>> And now I am pleased to welcome our new Dean
of the School of Social Work, Dr. Laura Lein.

We are very excited that you are
here to introduce our keynote speaker

and thank you very much for
your support of our group.

[Applause]

>> Dr. Lein: And I in turn want to welcome
you to the presentation "More Than Just Race:

Being Black and Poor in the Inner
City" by William Julius Wilson

and to give a special thanks to the
Interdisciplinary Group on Poverty

and Inequality for putting together this
program culminating in this address.

I also want to introduce to your notice
Professor Sandra Danziger who's been

instrumental in the conference and
while I get to begin this session,

she will bring it to a conclusion and
moderate the question and answer period.

William Julius Wilson is the Louis P.
and Linda L. Geyser University Professor

at Harvard University, one of
only 19 university professors,

the highest professional distinction
for a Harvard faculty member.

He is a past President of the
American Sociological Association

and has received 41 honorary degrees including
Honorary Doctorates from Princeton, Columbia,

the University of Pennsylvania,
Northwestern, Johns Hopkins,

Dartmouth and the University of
Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

A Macarthur Prize Fellow from 1987 to 1992,
he's been elected to the National Academy

of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, the National Academy of Education,

the American Philosophical Society, the
Institute of Medicine and the British Academy.

In June of 1996 he was selected by Time Magazine
as one of America's 25 most influential people.

He is a recipient of the 1998 National Medal
of Science, the highest scientific honor

in the United States and was awarded the
Talcott Parsons Prize in the social sciences

by the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences in 2003.

He has authored a number of publications
including the "Declining Significance of Race,"

winner of the American Sociological
Association's Sydney Spivack Award,

"The Truly Disadvantaged" which was selected by
the editors of the New York Times Book Review

as one of the 16 best books of 1987,

and received the Washington Monthly Annual
Book Award and the Society for the Study

of Social Problems C. Wright Mills Award.

In addition, and I speak from experience here,
he is also a colleague of grace and wisdom.

He's worked extensively with teams of
researchers exploring the power that a range

of interdisciplinary approaches
bring to the problems he addresses.

He leaves his colleagues and his students
strengthened and inspired and it is my pleasure

and honor to welcome him to speak to us today.

Thank you.

[Applause]

>> W. Wilson: It's a pleasure to return to this
great University and to be introduced by Laura

who used to be part of a research team that
analyzed data on the responses of families

to welfare reform in three cities,
Chicago, Boston and San Antonio,

and I got to know her then, respect her as an
outstanding scholar and I think that University

of Michigan was very wise to
hire her as Dean of Social Work.

Thank you very much Laura.

So as I said, it's a pleasure to return to
this great University to be the keynote speaker

for the Interdisciplinary Group
on Poverty and Inequality,

it's a conference on Emerging
Issues in Poverty and Inequality.

My lecture this afternoon could not be more
timely because it is based on a new book

that will be officially published
on Monday by W. W. Norton Press

and because Barack Obama is our new
President and his candid views, views on race

and poverty will be discussed
near the end of my talk.

Given the theme of this conference,
Emerging Issues in Poverty and Inequality,

I will present a thought-provoking and
original perspective on how to think about race

and urban inequality in America that
includes a call for a more frank

and honest discussion of these important issues.

So let me begin.

I am an internationally-known Harvard Professor
looking considerably younger than my age,

I'm 73, yet a number of unforgettable
experiences remind me

that as a black male in America
I am often feared.

For example, several times over the years I have
stepped into the elevator of my condominium,

dressed in casual clothes and could
immediately tell from the body language

of the other residents in the elevator
that I made them feel uncomfortable.

What were they thinking, what is,
what is this, were they thinking,

what is this black man doing
in this expensive condominium?

Are we in any danger?

I once sarcastically said to a nervous elderly
couple who hesitated to exit the elevator

because we were, we were all getting
off on the same floor "not to worry,

I'm a Harvard Professor and I've
lived in this building for 9 years."

I talked with this couple later and they
told me how embarrassed they were when I,

when I said that and they realized
that I lived in the building.

When I am dressed casually I'm always a
little relieved to step into an empty elevator

but I'm not apprehensive if I'm
wearing a tie, dressed like I am now.

I get angry each time I have an experience
like the encounter in the elevator.

