Why Can't We Be Friends?

Can I Befriend White People?

This op-ed written by Ekow Yankah, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University appeared in the New York Times on Sunday.

It is so wrong on so many levels. 

First, it is reprehensible that the NYT found this poisonous article worthy of publication.   At a time of increased racial tension, what is to be gained by a printing a blatantly racist piece that stokes divisiveness? No publication of any stature would even consider publishing an article by a white person who, for instance, said that they would teach their children not to trust blacks because they might get mugged.   The publication of this piece fuels the tribalism in America that Victor Davis Hanson is warning about and that is corroding our national cohesion.

Second, does something almost all Americans gave up decades ago- he makes blanket judgments about people by skin pigmentation.  Yankah states bluntly, “I will teach them [my children] to be cautious.  I will teach them suspicion.  I will teach them distrust.  Much sooner than I thought I would, I have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.”  It is bad enough that Yankah is teaching his OWN children the sick credo that skin color is a determining factor of relationship formation, but that as an educator at a law school he is presumably is infecting other people’s children with this contagion. 

 Most of us born after, say, 1955 have been educated with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King—that we should judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.  We have correctly decided that It is morally wrong to make such judgements.   And to a large extent, our society has been very successful at promulgating this notion.   To take one measure, there has been a 28% increase in interracial marriages just since 2000.  We have a whole body of law around eliminating racial discrimination.   Most public companies work hard to hire, train, retain and promote minorities and have established programs for doing so.  Are we perfect in all respects?  No.  Roland Fryer at Harvard showed that while the claim that deadly force against blacks is unwarranted, they are more likely to be subject to nondeadly force.   Marianne Bertrand at The University of Chicago did work that showed that job applicants with “black” names are more likely to be rejected than others.   And it is true that a black teen with a hoodie walking through a white neighborhood will likely be subject to a greater level of scrutiny than a white kid.   These are things that still need fixing. 

Yahkah cites calling out of issues of the perceived pathology in the black community (never talked about by Trump), immigrant crime and Islamic terror as evidence that Trump and anyone who voted for him is a bigot.  Yet, he overlooks the hard fact that the South Side of Chicago is a killing zone, MS-13 has infected our country through lax immigration policies and we (and Europe) have suffered numerous deadly terrorist attacks in the name of Islam.  These problems are real and need to be talked and argued about.  And they need to be discussed in blunt and realistic terms.   They are difficult and knotty problems, but isolating yourself (and your children) from whites will not make them magically disappear.

Mr. Yankah blithely overlooks the fact that we have a system of laws that protects African Americans in the workplace, at school, in housing, and many other areas of our society.  Worse, he fails to note that many whites go above and beyond to help African Americans in education and employment.  In my own world, for instance, many whites contribute to Boys Hope Girls Hope, a residential community that helps at-risk kids and many have paid the tuition of African American kids at our local private school--- with wonderful results.   Does Mr. Yankah not want his children to be friends with these wonderful people or his children to be friends with theirs?   One of the business organizations to which I belong has a program that assists and supports minority entrepreneurship, providing assistance with financing, management, contacts, and such.   Does Mr. Yankah not wish to associate with the people who have devoted time to these ventures?   Yet, despite that the vast majority of whites that not only accept blacks as equals, they help the underprivileged in the black community in different ways and ---gasp--- even marry African Americans (forming lifelong intimate bonds), Mr. Yankah states, “My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.”

Many of life’s best lessons on human relationships are learned in the local gymnasium.  The picture above is of my local gym, where on each Sunday morning, men (and sometimes women) of all ages, races and backgrounds play a couple of hours of pickup basketball.  A few weeks ago, as they all came off the floor and into the locker room, they were chatting together, teasing each other, high-fiving each other, and complaining about their wives and their girlfriends.  There is nothing more unifying across racial lines like pickup basketball and complaining about girlfriends and spouses (who are undoubtedly complaining about us).  

And I finish with this anecdote.  My own son works out with and befriended with a young African American that is about his age and who is afflicted with autism.  While he is a big friendly guy, this young man sometimes struggles with appropriate social cues and, as a result, annoyed some of the gym patrons and the gym revoked his membership.  My son, along with some others, lobbied the gym’s management and argued that this young man should be treated like any other person with a disability and should be reinstated.  The gym reconsidered and found ways to accommodate him and happily the young man is now back in his regular routine, working out with his buddies.   These friends of an African American man stepped up immediately to right a wrong and helped their challenged friend (without court intervention, I might add) return to doing one of the things he loves most—working out with his buddies.

