From Black and White to Shades of Gray: Race and Class in American Political Discourse

By Francis Bartus

Posted 12/17/05

            In today’s America, despite the abolition of de jure segregation and the many successes of the Civil Rights movement, African-Americans and Latinos continue to lag far behind Euro-Americans in a variety of socioeconomic indicators.  In fact, as recently as 2001, 21.4% of Latinos and 22.1% of African-Americans lived below the poverty line—versus only 7.8% for whites. (CQ Researcher 259) Other indicators, including unemployment rates and median household income, confirm the reality that these minorities tend to be of a lower socioeconomic class than most Euro-Americans.  Policymakers and Civil Rights activists have attempted to address this problem through various forms of affirmative action—encouraging minority achievement in venues ranging from the workplace to higher education.  Despite their efforts, significant obstacles remain in a few key areas—most notably, residential segregation.  Since such a large portion of minorities fall into the category of the “working poor,” many question whether affirmative action and integration policy should favor all people of low socioeconomic status rather than minorities.  This conflation of race and socioeconomic status complicates the debate over affirmative action and integration, fueling controversy and feeding conflict between conservatives and liberals.

            Foremost among controversial racial issues, affirmative action takes on many forms that defy popular conception.  In an effort to promote diversity and compensate for past discrimination, affirmative action programs in the form of aggressive recruitment, race-norming, set-asides, and quotas exist in workplaces and universities nationwide.  It is in the former of these two institutions that race and socioeconomic status most readily conflate.  In an increasingly competitive labor market, in which manufacturing jobs are on the wane and unskilled immigrant labor drives wages lower and lower, Euro-Americans must compete fiercely against minorities and one another for gainful employment.  This leads many Euro-Americans to perceive affirmative action as a threat to their livelihood; in fact, according to a 1994 survey conducted by the University of Chicago, 89% of Euro-Americans either “opposed” or “strongly opposed” affirmative action in hiring for African-Americans. (Patterson 151)  This trend suggests that the debate over affirmative action is rooted in economics; ultimately, it is caused by the competition of groups over scarce resources—notably, gainful employment and education at America’s elite colleges and universities.

            Indeed, many proponents of affirmative action, including noted scholar Orlando Patterson, acknowledge the essentially economic nature of the conflict.  In his book, The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s “Racial” Crisis, Patterson points out that

The most important way in which affirmative action helps those who are on the outside is to provide them with access to circles and networks that they would otherwise almost never penetrate.  For Afro-Americans, one of the most egregious effects of past ethnic exclusion has been their isolation from cultural capital and personal networks that are essential for success in America. (160)

Though he does not write merely of wages and other traditional forms of capital, he reinforces the nature of racial competition while pointing out another important trend—the tendency for racial conflict to conflate with class.  Gains in “access” and “networks” perfectly describe the advantages of membership in the middle- or upper-class.  These are precisely the economic benefits he feels affirmative action should provide for minorities—more specifically, “working and middle-class Afro-Americans.” (Patterson 9) So, not only is the debate over affirmative action in the workplace an essentially economic issue, it conflates quite clearly with socioeconomic status—aiming primarily to grant upward mobility to lower-class African-Americans.

            Stemming from the problematic conflation of race and socioeconomic status, a debate rages over which factor should be considered by affirmative action programs.  This debate takes place primarily in the arena of higher education.  To many, it seems that since such a large proportion of minorities are socioeconomically disadvantaged, affirmative action programs could simply replace race with socioeconomic status as a factor for admission.  However, since a larger absolute number of Euro-Americans are poor, such policies would not achieve the same level of racial diversity as race-based policies.  Nonetheless, many Euro-Americans believe that the primary disadvantages faced by minority applicants stem from socioeconomic disadvantage, not racism.  Certain schools, like the University of Michigan’s undergraduate liberal arts program, answer this concern by providing equal weight to racial minority status and socioeconomic disadvantage—which it considers mutually exclusive categories.  (CQ Researcher 6)  Nonetheless, many Euro-Americans question the moral legitimacy of elevating middle- and upper-class African-Americans above similarly qualified Euro-Americans.

