A small yet highly publicized group of right wing Afro-American academics and ideologues has in the last ten years appeared on the political scene. Among the most well known are Clarence Pendelton, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Glenn Loury Alan Keyes and Joseph Perkins. The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, finance most of their research. Their theories and programs seek to render the struggle for Afro-American equality impotent, subvert the united working class front and split the unity between the Afro-American people and the trade union movement. They serve as political and ideological flunkies and spokesmen of the most racist, militarist and anti-communist elements of the Reagan Administration.
Designating themselves “new Black conservatives” they have fought to put the US Civil Rights Commission into the hands of racist and anti-civil rights forces; supported the nomination of the arch reactionary Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; are bitter opponents of affirmative action and support the abolition of the minimum wage. Like the ultra-right in general, they target the Afro-American family for the most vicious attacks. For them, all of the problems that Afro-Americans face, that in actuality result from the crises of capitalism, can be blamed on the Black family. In international affairs they are supporters of Star Wars, aid to the Nicaraguan contras and the UNITA and MNR bandits in Angola and Mozambique. They are opponents of sanctions against apartheid South Africa.
George Gilder’s Wealth And Poverty (1981) and Charles Murray’s Losing Ground(1984) provide their theoretical framework. Gilder states their main thesis forthrightly when saying, “real poverty is less a state of income than a state of mind.” [p12] The economic and social devastation of many Afro-American urban communities is, according to Glenn Loury, caused by “the values and behaviors of some inner city residents.” [“A Call To Arms for Black Conservatives”:10, in A Conservative Agenda For Black Americans(1987), ed.Joseph Perkins] Murray poses the rhetorically racist question, “…how much of Black family breakdown is really a phenomenon of Black culture and how much is a matter of economic class?” [p130] Like Moynihan, he finds Black culture in general and the Black family are the cause. Murray places the principle blame upon young Black males between 16 and 24. In each instance the structural and cyclic crises of US capitalism go unmentioned. These processes are purposely ignored in their rush to blame Afro-Americans for everything from high unemployment, to the national debt and racism itself.
THOMAS SOWELL: BLACK CULTURE CAUSES INEQUALITY
Sowell argues that racism and exploitation are alien to capitalism. While he acknowledges that the causes of racial inequality are “multiple.” none of these causes are rooted in the capitalist system and all are generated by the culture of the victims of inequality. [Knowledge and Decisions (1980): 258; Ethnic America: A History (1981): 292] Based upon this “understanding”, Sowell concludes that the capitalist market tends to pay racial and ethnic groups at the average level of their aggregate productivity. [Economics and Politics of Race (1983): 160)] The capitalist structure is, therefore, inherently anti-racist; inequality results from the inherent cultural inadequacies of Afro-Americans. “The point” Sowell declares, “is not to praise, blame or rank whole races and cultures. The point is simply to recognize that economic performance differences are quite real and quite large.” (my emphasis) [ibid. : 136] Capitalism, therefore, rationally and equitably rewards these “economic performance differences.” Racial inequality reflects capitalism’s rational ordering of inherent cultural differences between racial and ethnic groups. Moreover it is a recognition that: “Some cultures have been more technologically or organizationally effective than others…” [ibid.:137] What is manifested in the unequal status of Afro-Americans
is their “technological or organizational effectiveness”, not the racism inherent tothe system. One is struck by the enormity of the blame shifting. Sowell’s point is to praise capitalism and condemn Black people, to apologize for US capitalism’s historic and inherent racism and to attack the struggle against it.
To further make his point Sowell adopts as the measure of “technological or organizational effectiveness” IQ test performance. This definition of convenience is designed to obscure the significance of the contribution of Afro-American material and spiritual culture to the life of the US working class and people. Furthermore, Sowell appears unmindful of the opinion of the majority of social scientists that IQ test performance neither measures intellectual potential nor the level of a people’s culture. However, they have proven to be biased against Blacks, women and the working class. IQ tests first appeared in the early years of this century and were used to discriminate against Jewish, Italian, Polish, Chinese and other immigrants. More recently, they have been used to justify the denial of social and economic equality to Afro-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans and women. What Sowell argues is that IQ test performance represents the intellectual inability of Afro-Americans to perform at the level of white ethnic groups.
Sowell portrays Black life and culture as pathological and socially disorganized. He claims to have “discovered” that not only are Afro-Americans less intelligent, but lazy , as well. He says, “…the enduring stigma of hard manual, or menial labor has produced an anti-work ethic handicapping blacks…” [p141] Such nonsense indicates that Sowell, not the Afro-American people .
