NYTimes | As
Mrs. Clinton herself said last year, “I don’t believe you change
hearts, I believe you change laws. You change allocation of resources,
you change the way systems operate.”
What,
even, would the form of this conversation be? Editorials? Panels?
Reports? “Hamilton”? Even the last, which Mrs. Clinton encouraged her
audience to listen to, won’t prevent more Alton Sterlings, or get an
ex-con back into mainstream life.
Mrs.
Clinton is trying to win an election, and it isn’t the time for novelty
or tilting at windmills. But she has said herself that we must change
both laws and attitudes. If she is serious about dedicating her first
100 days to getting work for underserved people, then policies — not
conversations — would do much more to prepare black America to take
advantage of those opportunities.
What
if, instead of calling for a conversation, Mrs. Clinton had called for
revitalized support for vocational schooling to help get poor black
people into solid jobs that don’t require a college degree? Or an end to
the war on drugs, which furnishes a black market that tempts
underserved black men away from legal work. Or ensuring cheap, universal
access to long-acting reversible contraceptives, to help poor women
(who praise these devices) control when they start families. Or
phonics-based reading programs, which are proved to be the key to
teaching poor kids how to read. All poor black kids should have access
to them just as they get free breakfasts.
These
narrow policy proposals may not have the emotional reach of a
conversation, and in and of themselves they will not stop the next
Philando Castile either. But they would do more for black America than
any amount of formulaic dialogues, or exploring the subtle contours of
whites’ inner feelings about black people. Maybe there could be
compromise: Let’s have a national conversation, but make it about
legislation, not feelings.
0 comments:
Post a Comment