If you do not wish to be my friend, that is your loss.  If you do not wish your children to be friends with mine, that is their deep loss.  My children have been taught something very different.  They have been taught compassion, empathy, and acceptance, and they have been taught to ignore skin color.

We can have stark political differences and still be friends.  I am outnumbered by friends that have vastly different political views than I do, and some are of a different race, religion and ethnic background.  We argue, sometimes quite ferociously, for our respective points of view.   Still, I count them among my most trusted and loyal friends.

Whether Trump is a bigot and racist as Yankah claims is a different set of arguments.  But wherever you settle on that, Trump will depart the scene in three or at most seven years.   Our children will have to live together in this great nation long after.  It will be much better if they can be friends.

Veteran's Day

I attended a Veteran’s Day celebration the other night sponsored by Wintrust Bank in Chicago.  The host of the ceremony introduced each of about a dozen veterans and told a little story about each one, what branch they served in, what they did during the conflict and how they re-integrated into civilian life afterwards.   I was transfixed by these tales.   One medic heroically administered to wounded Afghan soldiers during a firefight with the Taliban in Afghanistan after he himself had been wounded.  One African American bravely fought at Guadalcanal despite the fact that he was the first black man in his unit and his white comrades wouldn’t speak to him.  One soldier fought in the Korean war in 40 below zero conditions, got separated from his unit, was presumed to be MIA, and trekked miles in the snow on frozen feet.  From the Pacific Theater in WWII to Iraq and Afghanistan, each story told of fierce determination under some of the most trying conditions imaginable.

I was struck by a number of common themes.   Each person was quoted as having great pride in his or her branch of service.  Each eschewed being referred to as a hero.  Each felt that they were “just doing their job.”   All of them came home to very little, if any fanfare, and within a few weeks, quietly moved on to the next phase of life.  I was most taken by the fact that many of the WWII veterans were still gainfully employed late in life.  One gentleman still works at Northwestern Mutual at age 93.  I was simply in awe of these great men and women, and had an opportunity to shake hands with many of them and thank them for what they did.

This experience underscores the importance of storytelling.  It is fine to hear about important events through film or books, but they do not have the same impact as hearing them first hand or  through a person connected to the people that were actually there.  I noted in my film review of Austerlitz that the young people showed less reverence and solemnity at the concentration camp museum than the older visitors.  As time passes, things become more remote and less real, less tangible.   My own visceral hatred of Communism came from hearing the first hand stories of those that escaped.  Being chased by guards and dogs through the woods at night.  Seeing a teenage friend shot to death in front of you.  Those images and events gain texture and meaning through the telling.  Otherwise they become as remote as mummies in a museum.  We need to find ways and platforms to keep these stories alive as long as possible.  Otherwise, we risk that evil ideologies like Communism, Fascism, or Nazism become less tangible, less real to us, and we become susceptible to their return in some form.

On my way out, I introduced myself to the bank’s chairman, Ed Wehmer.   I said, “Ed, this was a phenomenal event.  I am so humbled by these great people and the things they did.”

He looked at me and said, “What do WE do?  Nothing, really.”

He is right.  Few of us do things that really matter, at least not in the way that these veterans did.

Veteran’s Day became real to me this year.

Jane

Stitched together with recently discovered film of her Gombe encampment and personal interviews with Jane Goodall, Brett Morgen’s documentary, Jane gives us an intimate portrait of one of the 20^th century’s most fascinating women.

With no scientific training or education, the young, single and beautiful Jane Goodall dispatched to Africa in 1957 to observe chimpanzees in the wild, and to live among them- something no human being had ever done before.   Leakey chose her because he was looking for someone with an open mind, a love of animals and unending patience.  He found it all and more in Goodall.  With her mother in tow as support personnel, Goodall began her great adventure to attempt to study these great apes and attempt to identify genetic antecedents to human behavior from our closest primate cousins.

The film clips were fascinating as this pretty young woman marched up and down the Gombe valleys alone, hoping to catch glimpses of these creatures.  Goodall’s incredible fearlessness is striking as she disregarded the poisonous snakes that abounded in the territory.  For months, the chimps simply ran away at the sight of her.  But she persisted, and with patience, over time, the chimpanzees accepted her presence and permitted her to have intimate interactions among them, and participate in grooming, playing, and even allowing her to play with their young.  The possibility that one of these powerful beasts could turn on her at any moment and kill her never seemed to cross her mind. 