Sowell, however, serves his masters well. He says what racists think but dare not say. From the sewer of racist stereotypes Sowell brings forward the following “observation”: “No one seriously doubts that black Americans as a group play better basketball than white americans or that Jews are disproportionately represented among the great violinists of the world.” What for some appears to be a benign statement in actuality is Sowell’s way of justifying the brutal exclusion of millions of Afro-Americans from access to scientific and technological education and to the arts generally. The outcome of Sowell’s position would be to rationalize a new racist division of labor in the epoch of computers and robots. Afro-Americans generally, our youth in particular, would be reduced to social and economic outcasts. Sowell’s mindless fascination with capitalism leads him to accept the growing poverty among Black people and the repression which would be directed to those who are seen as social pariah.
These views, of courses, are not new. Herbert Spencer, the founder of Social Darwinism in the 19th century and, more recently, certain sociobiologists argue that capitalism socially orders inherent cultural and genetic capabilities and limitations of individuals and racial groups. Drawing on this perspective, Sowell holds that inequality is both inevitable and necessary. [Conflict of Visions (1987): 121] As with the right wing economists Friedrick Hayek and Milton Freidman, Sowell holds that inequality is a condition of freedom.The question Sowell must answer is — freedom for whom? inequality for whom? His answer is a forthright admission that capitalist freedom requires class exploitation, racial and gender oppression. Thus the for whom questions are answered by justifying racism, sexism and working class oppression. Milton Freidman argues that, ultimately, the measure of freedom is the extent to which monopoly capital is unfettered in its drive for maximum profit. While embracing Friedman’s doctrine Sowell holds that in perpetuating and utilizing inequalities based upon race and gender monopoly capital epitomizes “rationality”. (Rationality is academic langauge which denote class interest.) Hence, capitalism, according to these theorists, while not creating racial and gender inequality, merely rationally orders them in a manner that supports the drive for maximize profit.
Moreover, Sowell argues, bourgeois democracy can only afford Afro-Americans legal equality, not substantive equality.[ibid:226] In return for what is no more than the illusion of equality, Afro-Americans, the working class and women must “refrain from interfering with the choice of individuals”.[ibid] Which means,refrain from conducting struggles to better their lives and expand democracy.
WALTER WILLIAMS: RACISM IS A RATIONAL CHOICE
Walter Williams constructs a “sophisticated” deductive argument in defense of racial inequality. He develops language and definitions which are devoid of social significance and, therefore, have meaning only within the narrow confines of his system. For instance, Williams substitutes for the socially meaningful concept racial inequality, the words prejudice and discrimination. Both are used in a manner to remove from them any social significance and to leave them with meaning only within the structure of Williams’ logic. Hence, prejudice in Williams’ system is merely to pre-judge, as he says to make a judgement based upon an existing level of knowledge. Discrimination is an informed preference, as when being ” discriminating in one’s tastes”. Neatly Williams sets the logical ground rules, definitions and rules of syntax in a way that all conclusions will harmaonize with his initial assumptions. The most basic of all his assumptions is that capitalism is a rational system which rewards individuals based upon the quality and quantitiy of their contributions to the system. Hence racism , according to capitalist logic as defined by Williams, is an impossibility. Without going into further detail it becomes clear that language for Williams’ serves a very specific class purpose.Although he would most certainly deny the social and class foundations and purposes to which logic and language are ultimately put; it is without doubt that both in Williams system bend inevitably to serve the interests of monopoly capital. He redefines racism in such a manner as to allow him to characterize monopoly capital’s inherent racism as rational behavior whose intent is solely to expand freedom and prosperity. Thus,to limit the “right” of monopoly capital to pre-judge or discriminate is to limit the freedom of choice and therefore undermine freedom and prosperity. For Williams, irregardless of the results, the intent of monopoly capital has nothing to do with racism. Because racism defies the very logic of capital. Thus begins what will become a shameless defense of racism under the guise of protecting freedom of choice and rationality.
