I hope John McWhorter’s latest column, which I see as misguided, doesn’t show that he’s running out of gas. His point is to show that substantial progress in racial relations between blacks and whites has occurred over the years. But who could deny that? African-Americans are represented far more in the media than they were when I was a kid, they are beneficiaries of Civil Rights Acts passed in the Sixties, there is affirmative action so that universities and businesses are far more integrated, and one sees and hears far less bigotry than was evident to me as a kid. Do we need more evidence.
McWhorter has given ample evidence of this progress before, and gives more in this column, including a bit on how Mother Jefferson (Zara Cully, a black woman), despite being a better actress on television than was Mother Dexter (Judith Lowry, a white actress) on “Phyllis”, was given short shrift. That wouldn’t happen today, and black actors are getting far more roles, and good ones, than they used to.
Despite this palpable progress in racial relations—progress that, if you listen to some black activists, is illusory—McWhorter says, correctly, that overall black people are treated worse than white people by the police, and have been for years:
For Black people in Los Angeles recalling how the L.A.P.D. had treated them for decades, for Black people in Philadelphia not long past the all but open racism of the police force there under Mayor Frank Rizzo, for Black people in Chicago remembering the racist profiling and abuse by the cops called the Flying Squad, the sheer fact of a Black man getting off on a murder charge was of epic significance. If anything, the fact that he was obviously guilty only amplified the victory.
For all the statistical discrepancies between Black and white Americans, interactions with the police may be the central driver of how many Black people experience racism. I noted this in my research and conversations in preparation for my book “Losing the Race” in the late 1990s, when I was sincerely trying to figure out why so many Black people spoke of racism almost as if it were the 1890s rather than the 1990s. There is a reason that the main focus of the Black Panthers was combating police brutality, that anti-cop animus was central to gangsta rap and that today Black Lives Matter may be more influential than the N.A.A.C.P.
Well, I won’t comment on whether the differential influence in the last sentence is true, or, if true, is a good thing; but differential police treatment of races surely accounts for the different reactions of blacks and whites to O. J. Simpson’s acquittal of murder in 1995. And to McWhorter, that difference would be reduced today. McWhorter calls this “progress in race relations”. I think that, if it were true, it would be progress in performative antiracism, but not genuine progress. But read his column by clicking on the headline, or find the article archived here:
First, McWhorter makes it clear, as it is be to anyone with neurons, that O. J. was guilty as hell of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. McWhorter makes that view clear several times, including in the first paragraph, where he describes the racial differences in reaction to Simpson’s acquittal (all bolding is mine):
Among the signature images of O.J. Simpson’s acquittal of the murders of his ex-wife and her friend was the contrasting tableaus of Black people grouping in front of television screens applauding while white people watching it were shaking their heads — appalled, perplexed and even disgusted by a verdict that flew in the face of obvious fact. Those contrasting perspectives have gone down as demonstrating a gulf of understanding between the races.
That gulf persists, but it narrows apace, and if the verdict came down today, it would be a lot less perplexing to many white people than it was back then. Many would understand why the jury acted as it did. We might even see some of them applauding along with Black people.
To McWhorter, that last sentence instantiates racial progress, but more on that later. More on his opinion of Simpson’s guilt:
The evidence of Simpson’s deed was overwhelming despite the ineptitude of the prosecution team. The verdict and the response to it among the Black community weren’t signs of support for Simpson; they were protests against a long legacy of mistreatment and even murder at the hands of the police.
. . . the sheer fact of a Black man getting off on a murder charge was of epic significance. If anything, the fact that he was obviously guilty only amplified the victory.
I agree with McWhorter. I was on Simpson’s defense team, and the DNA material I got must be kept confidential. But I will say that it’s my personal opinion, from all the evidence that came out during the trial and thereafter, that Simpson was guilty as hell. But the prosecution apparently could not convince the jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so he walked. (DNA evidence, for one thing, seemed to only confuse the jury. And then there was the glove and the racism of Mark Furman.)
