GATES ON RACE: Do you know what the professors are talking about?

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022

Quite frankly, we pretty much don't: The headline on the essay suggests the presence of an important discussion.

The essay appeared this past weekend in the New York Times' Sunday Review. The promising headline to which we refer went exactly like this:

We Need a New Language for Talking About Race

In our view, that headline was very promising. Plus, one of the essay's two authors was Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, a person who is very sane and also very well-known.

In part, Professor Gates is well-known because of his popular PBS series, Finding Your Roots. With apologies to Professor Curran, this essay's co-author, and for reasons of simplification, we'll sometimes proceed as if Professor Gates wrote the essay by himself, which he actually didn't.

Do we need a new language for talking about race? Depending on what that claim might end up meaning, it seems to us that we certainly do! At one point, the two professors—Gates and Curran—even offer this:

 Race is, to steal a line from Wordsworth, “too much with us.” 

That strikes us as a promising statement, depending on where it goes.

Professor Gates is visibly sane on his long-running PBS program. He shows a great ability to identify with celebrity guests of various races and ethnicities as he explores the life stories of some of their many ancestors.

We'll have to say that there is one minor okey-doke which he constantly pulls on that program. We'll classify this as a major pet peeve. As we'll see a bit later on, it shows up, in a limited fashion, in last weekend's guest essay.

There is that one okey-doke. But Gates comes across as a good, decent person when we watch his popular PBS program—and as someone who understands the history of "race" in the brutal American context.

We think we may know what Gates has in mind when he says that we need that new language. Unfortunately, goodness and decency aren't enough when dealing with such an important topic.

Clarity is required too. With that in mind, consider the way the professors' essay starts.

Below, you see the way the guest essay starts. We'll include the essay's headline, and its opening paragraph:

We Need a New Language for Talking About Race

The other day, while teaching a lecture class, one of us mentioned in passing that the average African American, according to a 2014 paper, is about 24 percent European and less than 1 percent Native American. A student responded that these percentages were impossible to measure, since “race is a social construction.”

Do you understand that opening paragraph? So far, we pretty much don't.

We think we may understand the exchange which the authors describe, but we aren't real sure. It's an exchange between one of the professors and one of his students. We'll guess the exchange went like this:

The professor's role in this exchange is easy to understand. By now, we'll guess that most people understand that "the average African American" has many ancestors who would have appeared in a census as "black," along with a substantial number of ancestors who would have been listed as "white."

Apparently, the average figures turn out to be something like 75% percent "black" and 24% "white." We'll guess that most people understand what this means:

If you make your way back on the genealogies of most African-Americans, most of their ancestors will be black, but something like a quarter of their ancestors will be white. On average!

The professor's statement in that classroom exchange seems fairly straightforward. But how about what the student said? To us, the meaning of the student's statement doesn't seem quite as clear.

What exactly did the student mean in that reported exchange? What did the student mean when he or she reportedly said that such percentages are impossible to measure because "race is a social construction?"

Just as a simple matter of fact, those percentages are not impossible to measure. With that in mind, what did the student mean?

We don't know what the student meant, and the professors never really try to explain. We'll guess that the student may have meant something like this:

Within our society, individuals are socially defined as being "white" or as being "black," full stop. As an individual, you don't really have any choice about the way you'll be see and defined. 

People will be socially defined as black whether they want to be or not. They will be socially defined as being black no matter what the percentages on some DNA test might say.

Is that what the student meant? We have no idea. Below, you see the fuller way this essay started. We'll admit that, after three paragraphs, we still don't have a clear idea of what is being said:

 We Need a New Language for Talking About Race

The other day, while teaching a lecture class, one of us mentioned in passing that the average African American, according to a 2014 paper, is about 24 percent European and less than 1 percent Native American. A student responded that these percentages were impossible to measure, since “race is a social construction.”

Given our country’s history of scientific racism—and all of the horrible crimes and abuses that African Americans have been subjected to in the name of science—the fact that race is a social invention and not a biological reality cannot be repeated too much. However, while race is socially constructed, genetic mutations—biological records of ancestry—are not, and the distinction is a crucial one.

To be fair, we really can’t blame this student for being confused. To varying degrees, we have all inherited a muddled understanding of race, ancestry and phenotype from the Enlightenment, an era when European savants freed themselves from biblical explanations of the species and claimed the right to tell all of humankind—particularly Africans and people of African descent—who we supposedly are. But if we don’t disentangle these concepts, we may miss the great promise of using genetics to push back against a very long and sad history of the misuse of science for pernicious purposes.

In paragraph 3, the professors say that the student was "confused." Since they've never tried to explain what the student meant, we aren't sure if we agree.

That said, the professors have made what seems to be a very important statement. In paragraph 2, the professors have said this:

The fact that race is a social invention and not a biological reality cannot be repeated too much. 

Race is not a biological reality, the professors have said. Race is a social invention. 

They've said this distinction can't be stated often enough. But what exactly do they mean when they draw that distinction? To what extent have they explained either one of those crucial terms?

Briefly, let's be fair! At this point, we've only read three paragraphs of a longer essay. But the authors are discussing the most important topic in American history and in modern American culture, and it's important that they make their (important) meanings clear.

It seems to us, as their essay begins, that they may be failing to do so. In paragraph 2, they refer to a phenomenon—"scientific racism"—which they make no attempt to define. They throw in a reference to "genetic mutations" which only muddies a claim which would otherwise be fairly straightforward: "biological records of ancestry" are simple scientific facts.

Then we get to paragraph 3, and the confusion deepens. In their attempt to be fair to the confused student, the professors tell us this:

To be fair, we really can’t blame this student for being confused. To varying degrees, we have all inherited a muddled understanding of race, ancestry and phenotype from the Enlightenment, an era when European savants freed themselves from biblical explanations of the species and claimed the right to tell all of humankind—particularly Africans and people of African descent—who we supposedly are. 

"We have all inherited a muddled understanding," the professors say—and you'll almost never lose money betting on some such assertion. But for better or worse, their fuller statement about this muddle goes like this:

We have all inherited a muddled understanding of race, ancestry and phenotype...

Most readers will feel familiar with terms like "race" and "ancestry." But how many readers would feel comfortable if asked to explain what a "phenotype" might be?

We'll guess the answer would be very few—and with the insertion of that term, the reader's muddle may deepen.

We trust Professor Gates to be a good, decent person. We admire Professor Gates as someone who can identify and empathize with human beings, living and dead, of many "racial" and ethnic types.

We admire Professor Gates for that highly visible ability. But Professor Gates is also a Harvard professor, and our experience what that gang takes us back several years.

By the time his essay is done, how clearly has Professor Gates explained the very important concepts at play in this badly-needed essay? We'd say he hasn't done so especially well, and beyond that—surprise of surprises!—editors at the New York Times quite possibly didn't notice.

Do we need a new language for discussing race? Yes, we think we certainly do—and that language must be understandable even for rubes like us.

The professors seem to be making important points. But after you've read their entire essay, can you really explain what they've said?

Tomorrow: We'll guess the professors meant this