Like Sowell, he argues that racism is too costly for the capitalist to indulge in. Apparently Williams does not find it necessary to consult the vast scholarship that proves the opposite.[ This includes everything from the National Urban League’s annual State of Black America reports, to Victor Perlo’s Economics of Racism.]This scholarship proves that monopoly capital operates to perpetuate racism becuase it would be too costly not to perpetuate racism and the system of double exploitation of Afro-American workers upon which it is based. Williams, however, argues that the capitalist market rationally gives a price to the economic performance of individuals in a manner as to make “effective business sense”. His point is to make it appear that the intent of monopoly capital is to make production and market behavior rational and thus non- racist . To establish this point Williams says the following, “It is impossible for an observer to say for sure whether choices based on particular physical features reflect the indulgence of preference(taste) or the attempt to minimize information costs(prejudice) or the recognition of real differences”.[The State Against Blacks(1982):25] (my emphasis) He then says, “…certain discrimination may come from rational behavior of individuals minimizing information costs or confronting real differences in the market…”[ibid] When Williams speaks of what is possible for “an observer to say”, his “observation” is from monopoly capital’s side of the class divide. As such, his “observations” of racism are from the class position of monopoly capital, of the most racist forces in our society. He articulates the question in a way that totally removes capitalism from any blame and finds Afro-Americans and the working class to be the cause of racial inequality. In terms of proven racism in the hiring and promotion practices of large corporations, Williams “observes” that in actuality, “white recruits have the desired productivity”. Redlining by banks, for Williams, is not racism, but merely reflects that banks have not been allowed to charge high enough interest rates to make doing business profitable in the Black community. Nor are rip-off prices charged in the Black community by large food chains racism. This practice reflects the need to charge more to offset doing business in “high crime areas”.
Williams contempt for his own people is only equaled by his disdain for the minimum wage and the trade union movement. According to Williams, the minimum wage fosters and promotes racism. Illustrating the perverseness of his reasoning, Williams argues:
Suppose that an employer has a preference for white employees over black employees…If there is a law such as the minimum wage law that requires that employers pay the same wage no matter who is hired, what are the incentives? His incentives are that of preference indulgence. [ibid: ] (emphasis in the original) In his set of suppositions, Williams never once supposes that “preference for white over black employees” could be racist. Nor does he suppose that racism constitutes a material incentive for monopoly capital in its effort to maximize profits and split the working class. Or that the “preference indulgence” of monopoly is neither for Afro-American or white workers, but their own class interest. Williams makes other assertions. He argues that the minimum wage “forces” employers to pay Afro-American workers above the value of their labor. This assertion is , of course, among the oldest of racist stereotypes. Like the slave owners, Williams argues that Afro-Americans are lazy , unproductive and more costly to hire than are whites. It has recently been argued that even during chattel slavery Blacks were paid above their level of productivity.[see Fogel and Engerman’s Time On The Cross] Moreover, in agreement with the most anti-union forces in our country, Williams urges African americans to accept whatever price monopoly capital is prepared to pay them for their labor; because, in all likelihood, he reasons, that wage reflects their level of productivity. The main substance of Williams reasoning, however, is that workers in general should accept whatever crumbs monopoly capital is willing to give them, and willing give back what ever monoploy capital demands . When so doing, Williams argues, workers and Afro-Americans are behaving rationally; but when they act in their own class interest they suddenly become irrational.
Williams’ “observations” are , finally, superficial, and rooted in a profound ignorance of history. He is unable to understand that racism is first and foremost a socio- economic category, which emerges from a long process of capitalist development, the early accumulation of capital, slavery, genocide, colonialism and so on. As such it is an inevitable and necessary part of capitalist relationships of production. The drive for maximum profit is the socio-economic foundation of racism. Therefore, to the extent that Williams defends the class interest of monopoly capital and the drive for maximum profit, to the same extend must he defend racism. However, it is this which Williams wishes to obscure. Hence, his “novel” use of language. In the last instance, to obscure racism Williams is required to decend to new levels of idiocy. A path which he seems to gleafully welcome.
He says, “Employers’ substitution of higher skilled workers [to be read white workers(my insertion)] for low skilled workers[to be read Black workers] is (one) effect of the minimum wage law.”[ibid:39] The question must be put to Williams: When the transnationals close down plants and even entire sectors of industries, moving those plants to South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan are they substituting “higher skilled workers for low skilled workers” or are they substituting nations with repressive regimes which have no minimum wage and outlaw and brutally repress unions for those where workers have these rights? The answer is obvious to all but Williams and the motley group of flunkies who follow him. Williams, not only wants the minimum wage outlawed, he also wishes to overturn the Wagner Act, which legally protects the right of workers to collective bargaining. According to Williams, like the minimum wage, the Wagner Act and trade unions generally foster racism. [“Legal Restrictions On Black Progress”:64,Howard Law Journal,Vol.21 ,1978]
Williams’ opposition to sanctions against racist South Africa becomes clear once one understands Williams anti-labor position. Williams’ anti-sanctions position is in essence an anti-Black worker position. Moreover, he opposes sanctions against South Africa, because he would like to establish a similar racist, anti-labor regime in this country.