So a black man, in the face of all the evidence (and yes, the prosecution was inept) was acquitted of murder. Black people applauded because, though perhaps many thought him guilty, his acquittal represented a black man beating a racist system. White people groaned because many also thought him guilty, and there may also have been some racism in that reaction.
I can fully understand these reactions. But understanding them doesn’t mean I approve of them.. A man was on trial for his life, yet he was apparently being judged by the public on his pigmentation and historical racism by cops. If you thought he was guilty but applauded the verdict because Simpson was black, you’ve judged the system, not the man.
And now McWhorter avers that if the trial took place today, it’s likely that, because of improved racial relations, many white people would also judge the system and join blacks in applauding the verdict:
Today I see white people far more aware. That’s why when I fast-forward the Simpson verdict to 2024, I picture some white people getting the news on their phones and doing high-fives and group hugs, some of them in tears. They would be no more likely to see Simpson himself as a hero than were the jurors of 1995, especially given that modern America is more sensitized not only to racism but also to abuse of women. But they would be more likely to see the acquittal as a kind of payback for all of the white cops who have been exonerated for murdering Black people. It would be processed, I imagine, as a teaching moment of sorts.
This smacks strongly of Robin DiAngelo. High-fiving and group hugs as a reaction to Simpson’s acquittal is a performative act: it’s saying, “Look, I understand that black people are mistreated by the cops! I’m not a racist!” But if you’re celebrating and still thought Simpson did the crimes, then you’re happy because a guilty man went free—and only because that guilty man was black. To me, that’s making Simpson stand for all blacks, though, as McWhorter notes, Simpson really wasn’t considered part of the black community,and was not an activist. A verdict should be judged on the content of the man’s crime, not on the color of his skin.
Others may agree with McWhorter, but I think this hypothetical scenario, if it occurred, would be evidence not of real racial progress, but of performative antiracism by whites. If you see that as progress, so be it. I can give a lot of harder evidence that there’s been racial progress in the past three decades, and especially in the past six decades. You don’t need to make up some dumb scenario to show this, just as a way to mark Simpson’s death.
As for me, I am a white man who always thought Simpson guilty. His acquittal was bad for society (look what happened to him afterwards), and that was the last trial in which I acted as an expert witness for DNA. I didn’t see the acquittal as a sign of improved racial relations, but as a miscarriage of justice largely due to the incompetence of the prosecution. I ran out of gas at the moment he was acquitted, and from then on turned down all requests by defense lawyers to use me as an expert witness.
If the acquittal happened today, I would not be high-fiving others, crying, or engaging in group hugs. That doesn’t prove that I’m a racist, because I agree that cops treat blacks worse than whites. But I also believe in evidence, and the evidence adduced in the Simpson case, and revealed soon after by reporters, is not a reason to celebrate his acquittal.
And I’m wondering why McWhorter had to confect this hypothetical, performative scenario to demonstrate that racial relations have improved in America.
McWhorter:
All that leads me to think that America has a problem with police violence in general. But here’s the thing: I am accustomed to vigorous resistance to that argument from not only Black but white people, too.
It is in this context that the stark racial divide in the reception of the Simpson verdict three decades ago seems rather antique. There has been, regardless of the disagreements that inevitably persist, progress.
There are, I’m sure, better ways to show progress.
“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”:
If I remember correctly the defense was able to exclude from the jury box anyone who had ever taken a biology course. DNA evidence was new to the general public then, but not to anyone with the most basic introduction to biology.
McWhorter seems like he is “running out of gas” (as per your first sentence). It’s almost like he made up this scenario simply to have something to comment on. Made up scenario, supporting a made up conclusion. Since it’s all made up, it’s not really tethered to anything.
Yes. There had been a tremendous amount of progress, but white people high-fiving a 2024 Simpson acquittal would in fact not be among such evidence.