Goodall’s undeterred passion gave us incredible insights into both chimpanzees and our own condition.  She famously discovered that chimps not only used tools but were able to make them (stripping leaves off sticks to use to harvest termites), a skill thought only to belong to humans.   She observed and documented their deep emotional life.   Chimpanzees had distinct personalities; they mourned their dead, experienced jealousy, displayed affection.   She also had insights into their darker side-  chimps, like humans, were capable of horrendous acts - making war and killing each other in brutal fashion.

Her personal journey is as interesting as her work.  She began her life’s work by utterly rejecting the roles of motherhood and wife as life goals and very early on developed a love of animals.  Her father apparently was largely absent from her life and Goodall got her determination and spirit from a very encouraging mother, and her mother’s emotional support remained important to her throughout her life.

Later, however, she did fall in love and marry the nature photographer, Hugo van Lawick.   The two had a child together, and the film devotes a substantial portion to the interweaving of her marriage and motherhood with her work on the Gombe encampment.  The arrangement raises interesting issues of marriage and child rearing.  Goodall spoke of the parallels between her own motherhood and the motherhood of her subjects.  

Eventually, Goodall chooses.  She sends her young son back to Great Britain to be schooled as her concerns about a lack of socialization in the jungle began to worry her.  Similarly, when the funding to keep Hugo at Gombe runs out, Hugo is forced to ply his trade on the Serengeti.  Again, she chooses.  The separation becomes too much for the marriage to bear.  Neither is willing to compromise and Jane and Hugo eventually divorce.  In both cases, motherhood and marriage remained subordinated to her primary love---her work.   

Jane Goodall belongs in the pantheon of fearless, passionate women that found their life’s work and threw themselves at it, women like Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, and Babe Didrikson Zacharias (for a great read on Didrikson, read Wonder Girl by Don Van Natta).  Each of these women have a fascinating story to tell as each rejected societal norms.

Goodall is a captivating figure, mostly because of her sheer fearlessness and defiance.  She defied the conventional role of a woman in the 60’s.  She defied the traditional paths of the scientific establishment.  She defied traditional views of marriage and motherhood.  Because of her unwillingness to be bound by these things, she was able to do something spectacular - redefine and recast our definition of what it means to be human.  

Jane is a wonderful film about a fascinating person.

A Touch of Optimism

This was an interesting week, supplying enough material for a month’s worth of blog posts.   The challenge is to make sense of it all and synthesize things into a single blog post that carries a message.

By George, I think I’ve got it!

The week was bookended by two events—co-lecturing an Entrepreneurial Finance class with Elatia Abate, a dynamic, enthusiastic, and optimistic thinker who is doing great work on the future of work (see her enlightening and inspiring Ted talk at _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBRlUzzYfLc).   I tried to serve as the set-up man, delivering my stark message on the Four Horsemen of the Career Apocalypse (Debt and Demographics/Technology/China/Politics and Regulatory State) that will combine to create a world that will create career upheaval and dislocation in ways that are fundamentally different than the one that my generation had to face.  Elatia’s message is that this set of conditions and risks requires an entirely different mindset to survive, and, indeed, a different way of thinking will create opportunities out of this environment.  She presented the antidote to my darker vision of challenges that younger people face entering the workforce.  While I think our presentation needs to be tweaked a little--it was more the first dress rehearsal of a play where bridges and connections need to be smoothed out a bit.  The underlying message is an important one.   The careers of this generation will be more different than mine than mine was to my grandfather’s, and people will need to be much more entrepreneurial and resilient  than in the past in order to have satisfying and prosperous careers.  

On Friday, I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Austan Goolsbee, Booth School of Business economist and economic advisor to Barack Obama.  We had an engaging conversation, and while I certainly had views that were different than Goolsbee (more than one business executive has referred to Goolsbee as Booth’s “token socialist”), I found him to be very personable, witty and sometimes uproariously funny.   In his remarks, Goolsbee said that there is a deep flaw in the model of the Federal Reserve—that is a reversion to the mean.   The Fed models out a large increase in home prices as portending an increase in consumer spending, and that simply has not occurred.   We will have slow and steady growth, not a reversion to the 2006 days.   Goolsbee asserts that 2006 was NOT normal and that the Fed is way overconfident about reversion to the mean (the 2006 mean).   We will have growth in which exports and innovation lead growth, and will be less reliant on consumer spending and housing.  His brief forecast played it safe and said that the near term future would look more or less like the recent past--- 2 to 2.5% growth.  