The reactionary depths of Williams’ line is, furthermore, illustrated if South Africa is used as an example. If , as he argues,the minimum wage, the Wagner Act and trade unions are responsible for racism, than how does Williams explain the legal system of apartheid fascism in South Africa where there is neither a minimum wage or legal protection of collective bargaining? Furthermore, if the minimum wage causes high Black unemployment, how does Williams propose to explain the absence of a minimum wage in South Africa side by side with horrible levels of unemployment among South Africa’s Black majority? Williams is unable to explain the contradiction between reality and his assertions, because to do so would demand that he admit that the minimum wage rather than restricting “freedom”, restricts the depths of bestiality to which monopoly capital will (and does ) go to maximize profits.
Williams’ abuse of Afro-Americans and the trade union movement is boundless. In order to substantiate his position that US white workers are the cause of racism, he argues,”As in South Africa, unions in the United States are also supporters of the minimum wage laws.[The State Against Blacks:45] Williams is ignorant to what most school children know. The all white unions in South Africa are controlled by the apartheid regime. As such they oppose the extension of a minimum wage or any protection to Black workers. They do, however, support the separation of Black workers to the lowest paying jobs, with the worse conditions . Most importantly, not only have US trade unions fought to raise the minimum wage and against a subminimum wage for youth, they have lead the struggle for solidarity with the Black unions in South Africa, against and apartheid’s super-exploitation of Black workers . Unlike the US working class, Williams dishonors Afro-Americans and the nation by his opposition to the minimum wage and support for apartheid.
GLENN LOURY: BLACK CAPITALISM AND TRADITIONAL VALUES
Loury asserts, “…all things considered, America is a good and great nation that affords vast opportunity to those prepared to apply themselves.”[“A Call to Arms for Black Conservatives”:12, in A Conservative Agenda for Black Americans, ed. Joseph Perkins] Loury is not defending America, but monopoly capitalism as a system that “affords vast opportunity”. The deeper suggestion, however, is that Afro-American unequal status results from their not “applying themselves”. In order that Afro-Americans might afford themselves of the “vast opportunities” of capitalism, Loury proposes “self reliance” and a return to “traditional morality”. Self reliance is nothing more nor less than Black capitalism. It is from behind this tattered and discredited banner that Loury launches attacks upon affirmative action and justifies the bestial cuts in social and economic programs by the Reagan Administration. Black capitalism, “advocates turning away from government and stressing self reliance.” He defends this strategy because “the historic cancer of racism has abated”. Indeed , while the process of racism’s abatement advances among the working people at the level of the Reagan Administration and monopoly capital it has dramatically intensified. “Traditional morality”,for Loury means submission to the dictates of racism. Loury has utter contempt for the working class morality embodied in the increasing boldness in the struggle for equality. For Loury, it is not the US imperialism and its promotion of exploitation, racism and death around the world that epitomizes immorality, but the Afro-American people.
Loury advocates a return to the strategy of Booker T. Washington. In the early years of the twentieth century Washington called upon Afro-Americans to submit to racism and accept their place at the bottom of a racist division of labor. His slogan which expressed this capitulation to racism was “Put your buckets down where you are”. If as, W.E.B Dubois argued at that time,the strategy of submission was suicidal, it is more so today. In the epoch of computers and robots,of space stations and the historic advance of all sciences, it is a crime against Black people to suggest their separation into the barrack rooms of ghetto capitalism under the guise of “self reliance”. The crime is compounded when calling this betrayal a “return to traditional morality”. For Afro-Americans to accept such a strategy would be tantamount to social suicide.