It would be easy to say that the residents'
reaction to me is simply another manifestation

of racism, however, when I lived in
a middle class Chicago neighborhood

that bordered a ghetto neighborhood, in fact
the same neighborhood that is the current home

of Barack and Michelle Obama, I too would
tense up when I walked my dog at night

and saw a black man or a group of black
male teenagers approaching me on the street.

The portrayal of black men in the media and
their widely known disproportionate rates

of incarceration may have influenced
some of the residents in my condominium

when they saw me in casual clothes.

This situation's especially
problematic for low skilled black males

when employers assess their
suitability for jobs.

This is a cultural phenomenon in which people
respond to perceptions about black men depicted

in the electronic and print media
including racist perceptions.

But as a sociologist, from years of
research and study I am also aware of

and understand the structural reasons
including the limited availability of economic

and social opportunities for
the extremely high crime rates

of young black men from ghetto neighborhoods.

Although we've made considerable progress
since the days of Jim Crow segregation,

it is clear that we still have a long way to go.

Indeed one of the legacies of
historic racial subjugation in,

in this country is the extremely high crime rate
among black males including the violent crime

rate and as long as these disturbing
rates persist, people of all racial

and ethnic groups will often
react to black males in public

and private spaces in negative ways.

These problems will not be addressed however
if we are not willing to have an honest

and open discussion of race in America
including a discussion of why poverty

and unequal opportunity so stubbornly persist
in the lives of so many African Americans.

We depend on the work of social
scientists to help us come to grips with

and understand these issues, however, as I
pointed out in my book, social scientists have

yet to find common ground
on how to explain the social

and economic destinies of African Americans.

And more than just race, I hope to
further our understanding of the complex

and interrelated factors
that continue to contribute

to racial inequality in the United States.

In the process I call for reexamining the way
social scientists discuss two important factors

associated with racial inequality,
social structure and culture.

Although the book highlights the
experiences of inner city African Americans,

it should be emphasized, however, that
the complexities of understanding race

and racial inequality in America are
not limited to research on blacks.

Formal and informal aspects of
inequality have also victimized Latinos,

Asian Americans and Native Americans.

In this book, however, I use the
research on inner city African Americans

to elaborate my analytic framework
because they have been the central focus

of the structure versus culture dispute.

The book will likely generate
controversy in some circles because I dare

to take culture seriously as one of the
explanatory variables in the study of race

and urban poverty, a topic that is typically
considered off limits in academic discourse

because of a, of a fear that such analysis
can be construed as "blaming the victim."

Indeed, I developed a framework that
integrates structural forces ranging from those

that are racial, such as segregation and
discrimination, to those that are non-racial,

such as changes in the economy
and cultural forces,

to not only show how the
two are inextricably linked

but to also explain why structural forces should
receive far more attention than cultural factors

in accounting for the social
outcomes of poor African Americans

and in framing public policies
to address racial inequality.

That said, my book examines
two types of cultural forces.

One, national views and beliefs on race
and two, cultural traits, shared outlooks,

modes of behavior, traditions, belief systems,
world views, values, skills, preferences,

styles of presentation, etiquette
and linguistic patterns.

Cultural traits that emerge from patterns
intra-group interaction in settings created

by discrimination and segregation and
that reflect collective experiences

within those setting, including the
micro-level processes of meaning,

meaning making and decision making.

That is, the way that individuals
in particular groups, communities

or societies develop an understanding
of how the world works

and make decisions based on that understanding.

The processes of meaning making and decision
making are reflected in cultural frames,

shared group constructions of reality.

Racism has historically been one of the
most prominent American cultural frames

and has played a major role in determining
how whites perceive and act toward blacks.

In the United States today there is no
question that the more categorical forms

of racist ideology, in particular those that
assert the bio-genetic inferiority of blacks,

no question that the categorical forms of
racist ideology have declined significantly,

even though they still may be embedded
in institutional norms and practices.

The vast majority of social scientists
agree that as a national cultural frame,

racism in its various forms has had harmful
effects on African Americans as a group.

Indeed, considerable research has been devoted
to the effects of racism in American society.

However, there is relatively little
research and far less awareness of the impact

of emerging cultural frames in the inner city on
the social and economic outcomes of poor blacks.

