Written by Bo Winegard.
Like many of his fellow Americans, Matt Yglesias has noticed that black people are vastly overrepresented at the highest levels of competitive basketball.
He is not wrong. The overrepresentation is undeniably striking. As of 2023, approximately 70% of NBA players were black. A curious, scientifically minded observer might find this pattern fascinating—and naturally ask the follow-up question: why?
But not Yglesias. Apparently troubled by the invidious stereotypes that might result from examining the causes of black overrepresentation in the NBA, he confesses that, “I have not looked into it [the causes of different racial representation] and frankly I don’t intend to, because I am happy living in a society where it is considered unseemly and inappropriate to preoccupy oneself with such questions.”
Socrates claimed wisdom by recognizing his ignorance. Matt, by contrast, seems to claim wisdom by embracing his ignorance—a curious anti-philosophical inversion. Matt is, no doubt, an intelligent man—which only makes his self-imposed nescience all the more perplexing, and in need of explanation.
I doubt that he is disconcerted by the potential discovery that blacks are better at basketball (on average) than whites because of some difficult-to-disentangle combination of genes and environment. Commentators have long joked about the relative lack of athleticism of whites, and Hollywood even made a movie about it appropriately entitled White Men Can’t Jump. Most whites do not seem to care—in fact, many find it amusing.
What Matt probably fears is that any attempt to explain Black overrepresentation in basketball might lead—by symmetry of inquiry—to uncomfortable questions about black underperformance on tests of cognitive ability. Or as Eric Turkheimer put it with characteristic lack of nuance:Coming back to Yglesias’ concern with the manners of discussing group differences, I have a rule: All discussions of black-white differences in athletics are really about cognitive ability. If we accept that it is obvious that the predominance of Black people in the NBA is somehow the result of genetic differences, then it opens the door to having a similar discussion about why Black people have historically scored lower on IQ tests. This, I think, it the ultimate reason why Yglesias is uncomfortable with the topic, and I agree that he should be.
Matt does not embrace Kendi-style dogmatic anti-racism, which he finds unworkable. Yet he insists that “it’s perfectly reasonable for people to worry that stereotyping will lead to discrimination,” and appears to believe that inquiring too closely into the root causes of racial disparities risks encouraging invidious stereotypes. The result is a kind of genteel omertą: we may observe the patterns around us—how could we not?—but we ought to remain as discreet about their causes as we are about our sex lives or our bathroom habits. Yes, everyone knows that people copulate and defecate, but only the juvenile (or bad comedians) dwell on such matters in polite company.
I’ve addressed this subject many times—and, perhaps deservedly, been mocked for doing so. Yet despite my desire to write about Tarkovsky or Nietzsche, I continue to encounter essays insisting that we keep silent about racial disparities and their causes. And so, I continue to reply. It is not so fun as talking about Soviet cinema or German philosophy, but somebody must do it.
The most compelling reason the taboo against examining racial differences is misguided is that it undermines liberal principles by fostering—indeed, nearly compelling—the belief that the West is thoroughly and systemically racist. My best guess is that Matt is more insouciant about disparities than many others on the left because, despite a pretense of ignorance, he has a strong suspicion about their source. He does not think whites outperform blacks on cognitive tests or in university because of racism or stereotypes threat. (And similarly, he does not think that blacks outperform whites on the basketball court because of anti-white racism.)
Fair enough. But consider the position of a morally decent yet uninformed observer—we’ll call her Sarah—who begins to take note of the pervasive racial disparities in American life. She may first notice the conspicuous lack of representation of black people in intellectually demanding fields. As she looks deeper, she might come across data on test scores—GRE, SAT, ACT, and others—as well as persistent income gaps between blacks and other demographic groups.
Even without encouragement from the media or Democratic politicians, she might begin to question the fairness of American society. Why do white Americans outperform black Americans on cognitive tests? Why do they earn more? Why were all the professors at her university white and Asian, while all the janitors were black? Something, surely, must be suppressing, thwarting, impoverishing blacks—something likely sinister and certainly unjust. Racism is the obvious explanation. And if not overt then covert racism—racism so subtle and systemic that it pervades society like an effluvial mist.
How does Matt suggest we answer Sarah’s legitimate concerns? As noted, he rejects Kendi’s rigid disparate impact doctrine, but offers nothing persuasive in its stead:Insisting on perfect racial balance in everything (automatic ticket enforcement, advanced math enrollment, etc) makes it very hard to design functioning social systems. Besides which, nobody has ever tried to apply this in a truly comprehensive way (do we need initiatives to get more white kids playing basketball?) or developed a principled account of exactly which ethnic groups matter in this accounting (is it necessary to inquire after the balance of WASPs to Irish Catholics on America’s police forces?).
Imagine someone (Good Citizen) who accepts Matt’s view—that the taboo on discussing racial disparities should be preserved—engaged in a conversation with Sarah:Good Citizen: “Well, you see, designing a system that produces perfect racial balance is very difficult.”
Sarah: “I understand. But why are the disparities so vast? Surely that isn’t just random.”
Good Citizen: “Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But it’s probably best not to talk about it.”