Loury and his colleagues, like the ultra-right racist generally, oppose Afro-American’s political assertiveness. In the face of the eloquence of the political sophistication of Afro-Americans, Joseph Perkins makes the following statement,”…blacks have been very unsophisticated politically. They have relied on their leaders to tell them what to think politically and how to behave at the ballot box. In short black politics has been the politics of hegemony.” [“Introduction”:3, A Conservative Agenda for Black Americans] (my emphasis) To satisfy Perkins’ definition of “sophistication” Black folk would have had to have voted for Reagan, rather than 95% against him in 1980 and ’84. The election and reelection of Harold Washington in Chicago, as well as, the election of Blacks as mayors in four of the nation’s five largest cities, the election of 23 independent minded members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Black folks’ championing the candidacy of Jesse Jackson for the US presidency, is for Perkins “politically unsophisticated”. Furthermore, Perkins is unable to see that Afro-Americans have not “relied on their leaders to tell them what to think politically”, but have produced that leadership which best reflects the class and all peoples interests of the Afro-American community. What Afro-Americans have not done is to follow the bankruptcy represented by Perkins and his colleagues. This , as well, is eloquent testimony to the political sophistication of Black folk.
Loury, Perkins, Elizabeth Wright and Larry Thompson can only see Afro-Americans in the most negative light. Rather than seeing the enormous accomplishments of Afro-Americans, they adopt a pro-racist characterization of the Black community as crime ridden, pathological and degenerate. They see Black youth, especially males between 16 and 24, as a new lumpenproletariat, whose only ambitions are to commit crime, take drugs and have unresponsible sex. Millions of Black youth, therefore, are not entitled to anything but police repression and long prison terms. Thompson argues for tough police action against Black youth, the suspension of their civil rights and the wider use of the death penalty.[“Dealing With Black- on-Black Crime”:31-32, A Conservative Agenda for Black Americans] Thompson, while calling for the harshest police measures against Black youth, has no proposals to deal with racist violence against Afro-Americans. Nothing is said about the KKK, the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Brotherhood and other racist organizations who openly call for violence against Blacks. No mention is made of Howard Beach, of the police murders in New York, nor of the frightful events in Philadelphia in May of l985, that left eleven people dead, five of them children, and an entire neighborhood burned to the ground. Who is to blame for this? Thompson and the “new Black conservatives” would probably blame this too on Afro-Americans.
ONCE AGAIN WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON
In the New York Times Review of Books[October 25,1987] Wilson says that he is a social democrat, holding views that parallel those of Michael Harrington. That being what it may, his book, The Declining Significance of Race(1978), provides aid and comfort to the enemies of full equality. Like the “Black conservatives”, Wilson argues that capitalism, in its post industrial stage no longer has a need for racism. Like them he fails to see that racism is primarily an economic category and there exists an inherent relationship between the oppression of Afro-Americans and he system that exploits all workers. Wilson sees racism primarily as a past and outdated policy of the government. Capitalism, he suggests, through its evolution, has outlived its need for racism. Wilson holds that racial barriers are no longer an obstacle to “the greatest opportunities for the better trained, talented and educated” Afro-Americans.[Yale Law and Policy Review,Vol.2:2/2,1984,”Race-Specific Policies and the Truly Disadvantaged”:278] The myth of the declining significance of race is based upon the equally erroneous myth about the flourishing of opportunities available to the so-called Black middle class. It never occurs to Wilson that in the professions generally and especially the natural sciences Afro-Americans remain a minuscule proportion. In many areas ,such as mathematics, computer science, physics and engineering Afro-Americans are practically non-existent. The numbers of Afro-Americans in colleges and universities have taken an alarming decline in the seven years of Reagan, putting the numbers below those of the late ’60’s. The myth of equality in the sciences and professions and the so-called separation of racism from capitalism is used by Wilson to argue that the real problems are “purely” class problems. Wilson’s peculiar “class analysis” leads him to oppose affirmative action as “race-specific” and unable to garner broad political support.[ibid:283] Fortunately for Afro-Americans and the working class, the AFL-CIO , and primarily the industrial unions which constitute its leading core, do not share Wilson’s “class analysis”. They have come out squarely in favor of affirmative action. Wilson’s misunderstanding of class and more importantly the class struggle leads him to the erroneous conclusion that under recessionary economic conditions, “the more that public programs are perceived by members of the wider society as benefitting only certain groups, the less support those programs will have.” [ibid] Wilson fails to understand that just as racism is inherent to the capitalist structure, the sharpening of the class struggle leads workers to the recognition that racism is alien to their class and its objectives. Workers understand far more about affirmative action than does Dr. Wilson. Increasingly they see the struggle for affirmative action as not merely “race-specific”, but as workingclass specific, as a measure to overcome the racial inequality imposed upon the working class by the bosses.