Note that distinct cultural frames in the inner,
in, in the inner city have not only been shaped

by race and poverty but in turn often
shape responses to poverty including,

as we shall soon see, responses that may
contribute to a perpetuation of poverty.

You see, one of the effects of living in
racially segregated neighborhoods is exposure

to group-specific cultural traits, orientations,
habits and world views as well as the,

as well as styles of behavior and
particular skills that emerge from patterns

of racial exclusion and that
may not be conducive to factors

that facilitate social mobility in society.

For example, the sociologist Elijah Anderson
revealed in a recent book the existence

of informal rules in the inner city
ghetto that govern interactions

and shape how people engage
one another and make decisions.

This decision making is influenced partly
by how, how people come to view their world

over time, what we call meaning making.

It is important to remember that the process
of meaning making and decision making involve

in situations imposed by poverty
and racial segregation situations

that place severe constraints
on social mobility.

Over time these processes
lead to the development

of informal codes that regulate behavior.

Anderson talks about the code of the street,
an informal but explicit set of rules developed

to govern interpersonal public
behavior and regulate violence

in Philadelphia's inner city
ghetto neighborhoods

where crime is high and police
protection is low.

Anderson argues that the issue of
respect is at the root of the code.

In a context of limited opportunities
of self-actualization and success,

some individuals in the community, most notably
young black males, devise alternative ways

to gain respect and emphasize,
that emphasize manly pride,

ranging from simply wearing brand
name clothing to have the "right look"

and talking the right way to developing
a predatory attitude toward neighbors.

Anderson points how, out, however,
that no one residing in, in,

in these troubled neighborhoods is
unaffected by the code of the street,

espesh [phonetic] especially young people
who are drawn into this negative culture both

on the streets and in the schools as they
must frequently adopt street behavior

as a form of self-defense.

As Anderson puts it "the code of the
street is actually a cultural adaptation

to a profound lack of faith in the
police and the judicial system and others

who would champion one's personal security."

A related informal but regulated
pattern of behavior was described

by my former student Sadir Vinkatesh [assumed
spelling], a professor at Columbia University,

in his study of the underground economy in
a ghetto neighborhood in Chicago Southside.

Vinkatesh points out that "the underground arena
is not simply a place to buy goods and services,

it is also a field of social relationships
that enable off-the-books trading to occur

in an ordered and predictable manner."

This trading often results in disagreements or
breaches because there are no laws on the books

"but the main point is that in institutions
ostensibly criminal and often threatening

to personal security, there
is still a structure in place

that shapes how a people make
decisions and engage one another."

In other words, informal rules actually
govern what would appear on the surface

to be random, underground activity.

These rules stipulate what
is expected of those involved

in these informal exchanges
and where they should meet.

So, just as Anderson describes
a code of the street,

Vinkatesh talks about a code of shady dealings.

Like Anderson, in his effort to explain
the emergence of the code of the street,

Vinkatesh argues that the code of shady
dealing is a response to circumstances

in inner city ghetto neighborhoods where
joblessness is high and opportunities

for advancement are severely limited.

Furthermore, both Anderson
and Vinkatesh clearly argue

that these cultural codes
ultimately hinder integration

into the broader society and
are therefore dysfunctional.

In other words, they contribute
to the perpetuation of poverty.

Anderson finds that for some young men
the draw of the street is so powerful

that they cannot avail themselves of
legitimate employment opportunities

when they become available.

Likewise, Vinkatesh maintains
that adherence to the code

of shady dealing impedes social mobility "the
underground economy enables people to survive

but can lead to alienation from
the wider world," he states.

For example, none of the work experience
accrued in the informal economy can be listed

on a resume for job searches in the
formal labor market and time invested

in underground work reduces time
devoted to accumulating skills

or contacts for legitimate employment.

However, many liberal scholars are reluctant
to discuss or research the role that culture,

culture plays in the negative
outcomes found in the inner city.

It is possible that they fear being
criticized for reinforcing the popular view

that the negative social outcomes, poverty,
unemployment, drug addiction and crime

of many poor people in the inner city are due
to the shortcomings of the people themselves.