                Proponents of affirmative action acknowledge this problem, but they arrive at different solutions.  Moderate Orlando Patterson believes that “about five years from now… all women and minority persons… who are from upper-middle-class backgrounds or higher… should be excluded from affirmative action considerations.” (193) He adds that, in fifteen years, the program should be “wholly class-based.” (Patterson 193)  His solution strikes a chord with conservative African-American activists who believe that though affirmative action remains necessary today, it can be successfully phased out later.  Alternately, some proponents argue that one problem will correct the other—that is, affirmative action programs can be designed both the elevate individual African-Americans while simultaneously improving the socioeconomic conditions for the group as a whole.  Erwin Chemerinsky espouses this argument in his essay Making Sense of the Affirmative Action Debate, writing that

Affirmative action in rewarding government contracts can also be justified as a way of benefiting economically disadvantaged areas.  Preferences for minority businesses and set-asides will ideally help to cure the enormous disparities and wealth and poverty between whites and minorities. (Higham 92)

Government set-asides for minority businesses, it might be argued, could also be phased-out once economically disadvantaged minority neighborhoods catch up to white neighborhoods.  Interestingly, though fiercely debated, these proposed solutions both stress the complexity and importance of the conflation of race and socioeconomic status.

            Though less hotly debated than affirmative action, persistent residential segregation provides a significant barrier to integration and racial equality.  Yet unlike the challenges of integration on campus and in the workplace, housing integration has gotten worse, not better.  In fact, in some major urban centers, such as Detroit, segregation is higher now than ever.  Socioeconomic factors, too, lie at the center of the debate over housing integration policy.

            Like many other racial problems, residential discrimination appears a self-perpetuating cycle.  Due to a decline in manufacturing jobs, workplace discrimination, and non-tenured African-American employees, many major cities have become centers for crime and poverty—conditions which reinforce racial stereotypes that lead to segregation.  In a process known as “ghettoization,” poverty and crime concentrate in small, typically minority neighborhoods.  Thus, the widely-held Euro-American perception that African-Americans neighbors will lower property values appears more plausible.  When African-Americans do move into Euro-American neighborhoods, Euro-Americans leave—thus lowering property values.  The classist and racist assumption becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

                 Acknowledging the conflation of race and class in housing segregation, Douglas S. Masey argues for a comprehensive solution in his essay Residential Segregation and Urban Poverty.  He outlines a two-pronged plan, in which both race- and class-conscious steps are taken, arguing that

By themselves, programs targeted to low-income blacks will fail because they will be swamped by… the disastrous neighborhood conditions that blacks experiences because of segregation. (Higham 114)

In short, a comprehensive solution must enforce fair housing laws and fund certificate programs for African-Americans moving into “integrated suburban settings.” (Higham 115)  Masey’s solution, which involves moving poor African-Americans into Euro-American suburbs, may seem radical to some; middle-class Euro-Americans seem unlikely to accept a plan that involves moving poor families into their neighborhoods.

            Nonetheless, though proponents of an active public policy comprehend the conflation between race and socioeconomic status and propose plans that address both, many Euro-Americans remain unconvinced that race remains a divisive factor in today’s society.  The statistics are not on their side.  Until the African-American and Latino level of poverty falls to the level of Euro-American poverty, and until housing integration finally pervades in U.S. society, it appears that race must remain a decisive, if problematic, factor in all public policy.    

Works Cited

Higham, John. Civil Rights and Social Wrongs: Black-White Relations Since World War II. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park: 1997.

Issues in Race, Ethnicity, and Gender: Selections from the CQ Researcher. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.: 2005.

Patterson, Orlando. The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s “Racial” Crisis.  Basic Civitas, New York: 1997.