Re-constructing History, Part 8: First, Do no Harm

The Hippocratic Oath enjoins the doctor to “first, do no harm”. I suspect most of the advocates of Social Justice movements think they do no harm and a great deal of good. I suspect that is not the case and the Social Justice movements, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the 1619 Project (1619) in particular, do harm on multiple dimensions. The situation is like the doctor who kills a patient while trying to excise cancer. Slavery and racial discrimination are a cancer. There is no doubt about it. But a successful cure cannot kill the patient.

1619 seeks to re-write American history to show slavery is at the root of every institution in the US. CRT aims to show this as well as with the concepts of institutional racism, white supremacy, white privilege, and white fragility. Part 4 of the Maskirovka series covers these issues. The question is whether the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) employ these concepts to excise a cancer or to kill the current social structures and institutions. If they argue racism is permanently rooted in every social structure and institution in America, then they argue for a wholesale restructuring of American society and new institutions that are not tainted with slavery and racism.

This path does harm on several dimensions. Harm that may be far worse than the disease. There are many sites that provide arguments against CRT and 1619, so I will focus on the harm they cause, regardless of any merit they may possess.

• Racism against whites. There is an old saying, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. SJWs ignore that when then advocate discrimination against whites. Most of the SJWs’ efforts are just that, discrimination against whites to allow blacks to get on their feet after years of racism. The problem is that it does not work. It hobbles and discriminates against whites but does not elevate blacks. American has tried various preferential programs since the 1960s and none of them have made blacks more competitive and prosperous. There are some arguments, these programs have done just the opposite.

Undermines Black confidence and growth. See Faustian Bargain Part 2 for more information and details of the discussion below. The problem with preferential programs is two-fold. First, they seek to enable not through growing skills and capabilities, but by holding the other group back. Their argument is that holding the other group back provides the space for blacks to gain experience and grow skills. But an objective analysis shows the results are tenuous. The SBA reports:

In FY2020, the federal government awarded $34.0 billion to 8(a) firms:

• nearly $20.5 billion was awarded with an 8(a) preference ($9.3 billion through an 8(a) set-aside and $11.1 billion through an 8(a) sole-source award);
• $2.2 billion was awarded to an 8(a) firm in open competition with other firms; and
• $11.3 billion was awarded with another small business preference (e.g., set-asides and sole-source awards for small businesses generally and for HUBZone firms, women-owned small businesses, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses).

These billions of dollars in set-asides are 40 years into the program. Clearly, the magnitude of these set-asides shows the program is not helping minority firms to prosper and grow. In some respects, they are like crack cocaine. They initially make the person feel good, but get them addicted and then destroy them.

As part 2 of the Faustian Bargain series shows, the same can be said for the Great Society and many of its follow-on programs. Trillions of dollars later, are the poor better off? Arguably not.

These preferential programs do two things. First, many people wonder whether a Black person got to the position they hold through merit or solely preferential treatment. This undermines the person’s credibility until they can prove capability. Second, it possibly makes the person less confident in their abilities and wondering if it was only preferential treatment that got them a position.

Much more research needs to be done on the effects of these programs.

• Impairs historical understanding. Teaching1619 as history undermines a historical inquiry process. The problem with teaching it as history is three-fold:
  • As many historians have noted, it is not historically correct. Parts may be valid, but not the overall narrative. Students will have an imperfect understanding of American history and may not have access to key data and discussion to understand our culture, governance systems, and economic systems.
  • Evidence in schools shows students are not encouraged to disagree or debate. Teachers, following the 1619 teaching plans, present 1619 as a dogma with no opportunity for debate and discussion. Now, if teachers present1619 as one view and part of an inquiry into US history, it may be fine. The SJWs present this absolute truth.
  • 1619’s teaching disparages America’s two foundational documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. By stating they are rooted in slavery and racism, they set the stage for people to ignore them and implement new socio-economic models.
• Undermines American competitiveness in a highly competitive world. The world is increasingly interconnected and competitive. If American education focuses on internal conflict, it provides competitors the opportunity to catch up and surpass us.
  • Impairs critical thinking. Presenting an unproven dogma as fact without the opportunity to critically assess it undermines critical thinking and turns the learning process into an indoctrination process. Students discouraged from engaging in critical thinking and encouraged to accept dogma. This makes them more susceptible to dogmatic manipulation.
  • Forces out other subjects or curtails their coverage. There are only so many hours in a school day and days in a school year. Adding new subjects forces schools to curtail or eliminate other subjects.
  • Destroys the concept of excellence. Standards continue to drop in education. Entire subjects, such as Mathematics are called racist. Adhering to standards is called “acting white”. Yes, I heard those exact words used against an instructor in a doctoral program because she adhered to standards. Colleges and universities are now either considering dropping SAT/ACT as standards for admission or have already dropped them.
• Destroys standards in education and society. When students leave the academic world, they take the lowered standards with them.

I suspect the teachers that embrace and support CRT and 1619 do it because they see many minority students struggling in their classrooms and see the damage poor education does to them when they become adults. They are seeking a way to reach out to these students and enable them to learn the skills they need to lead happy and productive lives. Unfortunately, CRT and 1619 and other preferential treatment do more harm than good. We need to develop programs that bring these struggling students up to standards, not lower the standards and condemn society.