Indeed the Harvard University sociologist
Orlando Patterson maintains that there is

"a deep-seated dogma, a deep-seated dogma
that has prevailed in social science

and policy circles since the mid-1960s,
the rejection of any explanation

that invokes a group's cultural attributes, its
distinctive attitudes, values and tendencies

and the resulting behavior of its members
and a relentless preference for relying

on structural factors like low income,
joblessness, poor schools and bad housing."

Patterson claims that social scientists have
shied away from cultural explanations of race

and poverty because of the wide-spread belief

that such explanations are
tantamount to blaming the victim.

That is support the conclusion
that the poor themselves

and not the social environment are responsible

for their own poverty and
negative social outcomes.

He colorfully contends that it is "utterly
bogus" to argue as the many academics

that cultural explanations necessarily
blame the victim for poor social outcomes.

Patterson argues that to hold an individual
responsible for his behavior is not to rule

out any consideration of
the environmental factors

that may have evoked a question
of behavior to begin with.

"Many victims of child abuse end up behaving
in self-destructive ways," he states,

"to point out the link between their behavior
and the, the destructive acts is in no way

to deny the causal role of their earlier
victimization and a need to address it."

Patterson also contends that
a cultural explanation

of human behavior not only examines the
immediate relationship between attitudes

and behavior but it also looks at
the past to investigate the origins

and changing nature of these attitudes.

I strongly agree with Orlando
Patterson that an adequate explanation

of cultural attributes must explore
the origins and changing nature

of these attitudes going
back decades, even centuries,

but unfortunately such analyses
are complex and difficult.

For example, it took years of research
by my former student Kathryn Neckerman

of Columbia University to provide the historic
backdrop to explain why so many black youngsters

and their parents lose faith
in the public schools.

She shows in her brilliant book
"Schools Betrayed" that a century ago

when African American children in most northern
cities attended schools alongside white children

the problems commonly associated with
inner city schools were not nearly

as pervasive as they are today.

Neckerman carefully documents how and why
these schools came to serve black children

so much more poorly than
their white counterparts.

Focusing on Chicago public schools between
1900 and 1960 she compares the circumstances

of blacks and white immigrants, groups
that had similarly little wealth and status

yet received vastly different
benefits from their education.

Their divergent, divergent
educational outcomes, she contends,

were the result of systematic decisions made
by Chicago officials to segregate schools

and deny equal resources to African
American students in an effort to deal

with the increasing black migration to the city.

These decisions reinforce
inequality in the schools over time.

Ultimately, she points out, these
actions eroded the schools legitimacy

in the lower class black community and
dampened aspirations for education.

"The roots of classroom alienation,
antagonism and disorder can be found

in school policy decisions
made long before the problems

of inner city schools attracted
public attention," states Neckerman.

"These policies struck at
the foundation of authority

and engagement making it much more
difficult for inner city teachers

to gain student cooperation and learning.

The district history of segregation and
inequality undermined the schools' legitimacy

in the eyes of its black students as a result
inner city teachers struggle to gain cooperation

from children and parents who had
little reason to trust the schools."

We need, we need more studies like this

to fully understand the current cultural
dynamics in inner city neighborhoods.

The use of a cultural argument
however, is not without peril.

Anyone who wishes to understand American
society must be aware that explanations focusing

on the cultural traits of inner city
residents are likely to draw far more attention

from policymakers and a general public
than structural explanations will.

It is an unavoidable fact that Americans
tend to de-emphasize the structural origins

and social significance of poverty and welfare.

In other words, the popular view is
that people are poor or on welfare

because of their own personal shortcomings.

A 2007 survey by the Pew Research
Center revealed that "fully two-thirds

of all Americans believe personal factors rather

than racial discrimination explain why many
African Americans have difficulty getting ahead

in life.

Just 19% blamed discrimination.

Nearly three-fourths of U.S. whites, a majority
of Hispanics and even a slight majority

of blacks believe that blacks
who have not gotten ahead

in life are mainly responsible
for their own situation.

If the views of blacks on
this issue is surprising,

consider my former student Alfred Young's study.

Young is now a professor here
at the University of Michigan.

He found in his impressive study of how inner
city black men perceive opportunity and mobility

in the United States, he found that
although some men associated mobility

with the economic opportunity structure,
including race and class based discrimination,

all of these inner city men shared the view
that individuals are largely accountable

for their failure to advance in society.