In his most recent book,The Truly Disadvantaged:The Inner City, The Underclass and Public Policy(1987) and in recent articles Wilson claims to speak for the “truly disadvantaged”. In this instance Wilson offers too little too late. He calls for “rational government involvement in the economy”. This involves long term planning,wage and price stability, favorable employment conditions and manpower training and eduction. Though he admits that Afro-Americans have been most severely affected by the combined impact of structural and cyclical crises, he is unable to recognized how this manifests the inherent racism of the capitalist system.Nor does he seem to understand how the impact of these crises are worsened by the racist edge of the Reagan Administration’s economic and financial policies. He is, therefore, unable to understand that any solution to this situation must, while addressing the impact of these crises upon the working people in general, take emergency and forceful measures to alleviate the special impact upon Afro-Americans. Furthermore, Wilson is unable to see that “rational government” will only be realized as a consequence of the defeat of Reaganism and its supporters in 1988. This will be the result of unity–class unity and all people’s unity.
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND DEMOCRACY
The views held by the “new Black conservatives” on democracy and the state are quite significant. Sowell, for instance, argues that inequality is built into the nature of human beings. Government must not upset this natural order. When government acts to guarantee and protect the rights of Afro-Americans and others who have historically faced discrimination, it runs the risk of creating greater inequalities and the “increased concentration of political power”. [A Conflict Of Visions: 128] Government, as he says, must be constrained in its support for and protection of the civil rights of its citizens. Government and the courts should not go beyond the guarantee of legal equality to the racially oppressed and women. Moreover, Sowell suggests, that while guaranteeing formal equality, what he considers natural inequalities must be perpetuated. In other words government and the courts should do nothing in the areas of affirmative action and comparable worth, because these inequalities are what Sowell considers “natural”. “Limited government” or what Sowell calls the “constrained state”, is limited to protecting the class interest and freedoms of the wealthiest corporations and individuals. His opposition to so-called big government, is essentially opposition to an expansion of government’s role in defense of the people’s rights. Though claiming to base his thinking upon the original intent of the framers of the constitution, his actual intent is to turn government and the courts into the private property of the largest corporations. In this respect Sowell does not differ from Ollie North, John Poindexter, William Casey and the other Irangate-Contra criminals. They claimed that in breaking the law they were living up to the original intent of constitution. Like them, Sowell believes in narrowing and even eliminating the democratic aspects of our legal and governmental system.
Walter Williams contends that to the extent that government expands its role in defense of democracy, to that extent does it limit freedom. [Howard Law Journal,op.cit] This lopsided thinking is understandable only if one recognizes what Williams means by freedom. Freedom is the unfettered “right” of monopoly capital to exploit workers, practice oppress racial minorities and women. Democracy is the action of people in defense of their rights. For Williams the two are incompatible. Hence, in defense of freedom Williams supports a large government role against democracy and the civil rights of the people.
Finally,these views represented a deeply anti-democratic sentiment. As such, they are totally opposed to the interest of the Afro-American people. It is a monumental hypocracy that this motley group of opportunist and charlatans would dare suggest that theirs is a “Black agenda”. In the last analysis they are highly paid tools of the most anti-Black and anti-workingclass and anti-women and anti-people political and ideological forces in our nation. Their exposure and defeat is part and parcel of and crucial to the defeat of Reaganism, for peace, democracy and social progress.
George Gilder, Wealth and Poverty, (New York: Basic Books, 1981)
Glenn Loury, “A Call to Arms for Black Conservatives”, in A Conservative Agenda for Black Americans, ed. Joseph Perkins (heritage Foundation, 1987)
Charles Murray, Losing Ground, (New York: Basic Books, 1984)
Larry Thompson, “Dealing With Black-on-Black Crime”, in A Conservative Agenda for Black Americans
Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions,(New York: William Morrow, 1987)
The Economics and Politics of Race (New York: Basic Books,1983)
Ethnic America: A History (New York: William Morrow,1981)
Knowledge and Decisions, (New York: Basic Books, 1980)
Walter E. Williams, The State Against Blacks, (New York: New Press,1982)
“Legal Restrictions on Black Progress”, Howard Law Journal Vol. 21, 1978
William Julius Williams, The Truly Disadvantaged:The Inner City,the Underclass and Public Policy (Illinois:University of Chicago Press,1987) “Race Specific Policies and the Truly Disadvantaged” Yale Law And Policy Review, Vol. 2 : 2/2 1984
The Declining Significance of Race, 2nd. edition (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1978)