Principles for Productive Conversations About Race

During the last presidential election cycle, then-candidate Obama called on Americans to talk about race.  Yet today, it's remarkably difficult to find examples of conversations about race that advance understanding rather than leaving participants frustrated and more entrenched in their positions than before.

In the course of teaching Constitutional Law this semester, I've given some thought to the characteristics of useful conversations about race.  I tend to think that the most helpful guidelines are procedural rather than substantive.  Here's a non-exhaustive list:

1. Strive for empathy. Before the word "empathy" became politically charged rhetoric, it referred to the entirely reasonable exercise of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. What does it feel like to be an economically disadvantaged white man who lost a job to an applicant of color with lower test scores and less work experience? What does it feel like to be a person of color whose daily experience of racism is discounted as exaggerated or imaginary? Engaging in good-faith efforts to understand the racial frustrations of those not similarly situated to you furthers a more nuanced conversation regarding racial policy.

2. Don't cite to your friends.  There are various permutations of this argumentative flaw.  One of the more common involves sheltering controversial views behind non-white people.  In its most basic form, the claim is:  "I have non-white friends; therefore, what I'm saying can't be racist."  Some have dubbed this the "some of my best friends" defense.  Perhaps proving the point, others advise making friends with "intelligent and well-socialized blacks" as an "amulet against accusations of prejudice."  A slightly more advanced version of the "non-white friends" argument goes something like this: "My non-white friend agrees with this argument. Therefore I'm not racist, the argument I'm making can't be a racist argument, and moreover my argument is correct."  Put simply, this isn't useful.  The fact that one non-white person, somewhere, once upon a time, agreed with a particular argument doesn't make that argument correct.

3. Don't assume homogeneity. Within and among various racial groups, there is a wide range of opinion on race-related issues ranging from affirmative action to employment discrimination. And people who agree on the big picture often draw quite nuanced distinctions when it comes to the details. Assuming that people of a particular race agree about everything amounts to stereotyping. Figure out what other people really think, and respond to that.

4. Don't substitute anecdotes for arguments.  The fact that you "know a few school teachers" is an unhelpful basis for drawing conclusions about access to technology among inner-city schoolchildren nationwide.  Examples, of course, are different from anecdotes -- specific examples can be helpful in illustrating abstract points.

5. Don't cite to outliers. Observing that Barack Obama is the President does little to further an argument that blacks, as a group, are not subject to systemic disadvantage. There may be support for that claim, but isolated examples don't provide compelling support for a generalization about forty million black Americans.

6. Consider intersectionality. Most of us are privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others. Treating race in isolation ignores these various alternative axes of advantage and disempowerment. And considering intersectionality also furthers #1, above. Understanding what it's like to be disadvantaged on the basis of sexual orientation may further an understanding of what it's like to be disadvantaged on the basis of race.  Of course, there are important differences, which I don't mean to understate.  But certain aspects of the experience of disempowerment may translate across categories and, again, further our understanding of one another's experiences.

7. Avoid offensive rhetoric.   This should really be too obvious to say, but recent history suggests that it's not.  What purpose is served by referring to Elizabeth Warren's "$1.7 million dollar wigwam in Cambridge"?  To the extent you have a colorable argument, relying on this sort of language will ensure that no one will pay attention to the substance of what you have to say.

8. Question your starting assumptions.  I could give a lot of examples, but here's one that I discuss with my students.  In the affirmative action debate, a lot of people begin with the premise that "merit" is objectively ascertainable from grades and SAT scores. Do you know the correlation between SAT scores and college grades? If you don't, you should educate yourself before you engage in a discussion about how affirmative action results in the admission of "less qualified" candidates.  To get you started, consider this multi-year study involving nearly 78,000 students within the University of California system.

I would be interested in hearing others' ideas for facilitating better conversations about race, both in and beyond the classroom.