The strength of American cultural sentiment that
individuals are primary, primarily responsible

for poverty presents a dilemma
for anyone like myself

who seeks the most comprehensive explanation
of outcomes for poor, black Americans.

Why? Simply because culture arguments
that focus on individual traits

and behavior invariably draw more attention than
do structural explanations in the United States.

Accordingly, I feel that a social scientist
has an obligation to try to make sure

that the explanatory power of his or her
structural argument is not lost to the reader

and to provide a context for
understanding cultural responses

to chronic economic and racial subordination.

Consider, for example, the complex causal
flow between structure and culture.

In an impressive study that analyses
data from a national longitudinal survey

with methods designed to measure
inter-generational economic mobility,

Patrick Sharkey [assumed spelling] of NYU,
also one of my former students, found,

I don't mind saying it, I'm proud of my
former students so you have, you just have,

you just have to put up with it, okay?

Sharkey, [inaudible] Sharkey found "that, that"
more than 70% of black students who are raised

in the poorest quarter of American
neighborhoods, the bottom 25% in terms

of average neighborhood income
will continue to live

in the poorest quarter of
neighborhoods as adults.

That's incredible.

He also found that since the 1970s a
majority of black families have resided

in the poorest quarter of neighborhoods

in consecutive generations compared
to only 7% of white families.

Thus, he concludes that the disadvantages
of living in poor black neighborhoods

like the advantages of living in affluent white
neighborhoods are, in large measure, inherited.

We should also consider another
path-breaking study that Sharkey co-authored

with senior investigator Robert Samson [assumed
spelling] of Harvard and another colleague,

Steven Roddenbush [assumed spelling]
that examined the durable effects

of concentrated poverty on
black children's verbal ability.

They studied a representative sample of
750 African American children ages 6 to 12

who were growing up in the city of Chicago
in 1995 and followed them anywhere they moved

in the United States for up to 7 years.

The children were given a reading examination,
a vocabulary test at 3 different periods.

Their study shows "that residing in a severely
disadvantaged neighborhood cumulatively impedes

the development of academically relevant
verbal ability in children" so much

so that the effects linger on even if these,

even if these children leave
these neighborhoods.

The results revealed one, that a neighborhood
is an important developmental context

for trajectories of verbal cognitive ability,
two, that young African American children

who had earlier lived in a severely
disadvantaged neighborhood had fallen behind

their counterparts or peers who had not resided
pre, previously in disadvantaged areas by up

to 6%, by, by up to 6 IQ points, a magnitude
estimated to be equivalent to missing a year

or more of schooling and, three, "that
the youngest effects appear several years

after children live in areas
of concentrated disadvantage"

and this research raises
important questions about ways

in which neighborhoods may alter growth and
verbal ability, producing effects that linger

on even if a child leaves a
severely disadvantaged neighborhood."

The studies by Sharkey and Samson
and his colleagues both suggest

that neighborhood effects
are not solely structural.

Among the effects of living
in segregative neighborhoods

over extended periods is repeated
exposure to cultural traits

and this would include linguistic patterns, the
focus of Samson et al study that emanate from

or other products of racial
exclusion, traits such as verbal skills

that may impede successful
maneuvering in the larger society.

As Sharkey points out and I quote,
"when we consider that the vast majority

of black families living in America's poorest
neighborhoods come from families that have lived

in similar environments for generations,
continuity of the neighborhood environment,

in addition to continuity of individual economic
status, may be especially relevant to the study

of cultural patterns among
disadvantaged populations."

Unfortunately, very little research
attention has been given to these cumulative,

cultural experiences and
it is sometimes difficult

to separate cumulative cultural experiences
from cumulative psychological experiences.

Take, for example, repeated experiences
of discrimination and disrespect

that a lot of blacks share in common.

If these experiences are systematic

over an extended time period they can
generate common psychological states

that some may interpret as norms because
they seem to regulate patterns of behavior.

Resignation as a response to repeated
experiences with discrimination

and disrespect is one good example.

Parents in segregated communities who've had
such experiences may transmit to children

through the process of socialization a set
of beliefs about what to expect to life

and how one should respond
to life circumstances.

In other words, children may be taught norms of
resignation, they observe the behavior of adults

and learn "the appropriate" action or response

in different situations independently
of their own direct experiences.

