr. Lawson talked about Obama's focus on colorblindness - his focus was on not using race in public policy. Dr. Lawson feels that this will hurt people of color down the road. He feels that Obama overstates the case that things have changed. There are some disparities that can only be solved by taking a racial approach - not a colorblind approach. Now it will be more difficult to impose programs that include color conscious policies.

Dr. Lusane felt race was significant in the campaign. Obama won because:

1. He had a compelling message - change
2. He had a compelling strategy - most significant was the decision to go after all 50 states since - because of the work of Jesse Jackson and others - the Democratic Party does not hold winner take all primaries - delegates are split based on the results in each state. That meant that even in the states that Obama lost he picked up delegates.
3. He had a compelling biography

Dr. Lusane is looking at the impact on the world. His thesis is that although Obama was de-racialized in the US, the world definitely saw him as a minority, person of color and all the things that implied. That drove their amazement that he could be elected.

I think it was a good day. Don't you?