Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote '90 recently published a study arguing that the economic disparities slavery created between free blacks and those who were slaves largely dissipated within two generations after emancipation. According to his colleague, Eric Edmonds, he is "really blazing the way in an important area. Prior to his study, this particular area has been ignored" ("Study: Slavery's effects lasted just 2 generations," Nov. 6). Having caught scent of the study, the politically-correct hordes at Dartmouth are up in arms. In a letter to the editor in The Dartmouth ("Overstepping One's Bounds," Nov. 14), Andrew Arthur Schmidt '02 accuses Prof. Sacerdote of "mocking his profession," denounces his conclusion as the "unconscionable" product of either "blatant racism" or "complete ignorance" and tops it off by invoking the Ku Klux Klan and bashing right-wing radio. Similar expressions of outrage and accusations of racism have been circulating via email. A response from the black community is expected in the near future.
I was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying that the administration's aggressive push towards racial diversity was misguided and that what should be emphasized instead is intellectual diversity. The reactionary responses to Prof. Sacerdote's study corroborate this belief. Under Dartmouth's narrow and superficial definition of diversity, Prof. Sacerdote's politically-incorrect study is, a priori, racist, fascist and contrary to the principles of multiculturalism that the administration has sought to impose upon the community.
Amid all this indignation, the research that Prof. Sacerdote actually produced has been overlooked. The result of this has been much reactionary histrionics, but very little actual analysis or criticism. Contrary to what Mr. Schmidt said, Prof. Sacerdote does not claim that "because after two generations descendents of free blacks and descendents of slaves were at equal economic levels the effects of slavery have disappeared." On Page 25 of his study, Prof. Sacerdote says that "This paper has demonstrated that on certain basic outcome measures, namely literacy, schooling and occupation, the descendants of slaves 'caught up' to the descendants of free blacks within two generations."
Unencumbered by knowledge, Mr. Schmidt can only make generalizations such as "Slavery's cultural and economic ramifications clearly reverberate today, in every American community." Unlike Prof. Sacerdote, he presents no evidence -- empirical or anecdotal -- to substantiate his point. While he claims that anecdotal evidence makes the study "useless," he fails to provide any such evidence. Prof. Sacerdote, on the other hand, begins his study with a quote from Jesse Owens: "In America, anybody can become somebody." (Owens, the grandson of slaves, won four Olympic gold medals.) Furthermore, does every, yes, every American community suffer from the cultural and economic effects of slavery? Without an incredible amount of data and research, this assertion cannot be falsified. In the social sciences, if theories cannot be falsified, they are worthless.
While Prof. Sacerdote's study might indeed be exploited by far-right groups with avowedly racist agendas -- this does not include David Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh or the editors of National Review -- calling it an example of "blatant racism," as Mr. Schmidt does, is absurd. Just because something can be twisted in order to advance racist claims does not mean that it is racist in itself. In The "D," Prof. Sacerdote stated that "There's nothing positive you can say about slavery." I suppose Mr. Schmidt thinks that this is just a front for the vast right-wing hegemonic paradigm to which Prof. Sacerdote subconsciously subscribes. On the contrary, the study indirectly reveals just how resourceful and strong the descendents of slaves were in overcoming the problems that slavery had created for them.
Far more egregious, however, is the sententious and repressive attitude that Mr. Schmidt and his fellow ideologues have adopted toward Prof. Sacerdote's study. The title of his piece, "Overstepping One's Bounds," suggests that there exists -- or needs to exist -- in the academy restrictions on what topics can and cannot be researched and what conclusions can and cannot be made. When Mr. Schmidt excoriates the "unconscionable conclusion" that Prof. Sacerdote arrived at, he is essentially saying research on slavery must necessarily arrive at certain pre-determined conclusions. This attitude is antithetical to both liberal education and traditional liberalism.
A few weeks ago, Professor Michael Bronski wrote in The "D" that criticisms aimed at Gay and Lesbian Studies were "yet one more instance of response from the far right of the American conservative movement to attack the most traditional of academic freedoms" ("Foundation ridicules 'bizarre' Dartmouth classes," Oct. 31). When you replace "far right of the American conservative movement" with "politically-correct leftist establishment," the hypocrisy and "complete ignorance" of Mr. Schmidt and his fellow ideologues becomes obvious. So much for tolerance, then.