In the process children may acquire an
inclination to interpret the way the world works

that reflects a strong sense that other members

of society disrespect them
because they are black.

Thus in addition to structural in, influences
exposure to different cultural influences

in a neighborhood environment over time
has to be taken into account if one is

to really appreciate and explain the
divergent social outcomes of human groups.

But to repeat, in delivering this message,
we must make sure that the powerful influence

of structural factors do not
recede into the background.

Indeed, a fundamental question remains, what is
the relative importance of these two dimensions

in accounting for the formation and
persistence of the inner city ghetto,

the plight of black males and the
breakdown of the black family,

three subjects that I focus on in my book.

Culture matters, I would have to say, it does
not matter nearly as much as social structure.

From a historical perspective, it
is hard to overstate the importance

of racially structural factors that Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. fought so hard against.

Aside from the enduring effects of slavery, Jim
Crow segregation, public school segregation,

legalized discrimination, residential
segregation, the FHA's red-lining

of black neighborhoods in the 1940s and 1950s,
the construction of black housing in projects

and poor black neighborhoods,
employer discrimination

and other racial acts and processes.

There is the impact of political,
economic and policy decisions that were

at least partly influenced by race.

In contrasting the combined
impact of the structural factors

with cultural factors it would be very
hard to argue that the cultural factors

in the black community are equally as
important in determining life chances

or creating racial group outcomes.

For example, if one attempts to explain
rapid changes in social and economic outcomes

in the inner city, there is little evidence

that cultural forces have the
power of changes in the economy.

We only need to consider the impact
of the economic boom on the reduction

of concentrated poverty in the
1990s to illustrate this point.

And I shudder to think what the figures
are going to reveal about the impact

of the current economic crisis
on the inner city.

Nonetheless, my book also argues that
culture is not simply a product of structure

with no independent or autonomous power,
although cultural forces are often generated,

fostered in and empowered by structures.

In some cases structures are created
or reinforced by cultural forces.

For example, on the local level, a weakening
of the informal job information network

that Sandra Smith talks about in the inner
city ghetto, has been partly a function

of an inclination to distrust in the
inner city which is a cultural trait

that inhibits cooperative relationships
needed in the job-making process.

Incidentally, Sandra Smith was also
one of my students and they're trying

to recruit her here to the
University of Michigan.

She's not at Berkeley.

And on the national level, Bruce Western
[assumed spelling] so clearly shows,

as his research so clearly shows, the changes
in the criminal justice system that have led

to the mass imprisonment of African American
males in recent decades were by-products

of the cultural framing of crime punishment
driven by conservative political ideology.

Furthermore, as Eric Olinwright
[assumed spelling] has reminded me,

one person's social structure
maybe another person's culture.

Take for example, employers' negative
attitudes toward black men as workers.

A representative sample of Chicago
area employers by research team

in the late 1980's revealed, clearly
reveals employer bias against black males.

A substantial majority of employers considered
inner city black males to be uneducated,

uncooperative, unstable or dishonest.

As the employers see it, they are
expressing, not only dominant cultural views

about most skilled black men that are
shared by many members of the larger society

but also the shared views of
employers regarding their interaction

with poor African American workers.

As some of the young black
men seeking employment see it,

this culturally-shaped practice of employers
is a "structure," a pattern of exclusion

that is systematically enforced through
repeated rejections of their job applications.

However, not only do employers share
common cultural beliefs or perceptions

about black males but they also
have a power to affect the lives

of these black men when they
act on those beliefs.

Employers make hiring, hiring
decisions which is an exercise of power

and their decisions are based on
their control over economic resources.

Policymakers who are dedicated to
combatting the problems of race and poverty

and who recognize the importance of
structural inequities face two challenges.

First is a problem of institutional entrenchment
which always reduces the chances of reform,

for example, as sociologist Dierdre
Bloome has said, "we cannot expect equity

in public school funding much less the
disproportionate allocation of resources

to the most needy without changing long accepted
mechanisms for allocating resources and staffing

which had become "normal" and gained
constituencies willing to fight

to maintain their current privileges."

And overcoming institutional entrenchment
should be one of our primary objectives

if we're committed to combating inequality.

