slaved blacks in the past and because thernabolition of slavery only resulted in newrnforms of oppression that left blacksrnhardly better off than before. Thoughrnprospects for blacks have in recent yearsrnimproved, the damage that racism continuesrnto cause remains of vast dimensions.rnYet Taylor maintains that this doctrinernreally demeans blacks: “It impliesrnthat blacks are helpless and cannot makernprogress unless whites transform themselves.”rn”Implies,” I think, goes too far,rnsince one might hold whites responsiblernfor the low position of blacks but maintainrnthat blacks can still act to betterrntheir situation. But no doubt most proponentsrnof the doctrine see it in just thernway Taylor describes.rnThe position to which Taylor takesrnvigorous exception relies on one part ofrnSt. Paul’s definition of faith: “the evidencernof things not seen.” To lay barernthe lack of substance in the “whiteracism”rnaccount, our author deploysrnthree main arguments. First, he positsrnthat empirical evidence lends little supportrnto the view that blacks must constantlyrnbattle discrimination, A studyrnhe cites investigated bias in employmentrnthrough the dispatch for interviews ofrnwhites and blacks with identical job qualificationsrnand concluded that blacks andrnwhites did not significantly differ in thernoffers of employment they received. Anotherrnstudy failed to substantiate the oftrepeatedrnclaim that the police treatrnblacks worse than whites. Here, it seemsrnto me, Taylor is on exactly the right track:rnthe prevalence of white racism is a hypothesisrnto be tested, not a social fact tornbe taken for granted.rnHaving thrown into question the keyrnassumption of contemporary bien pensants,rnTaylor next poses a challenge. Ifrnwhite racism injures blacks, what aboutrnother groups that have in the past sufferedrnfrom severe discrimination? Surely,rn”other nonwhite races should face obstaclesrnsimilar to those faced by blacks.”rnOnce more, Taylor contends, the factsrnfalsify the hypothesis under test. Chinese-rnand Japanese-Americans have attainedrnhigh levels of employment andrnincome, fully comparable to those ofrnwhites, despite the invidious prejudicesrnthey faced in the not-far-distant past. Ifrnthey have surmounted the obstaclesrnthrown in their way, why cannot blacksrnconfront with equal tenacity their disadvantages?rnFinally, whatever one thinks of therncivil rights movement, no one can denyrnits impact: “America has made historicallyrnunprecedented efforts to correctrnthe evils of the past.” As racism hasrndiminished, one would expect the situationrnof blacks to have improved concomitantlyrn—if indeed the white-racismrnhypothesis is true. In fact, rates of illegitimacy,rncrime, and drug use amongrnblacks have increased, not lessened, sincernthe onset of the civil rights revolution.rnOnce more, the racism hypothesis falls tornthe ground.rnI suspect that Taylor’s opponents willrnremain unconvinced, but, if intellectuallyrnhonest, they must at least confrontrnhis arguments. How to do so? Theyrnmight weaken the racism hypothesis sornthat it asserts a tendency rather than anrninevitable connection: racism, one couldrnargue, confronts its victims with problemsrnthey may be unable to overcome. Ifrna group can meet discrimination successfully,rnas the Asians have done, wellrnand good, but if blacks cannot, racism remainsrnpart of the explanation for theirrntroubles. But to this rejoinder, Taylorrncould respond once more with his firstrnargument: positing the malign social effectsrnof racism is itself a hypothesis thatrndemands investigation.rnTaylor makes it abundantly clear thatrnwide acceptance of the white-racism explanationrnhas had drastic consequences.rnBecause of the evils imputed to racism,rnmassive programs of affirmative actionrnhave become an entrenched feature ofrnour national life. “The original impetusrnfor affirmative action was understandable.rnIf racist barriers had kept largernnumbers of talented blacks from gettingrngood jobs or going to good schools, suchrnpeople would surely be found with littlerneffort. Once found and given equal opportunity,rnthey would succeed at thernsame rates as whites.” Unfortunately,rnthe expectations that initially motivatedrnaffirmative action have not been bornernout; blacks have not responded to thernboost offered them with a rush towardrnthe higher-paying professions. But advocatesrnof reverse discrimination clingrnto their cherished dogmas. If the programsrnhave not succeeded as intended,rnthe solution is obvious: we must havernmany more of the same programs.rnAs Taylor documents substantially,rnracial quotas have become virtually unavoidable.rnNo important university lacksrnan “affirmative-action officer,” whilerntests used by police and fire departmentsrnhave again and again been revised to ensurern”correct” results. Does not justicerndemand the abolition of such blatantrnmeasures of discrimination? Proponentsrnof affirmative action, such as the legalrnphilosopher Ronald Dworkin, would, Irnthink, reply to Taylor with a demurrer.rnWhite racism, in their view, has sornblighted the prospects of blacks that nornquick remedy will work: affirmative actionrnmust remain in place for the indefiniternfuture. And what of whites deprivedrnof jobs? This, so far as I can makernout, is held to involve no injustice; asrnDworkin explains in convoluted fashion,rn”equal respect” does not require “equalrntreatment.” Orwell’s “some are morernequal than others” at once springs tornmind.rnWhatever the sins of afhrmative action,rnthe contemporary system of welfarernincorporates an even more harmful feature.rnAffirmative action can do nothingrnfor those blacks who have no jobs at all.rnSince—obviously—white racism standsrnindicted for the situation of the underclass,rnit is the duty of the white majorityrnto ameliorate their plight. A vast systemrnof welfare, constantly extended, endeavorsrnto assist members of the underclassrnuntil they can stand on their own feet torntake sufficient advantage of the “equal”rnopportunity affirmative action offersrnthem. But once more, Taylor insists thatrnthe contentions of liberal orthodoxy bernsubject to empirical inquiry. Far fromrnhelping blacks, the welfare system, hernargues, has worsened their situation,rnprincipally by its effects on the family.rnHigh rates of illegitimacy have severelyrnweakened the black family: many blackrnchildren who live in large cities have littlernif any contact with their fathers. Therncollapse of the black family, Taylor contends,rnhas led to precisely the increases inrnpoverty, unemployment, and crime ascribedrnby conventional wisdom to whiternracism. And the welfare system has greatlyrncontributed to the demise of the blackrnfamily, since young women have no financialrnincentive to avoid pregnancy untilrnmarriage. They know that others willrnsubsidize any children they have.rnTaylor’s analysis poses an urgent taskrnfor contemporary social science. If he isrnright, the entire welfare system needs tornbe reexamined: the benefits the system isrnsupposed to bring must be weighedrnagainst the damaging consequences Taylorrnhas adduced. Further, even thosernwho continue to blame white racism forrnthe problems of blacks need to confrontrnTaylor’s critique of welfare. If the welfarernsystem worsens the position of blacks.rnJULY 1993/37rnrnrn