Is Bennett getting a fair shake?

[Pangloss]

For those of you not familiar, the story concerns the statement made by William Bennett (a former Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration) on his radio show to the effect that if you were to abort every black baby then the crime rate would go down. Here's the actual quote:

 

It's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could--if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

(Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007342)

 

As Ellis Henican said in Newsday, yikes!

 

Clearly he's speaking of a hypothetical which even he considers to be abhorrent, but my question is, is the statement so antagonistic and insensitive that it requires an apology?

 

His position basically prosecutes an idea put forth in the best-selling new book "Freakonomics", which is popular on all sides of American politics. Bennett's basically saying that it's a bad idea for anti-abortion advocates (like himself) to pursue that angle, because it leads to the kind of hot water that his comments landed him in.

 

The book's proposition is that legalized abortion has contributed to a falling crime rate in the latter half of the 20th century, the idea being that people who were less financially capable were able to get abortions, instead of having babies who would grow up in questionable circumstances and thereby contribute to the crime rate. (A stretch in some people's minds, but the research is quite compelling, and again, this is supported by quite a large number of intelligent people of many different political persuasions.)

 

Some of the responses to the situation have been pretty frothy. Some Democrats in congress have spoken out against the comments, and asked for an apology.

 

Here's one of the more interesting statements, made by Juan Williams, a former White House correspondent for the Washington Post and long time Fox News Channel contributor:

 

What's clearly wrong is if you wanted to say, oh, gosh, you know, maybe we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child, or let's get rid of all the Christians, they certainly have been involved in lots of wars. How about the Jews? You know what? We have trouble with older people in this country. Clearly, they, you know, cause a great burden on our Social Security system. Maybe we should do away with some of these older people.

 

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but... isn't he doing there the exact same thing that Bennett did? So... it's okay when a Democrat does it? Is that the deal?

 

 

Aside from the sensitivity angle, the other question would be whether this showed us something about hidden racism in Bennett. But does it show us that, or does it show us, just as reaction to Hurricane Katrina may have, that there are people in our society that are willing to jump on stereotype bandwagons the moment they appear?

 

What do you all think?

 

 

Additional background on the story may be found here:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/03/130457.php

[swansont]

Here's one of the more interesting statements' date=' made by Juan Williams, a former White House correspondent for the Washington Post and long time Fox News Channel contributor:

 

"What's clearly wrong is if you wanted to say, oh, gosh, you know, maybe we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child, or let's get rid of all the Christians, they certainly have been involved in lots of wars. How about the Jews? You know what? We have trouble with older people in this country. Clearly, they, you know, cause a great burden on our Social Security system. Maybe we should do away with some of these older people."

 

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but... isn't he doing there the exact same thing that Bennett did? So... it's okay when a Democrat does it? Is that the deal?

[/quote']

 

Without the context I can't be sure, but I don't think he's advocating those things. It seems like he's saying that all those statements are pretty much equivalent. So yes, he's saying the same thing as Bennett, to show that it's wrong.

[Martin]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/1/105329/697

 

A revealing story about Bennett (no race angle, just his philosophy of public educations) reported by the former chairman of the FCC

 

---quote---

A true story about Bill Bennett

By Reed Hundt | bio

From: Politics

When I was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (1993-97), I asked Bill Bennett to visit my office so that I could ask him for help in seeking legislation that would pay for internet access in all classrooms and libraries in the country. Eventually Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller, with the White House leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, put that provision in the Telecommunications Law of 1996, and today nearly 90% of all classrooms and libraries do have such access. The schools covered were public and private. So far the federal funding (actually collected from everyone as part of the phone bill) has been matched more or less equally with school district funding to total about $20 billion over the last seven years. More than 90% of all teachers praise the impact of such technology on their work. At any rate, since Mr. Bennett had been Secretary of Education I asked him to support the bill in the crucial stage when we needed Republican allies. He told me he would not help, because he did not want public schools to obtain new funding, new capability, new tools for success. He wanted them, he said, to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers,charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education. Well, I thought, at least he's candid about his true views. The key Senate committee voted almost on party lines on the bill, all D's for and all R's against, except one -- Olympia Snowe. Her support provided the margin of victory. On the House side, Speaker Gingrich made sure the provision was not in the companion bill, but in conference again Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, with White House support, made the difference. The Internet has been the first technology made available to students in poorly funded schools at about the same time and in about the same way as to students in well funded schools.