But the second challenge facing
policymakers committed to reform is how

to generate political support from
Americans who tend to place far more emphasis

on cultural factors and individual
behavior than on structural impediments

in explaining social and economic outcomes.

After all, beliefs that attribute
joblessness and poverty

to individual shortcomings do
not engender strong support

for social programs to end inequality.

Nonetheless, in addressing the problem of
structural inequities, it would not be wise

to leave the impression in public discussions
that cultural problems do not matter, indeed,

proposals to address racial inequality
should reflect awareness of the inextricable,

inextricable link between
aspects of structure and culture.

The ongoing social science debate over the
role of social structure versus culture

in shaping the social outcome of African
Americans has apparently done little

to educate Americans on the importance of,

of a relationship between
structural inequities and culture.

Ideological inclinations often predict the
position one takes whereas liberals tend

to focus on structural conditions especially
racially structural factors such as segregation

and discrimination, conservatives
tend to emphasize cultural factors

such as individual attitudes and behavior.

Now over the years, I have
reflected on this debate.

However it wasn't till I attended a panel
discussion at the University of Chicago in 1995

on Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray's
controversial book "The Bell Curve: Intelligence

and Class in American Life" that
I saw the most compelling reason

for combining cultural arguments
with structural arguments.

When I left that debate, I mean that panel
discussion, I was thinking that integration

of the two could be used to construct a
truly comprehensive explanation of the social

and economic outcomes of poor people of
color and provide more compelling arguments

for those policymakers truly committed to
eradicating racial inequality in our society

where a majority of citizens believe that
personal not structural factors account

for differences in social
and economic achievements.

In their book "The Bell Curve" Herrnstein and
Murray found differences in the test scores

of blacks and whites even after they included
environmental factors such as family education,

father's occupation and household
income in their analyses.

I use this difference in test scores
to support the argument that the social

and economic outcomes of blacks
and whites differ at least in part,

because of genetic endowment,
a position that suggests

that African Americans are innately inferior.

Now to my mind none of the panelists
gathered that day at the University

of Chicago provided a satisfactory
rebuttal and I left depressed.

I mean, I made some comments but I wanted
the panel to, you know, to, to comment.

I left the discussion thinking that Herrnstein
and Murray's arguments for the importance

of group differences and
cognitive ability was based on an,

an incredibly weak measure
of the social environment.

In other words simply taking into account or
controlling for differences in family education,

father's occupation and household
income hardly captures differences

in cumulative environmental experiences.

Herrnstein and Murray did not provide measures
of the cumulative and often durable effects

of race including the effects of prolonged
residence in racially segregated neighborhoods.

I discussed earlier, two recent ground-breaking
longitudinal studies that revealed

that these cumulative effects
are both structural and cultural.

Unfortunately, such studies
were not available at the time

of the contentious debate over "The Bell Curve."

Paradoxically, although liberal social
scientists rejected the book's inferiority

thesis, they were in effect playing
into the hands of Herrnstein and Murray

by not conducting research that would illuminate
all the dimensions of the social environment.

By ignoring the impact of culture and
how it impacts, and how it interacts

with structural factors, they were not able

to capture all the important
of the social environment.

If culture is a sharing of outlooks and
modes of behavior that are sustained

through social interaction within a community
and often transmitted from generation

to generation, then patterns of behavior

in racially segregated inner city neighborhoods
often represent particular cultural traits

that emanate from or are the
products of racial exclusion.

Obviously, as we have shown, some

of these traits may impede successful
maneuvering in the larger society.

Accordingly to fully explain or understand
the divergent social and economic outcomes

of racial groups, cultural influences in the
environment have to be taken into account.

For all of these reasons it is extremely
important to discuss how the issues of race

and poverty are framed in
public policy discussions.

How we situate social issues
in the larger context

of society says a lot about
our commitment to change.

A useful example of how this works comes
to me from Robert Esson [assumed spelling],

a professor in the Department of Communications
Arts at the University of Wisconsin.

He has reminded me that the
political framing of poverty,

that is a way in which political formulate
arguments about how we as a nation should talk

about and address issues of poverty,
in a New Deal Era was quite different

from the political framing of poverty today.

During the New Deal Era the
emphasis was on structure,

namely that devastating impact
of the economic crisis.

America's clearly recognized that
hundreds of thousands of citizens were poor

or unemployed mainly because of a
severe and prolonged job shortage.