Sarah: “What? If this might be an enormous injustice, how can we possibly ignore it?”
Good Citizen: “It’s just... unseemly to investigate such things. Best to leave them alone.”
Sarah: “That’s outrageous! You’re treating this like a pustulating wound that must be hidden from view. But this is a great moral injustice. How can I, how can you, ignore such obvious unfairness?”
Good Citizen: “As I said, it's hard to design a perfectly racially balanced society.”
Sarah: “Yes, you said that. But men and women perform about equally on the SAT and GRE. Why do Black test scores lag so badly? Are the tests racist?”
Good Citizen: “Polite people don’t discuss such things in public.”
Sarah: “You're just throwing a blanket over the hideous truth of widespread racism!”
Good Citizen: “No, no—I think Kendi’s disparate impact theory is misguided.”
Sarah: “Then what’s the explanation for such large disparities? If not racism, what?”
Good Citizen: “We shouldn’t talk about such... unseemly things.”
If we imagine millions of people like Sarah, the scale of the problem becomes clear. In the absence of a credible answer to the obvious and legitimate question—Why are racial disparities in America so vast?—the average, morally serious person may understandably conclude that the country is saturated with racism. Not just casual racism, but powerful, stultifying racism—the kind that shapes destinies and produces vast inequalities in life outcomes.
One need not be a zealot to wish to oppose such racism—and to come, quite reasonably, to regard the praise so often heaped on America by conservatives as nothing more than patriotic cant. America is not liberal. Not free. Not glorious. It is wicked. Racist. White supremacist.
Matt contrasts Kendi’s views with a ludicrous strawman version of Nathan Cofnas’s:Ibram Kendi said it wasn’t good enough to not be racist, you had to be anti-racist in a very specific way. And there’s a counter-view, perhaps most forcefully articulated by Nathan Cofnas, that it’s not good enough to reject Kendi’s brand of anti-racism, you need to work to rehabilitate racism so that people can hold their heads high and believe in a hierarchy of races.
I’ll let Cofnas defend his own views against Yglesias’s calumny. But I will note that this is a false—and grim—dichotomy that overlooks an obvious, reasonable alternative: we can and should investigate the roots of racial disparities, just as we do with sex disparities. And we ought to discuss them judiciously but honestly, offering careful, qualified, and candid answers to legitimate questions.
At present, the best-supported answers suggest that differences in key traits—such as IQ and self-control—likely account for much of the observed racial disparities, while the role of racism appears comparatively limited. These differences are, in all probability, partly genetic in origin and resistant to meaningful intervention. They are, in short, realities we will have to learn to live with.
These answers may be unpleasant, and they may offend the ears of egalitarians. But they are preferable to imposed ignorance or flattering falsehoods. And one can accept them while still championing a tolerant, liberal, multi-racial society. In fact, preserving such a liberal, mutli-racial society requires honesty about the causes of racial disparities because the alternative is submission to a false and corrosive narrative, one that blames whites for the struggles of other groups and in doing so fosters racial resentment and anti-Americanism.
Before concluding, I should address a common counterargument: that there is simply no credible evidence of meaningful racial differences—so the arguments made here are not worth considering. For example, in his brief response to Yglesias’s essay, Eric Turkheimer writes:There are many more or less well-intended heterodox-type thinkers, from Yglesias to Andrew Sullivan to Sam Harris to Jon Haidt, who try to establish their heterodox, pro-science, academic freedom bona fides by giving a fair shake to genetic explanations of race differences in behavior. My point is that this is a very poor platform for the effort. In part, Yglesias is right, it is a poor platform because the hypotheses can lead so easily to stereotyping and bigotry, but the more important reason is that the alleged science sucks. There is no good evidence, nothing that deserves our serious attention. It is easy to think that everything is a culture war issue nowadays, but this one isn’t.
This objection is both mistaken in its reading of the data and confused about the nature of causal reasoning in discussions of racial disparities. The evidence that genetic factors play some role in race differences is extensive and well-documented, denied only by those unfamiliar with the literature or constrained by ideological commitments. I have addressed this body of evidence in detail elsewhere and will not repeat it here.
However, even if the genetic hypothesis were entirely mistaken—which is highly unlikely given the current evidence—there remain large and incontrovertible racial differences in causally relevant traits, such as IQ and violent crime rates, that help explain disparities in social outcomes. Thus, even if one insists, contrary to the weight of the data, that these differences are wholly environmental, they would still be central to any honest discussion of racial inequality.
Liberalism is a fragile thing, always threatened by resentment and bitterness. It is especially vulnerable in a multi-racial society characterized by deep and persistent racial disparities. Matt Yglesias argues that we should uphold the taboo against exploring the nature and causes of these disparities, lest such inquiries give rise to invidious stereotypes and bigotry. But this position is not only anti-intellectual and illiberal—it is dangerous. It condemns responsible thinkers to silence or to vague platitudes, leaving them unable to answer the obvious and morally urgent question: Why are whites, on average, more successful than Blacks in America?
I suspect that Matt knows the answer. But many people don’t.