---endquote---

[Douglas]

As I see it, Bennet was simply citing Levitt's book (which is old hat now), and he made it abundantly clear that the idea was abhorrent. The Dems have beaten Bush to a pulp over Katrina, and Rove to a pulp over Valerie Wilson/Plame, so Bennet just happens to be handy right now.

 

Anyway, Levitt is probably right, however, I'd amplify a bit and say that if you aborted all teen pregnancies, and all pregnancies of unwed woman on welfare, the crime rate would go down. Of course, we'd lose a lot of productive people too............Guess you'd have to do a cost/benefit analysis.

[Mokele]

Frankly, I think he's a racist asshole. Why? Look at the comments again. Sure, Freakenomics said that about *general* abortion by reducing the number of unwanted kids in poverty etc, but he's claiming that total abortion based on *race*, not economic status or ability to parent effectively, would reduce crime. Even that he considers it a possble solution shows an inherent racism, as he obvious thinks crime is caused by black people, not by poverty or anything else. He even gos on to say that, even though it could not and should not be done, it would have the effect he claims.

 

The democrat quote, on the other hand, states that the positions are "wrong", probably from a both moral and logical standpoint, but I agree that it's kinda close and wasn't really a smart thing to say. He also seems to be pulling more from historical suggestions of eugenics an such.

 

Basically, the democrat made it clear he considered such ideas "wrong", whereas Bennett merely said that it was immoral and unfeasible, but re-iterated that his belief that blacks cause crime as true.

 

Mokele

[john5746]

Basically' date=' the democrat made it clear he considered such ideas "wrong", whereas Bennett merely said that it was immoral and unfeasible, but re-iterated that his belief that blacks cause crime as true.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Yes, that is the difference between the two quotes. It implies that black people are the problem. But, if Jesse Jackson said it, people would read it differently. He isn't saying they are the cause, just that there is a larger crime rate with blacks - that is a fact. Eliminate that and your crime rate would go down. If you are white, especially conservative, don't talk about minorities.

[YT2095]

I wonder if some of this might have to do with the new Florida gun laws?

since many of the gun crimes are portrayed as black on black shootings, relax the laws and hey presto, instant population/crime control?

[Pangloss]

If you are white, especially conservative, don't talk about minorities.

 

That rumbling sound you hear is MLK rolling in his grave.

[swansont]

Frankly' date=' I think he's a racist asshole. Why? Look at the comments again. Sure, Freakenomics said that about *general* abortion by reducing the number of unwanted kids in poverty etc, but he's claiming that total abortion based on *race*, not economic status or ability to parent effectively, would reduce crime. Even that he considers it a possble solution shows an inherent racism, as he obvious thinks crime is caused by black people, not by poverty or anything else. He even gos on to say that, even though it could not and should not be done, it would have the effect he claims.

 

The democrat quote, on the other hand, states that the positions are "wrong", probably from a both moral and logical standpoint, but I agree that it's kinda close and wasn't really a smart thing to say. He also seems to be pulling more from historical suggestions of eugenics an such.

 

Basically, the democrat made it clear he considered such ideas "wrong", whereas Bennett merely said that it was immoral and unfeasible, but re-iterated that his belief that blacks cause crime as true.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

I'm no fan of Bill Bennett, but what I see in this is that he was pointing out the absurdity in sometimes taking statistics and doing a seemingly valid extrapolation points you toward a course of action that is immoral.

 

If it is true that people of lower economic status represent a disproportionate amount of crime, and X (pick your ethnic group) represent a disproportionate fraction of the poor, then the conclusion that "Xs cause more crime" is a valid conclusion, but it's not true that "Xs cause more crime because they are X" I think what's happening here is that people are assuming that last item.

[john5746]

That rumbling sound you hear is MLK rolling in his grave.

 

Sorry, wrote that in a hurry. What I meant to say was that extreme lefties attack ANYTHING conservatives say about minorities. I support Bennet. He could have picked a more politically correct example, but that was the point to his message - some shock value to express the stupidity of the caller's reasoning.

[Pangloss]

I figured it was just a vagaries-of-online-communication thing.

 

Regarding Mokele's point above, I guess I can understand where you're (Mokele) coming from with that. I just don't see how we can condemn Bennett like that on the basis of that single remark, which *must* be interpretted in order to find him to be a racist. If you have to read between the lines to reach a conclusion, that's a time to ask for clarification, not round up the townfolk and grab a rope.