In the public arena today, poverty tends to be
discussed in reference to individual initiative.

This distinction, he points
out, reveals how larger shifts

in society have influenced our
understanding of the nature of poverty.

Indeed, it's reasonable to assume that
the current economic crisis would lead

to a gradual shift away from explanations
that highlight personal shortcomings to one

that stress the adverse effects of a
declining economy, especially with Barack Obama

as President to serve the bully
pulpit, to communicate this message.

These deliberate, deliberative frames not
only orient our debates on public policy

but they can also be shifted through debates.

So, just because cultural explanations resonate
with policymakers and the public today,

does not mean that structural explanations
cannot resonate with them tomorrow.

To shift political frames however, and
hopefully provide a more balanced discussion,

requires parallel efforts among
politicians, engaged citizens and scholars.

Now in my previous writings I called for
the framing of issues designed to appeal

to broad segments of the population.

Key to this framing, I argued,
would be an emphasis on policies

that would directly benefit all
groups, not just people of color.

My thinking was that given American
views about poverty and race,

a color bling agenda would be the most realistic
way to generate the broad political support

that would be necessary to
enact the required legislation.

I no longer hold to this view.

The question is not whether the
policy should be race, thank you.

The question is not whether the policy
should be race-neutral or universal.

The question is whether the policy is framed to
facilitate a frank discussion of the problems

that ought to be addressed and to generate
broad political support to alleviate them.

So now my position has changed.

In framing public policy we should not
shy away from an explicit discussion

of the specific issues of race and poverty.

On the contrary, we should highlight them
in our attempt to convince the nation

that these problems should
be seriously confronted

and that there is an urgent
need to address them.

The issues of race and poverty should be framed
in such a way that not only a sense of fairness

and justice to combat inequality is
generated but also people are made aware

that out country would be better off

if these problems were seriously
addressed and eradicated.

In considering this change of frame, indeed
a change of mindset on race and poverty,

I am drawn to the then Senator Barack
Obama's speech on race, given March 18, 2008.

In taking on the tough topic of race in
America, Obama spoke to the issue of structure

and culture as well as their interaction.

He drew America's attention to the
many disparities that exist between

"the African American community
and the larger community today,"

disparities that "can be traced to inequalities
passed on from an earlier generation

that suffered under the brutal
legacy of slavery and Jim Crow."

He also discussed a lack of economic
opportunity among black men and how "the shame

and frustration that came from not being
able to provide for one's family contributed

to the erosion of black families."

Obama called on whites to acknowledge that "the
path to a more perfect union means acknowledging

that what ails the African American
community does not just exist in the minds

of black people, that the legacy of
discrimination and current incidents

of discrimination, while less overt than in the
past, are real and must be addressed not just

with words but with deeds, by investing
in our schools and our communities,

by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring
fairness in the criminal justice system,

by providing this generation
with ladders of opportunity

that were unavailable for previous generations.

It requires all Americans to realize that
your dreams do not have to come at the expense

of my dreams, that investing in the health,
welfare and education of black and brown

and white children will ultimately
help all of America prosper."

However, Obama did not restrict his speech
to addressing structural inequities.

He also focused on problematic cultural and
behavioral responses to these inequities,

including a cycle of violence among
black men and I quote "legacy of defeat

that has been passed to future generations," and
he urged those in the African American community

to take full responsibility for their
lives by demanding more from their fathers

and spending more time with their
children "reading to them and teaching them

that while they may speak, while they
may face challenges and discrimination

in their own lives, they must never
succumb to despair or cynicism.

They must always believe that
they can write their own destiny."

By combining a powerful discussion of
structural inequities with an emphasis

on personal responsibility, Barack Obama
did not isolate the latter from the former

as Bill Cosby did or as so often the case in
the remarks of talk show hosts, journalists

and conservative politicians and commentators.

Obama's speech gave an honest appraisal of
structural racial inequality as he called

for all Americans to support blacks
in their struggle to help themselves.

Struggle to help themselves, to repeat.

I feel that this speech could serve as a model
for the kind of careful political framing

of the issues of race and poverty that
we need in this country to move forward.

With the election of Barack Obama I
am hopeful that this will be achieved.

Thank you.

[ Applause ]