I hope that McWhorter gets his mojo back and leaves such hypotheticals out of his repertoire in the future.
re blacks and police. Look at the statistics. The overall evidence is that men treat the police worse than women,and the police treat men much worse than women. Why is that; and why is that the public consistently sees it in the black/white binary? I must be one of those crazy, conspiracy guys.
Agreed, let’s quote from Roland Fryer’s (2017) paper, where he found no police bias in shootings, but did find some bias in use of non-lethal force. From the conclusions:
“Interestingly, as use of force increases from putting hands on a civilian to striking them with a baton, the overall probability of such an incident occurring decreases dramatically but the racial difference remains roughly constant. Even when officers report civilians have been compliant and no arrest was made, blacks are 21.2 percent more likely to endure some form of force in an interaction. Yet, on the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we are unable to detect any racial differences in either the raw data or when accounting for controls.”
Now a 20% increase in likelihood of rough handling is significant, and likely should not happen, but it’s also not that big an effect.
Factor in that in the US today a black male youth is 1000% more likely to commit a homicide than a white male youth. If the police are reacting to 1000% differences in crime rates by being only 20% biased, then one could argue that they are doing pretty well.
Realistically, any rational and sensible cop is going to be more suspicious and wary of a male than of a female, and of a 20-yr-old rather than a 60-yr-old, and of a black person rather than a white.
While no-one would blanch at mention of the first two of those, plenty would freak out at any mention of the last, even though the difference in crime rate is just as real and just as big.
Exactly. One could easily break down the demographics by age, educational status, income, etc. and find consistencies.
Agree 100%. I like and admire John McWhorter tremendously, but he was way off-base here.
And what about the misogyny (unintentional, I’m sure) of the piece? “It’s okay to be happy that a man murdered a woman and got away with it, because something something racist police and justice system”?
Not great, Bob!
“But if you’re celebrating and still thought Simpson did the crimes, then you’re happy because a guilty man went free—and only because that guilty man was black.”
My 2 cents: I’m white and now think the decision was correct (I didn’t back then), not because Simpson wasn’t guilty as hell, and not because he was black, but because prosecution has a very high standard to meet – guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – and they blew it. This is always a risk (think the Ammon Bundy case). If prosecution can get their verdict without having to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then pretty much by definition innocent people are going to get punished for the crimes of others and guilty people will still go free. It’s a fine line to walk, and extremely imperfect, but unavoidable in a society with a strong tradition of civil rights and liberties.
That’s an interesting and thought-provoking point.
” I didn’t see the acquittal as a sign of improved racial relations, but as a miscarriage of justice largely due to the incompetence of the prosecution.”
I think that is a fair and reasonable take, although what I recall about the case was different. I admit I was one of the millions who were fascinated by the case, and watched Geraldo’s show daily. My conclusion was that the prosecution (which did make mistakes – trying on the glove was a disaster) was mightily hampered by the actions of the police department itself whose respect for the integrity of the chain of evidence was so atrocious that an acquittal seemed necessary, at least to me.
Let’s not forget Judge Lance Ito who had absolutely no control over the proceedings. The judge allowed OJ’s defense to put the LAPD on trial. I think OJ could have murdered his victims in the courtroom in front of the jury and he still would have been acquitted because it was not about him. He owed every free moment of his life to Judge Ito.
I agree, this was an absolutely misguided construct to write a column around. Seeking to demonstrate progress in race relations is a worthy endeavor, especially since at present we’re being told they are worse then ever (which of course is palpable nonsense). But to use celebrations for the acquittal of a murderer as a vehicle to demonstrate such progress is just bizarre.
I can understand that perhaps Simpson’s acquittal might have been a cathartic event for some Black people, and I can understand that there would be a lot of pain, anger, resentment and frustration stemming from a legacy of discrimination.
But the man murdered two human beings. Real progress would be more apparent if no one celebrated this, or any, failure of our legal system to provide justice.
If progress is to be defined as applauding a miscarriage of justice in the name of racial equality, we are definitely in the territory of what Coleman Hughes calls neo-racism, where two wrongs do make a right.