But was more interesting to me, and where we have agreement, is his rejection of the position of the "secular stagnationists."  Despite the post-crash struggles, he believes it is a mistake to extrapolate the last eight years into the future.   The United States has a growing population (it would be a mistake to unduly restrict immigration), and the most productive workforce in the world.  We have a deeply ingrained entrepreneurial and innovative culture that reaches beyond Silicon Valley.  More than any other advanced economy, U.S. businesses are more likely to adopt innovative products and methods.  He stated flatly that given these realities, it is impossible to be a pessimist and think like the secular stagnationists.

My week began and ended with personal interaction with two very bright, energetic and exuberant people.   Between my professional work, which often involves working with organizations that did not adapt to change rapidly enough, and the continuous drumbeat of political strife by the MSM, it is easy to overweight the negative.  It is vital be be around people that constantly remind us that change is not straight line, that disruption is normal, and that growth is sometimes painful.  

And that a sense of humor lubricates it all, which both Ms. Abate and Mr. Goolsbee have in spades.

I'm grateful to have had my week bracketed by the opportunity to have time with these two important thought leaders.

ISIS visits NY

Yet another vehicular terror attack was visited upon the West, this time in New York City.

A radical Uzbekitani here on a "Diversity Visa" rented a truck and plowed through pedestrians and cyclists in lower Manhattan, killing 8 and injuring 15 while exclaiming "Allahu Akbar."

The attack provoked the usual empty words from leaders like New York City mayor Bill DeBlasio, "Our spirit will never be moved by an act of violence."  Some see this as inspirational.   I see it as tepid and hackneyed and precisely the opposite of what should be said.  Our spirit SHOULD be moved by an act of violence.  A wanton act of violence DEMANDS that it be moved.  We should be roused to anger and firmness of purpose to do what needs to be done to protect our citizens from this savagery.  

President Donald Trump at least tweeted out his response which called for the stepping up of extreme vetting, to which foreign policy expert Richard Haas responded, "Potus call for extreme vetting irrelevant to radicalization via Internet; worse, his policies could add to likelihood of radicalization."

I take issue with Dr. Haass on two fronts.  First, while his first statement is technically true, we do not know how this terrorist was radicalized (in person or via Internet).  Second, his assertion that Trump's policies could add to the likelihood of radicalization has absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.  This is the same rationalization that led Obama to conclude that the closing of Gitmo was required because it led to increased radicalization.  That thinking ultimately led to the release of unreformed terrorists and the ill-conceived Bowie Bergdahl swap.  As between the views of Dr. Haass (which contemplates no action) and President Trump (which responds with action), I come down on the side of action.  

But the reality is that Islamic terror remains a very, very difficult problem to solve.   Even my old professor, the usual clear eyed Daniel Pipes struggles with it.  He once stated that we need to permit Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. but not Islamists.  That is not a very helpful statement because it leaves unanswered the obvious question, "How do you tell the difference?"  And, to Dr. Haass's point, it does not address the issue of radicalization once they are here.

Unfortunately, the debate on social media seems to be binary; that is, between those that favor severely restricting or banning Muslim immigration, or the European model, which is a nearly free flow of Muslim immigrants, and accepting as London mayor Khan, that terror is now "part and parcel of daily life." 

Neither choice is a good one.   As with North Korea, we don't have good choices available to us at the moment.   A Muslim ban (which Trump has not suggested) is inconsistent with our core values of religious freedom and freedom from religious bigotry.  An open policy leaves us vulnerable to the kind of terror and social problems Muslim immigration has created in Europe.  The undeniable fact is that while we may wish to tolerate Islam, there are parts of Islam that are not yet fully prepared to reciprocate.

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to put together a commission of experts to address the problem.  That is one campaign promise that he has yet to fulfill.  We need to create realistic and concrete policy choices that help us reduce the risk of these attacks.   And accepting these attacks as "part and parcel" of modern life can't be one of them.

It needs to focus squarely on risk assessment and tolerance and empirical evidence and not brush it away with meaningless labels like Islamophobia.  No one, for instance, would decry a Catholic for having reservations about sending their 10 year old boy away on a woodlands religious retreat staffed with only Catholic priests and no other supervision.   No one would dismiss it by claiming, "Well, only a minority of priests engage in unseemly behavior."   Radical Islamic terrorism needs to be addressed in the same cold, sober light, without using labels such as "lone wolf," "Islamophobia," "Xenophobia" which serve generally only to cut off real factual analysis and risk assessment.