Bill Bennett and Black Babies

Fall 2005 note to the BCC Diversity Caucus

Bill Bennett recently made himself the target of outrage and criticism with a remark to the effect that the crime rate would be reduced if pregnant black women would all get abortions.  Taken out of context, the remark sounds like a racist endorsement of genocide.  Given Bennett’s history as supporter and participant in Republican administrations that have pushed policies detrimental and unjust to non-whites, the anger towards Bennett is understandable.  But Bennett’s remarks on his radio show were not an expression of a racist attitude.  In fact, Bennett’s point was to argue that considerations of justice override other interests like economic advantage or lowering crime rates.  This is a point on which I would expect Bennett and multiculturalists to agree.  But that point seems to have been entirely missed by Bennett’s critics in the media uproar.  By ignoring the context and the point that Bennett was trying to make, Bennett’s critics have undermined their credibility with the audience that really needs to hear their voice, namely Bennett’s audience.  A transcript of the dialogue on Bennett’s radio show and his explanation of his remarks are available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Bennett

Here is the context:  Some economists have argued that the prevalence of abortion over the past generation has lead to lower crime rates.  A caller to Bennett’s radio show, an opponent of abortion, takes this research to constitute a cogent argument for allowing abortion.  But he thinks he can offer a similar argument for banning abortion.  The caller’s argument against abortion is that if abortion had been banned over the past generation, there would be more people contributing to payroll taxes now and social security would not be facing a solvency crisis (it isn’t really facing a solvency crisis, but never mind that).  Bennett wants to reject both arguments and he tries to show the caller why both the argument for abortion and the similar argument against abortion are bad arguments by showing how this kind of reasoning could lead one to endorse positions that from a moral point of view are clearly and uncontroversially bad.  The mistake in both arguments is that some socially desirable outcome (lower crime rates, full funding for social security) is offered as reason for endorsing a policy regardless of whether the policy is morally just.  The point Bennett is driving at is that considerations of justice override other sorts of considerations.  Socially desirable goals can only be ethically pursued within the constraints of justice. 

To make this point, Bennett illustrates how pursuing the socially desirable goal of reducing crime without regard to considerations of justice could lead to a clearly undesirable and morally abhorrent conclusion, namely the genocide of blacks in America.  Bennett thinks the rate of crime is higher among blacks.  I think this view can only be defended by ignoring racial profiling, the racist nature of the war on drugs, and the lackadaisical prosecution of white collar crime.  Bennett deserves to be taken to task for this indefensible assumption, but this aspect of the discussion has been marginalized by the furor over black babies.  In any case, the truth of this assumption doesn’t matter in connection with the point Bennett is trying to make.  The point remains that IF the crime rate is higher among some sub-population and that elevated crime rate persists from one generation to the next, then the crime rate for the society at large would be reduced if the society eliminated that subgroup through a genocidal policy (of course the point ignores any further effects of the genocidal policy).   In this context, the genocidal policy is offered as an example of a policy that is clearly undesirable and uncontroversially morally horrible.  In fact the whole point of using this example is the obvious badness of the policy.  What can be inferred from Bennett’s remarks is that he thinks that genocide against African Americans is clearly morally abhorrent.  I think we can all agree with Bennett on this point.  What can not be inferred from his remarks, without badly misunderstanding what he is saying, is that he would like to see genocide against black Americans.  Bennett’s audience sees how badly his critics have misunderstood him.  Whether by design or accident, the backlash against Bennett is giving his audience pretty strong reason to think that there is no point in listening to us and trying to understand our perspective on matters of race in America.  Martin Luther King tells us that the highest expression of non-violence is trying to understand our opponent’s perspective without assuming that he is wicked (see my King on Non-violence).  I’m afraid Bill Bennett’s critics have failed King rather badly in this episode.  And, in doing so, they have handed Bennett’s audience a pretty good reason to ignore us.  This makes me sad.

Russ

Philosophy