(gentle music) - [Announcer] The School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership presents the Civic Discourse Project, Sustaining American Political Order in History and Practice.

This week- - The scales of success or opportunities should not be tipped in favor of some Americans at the expense of other Americans because of the color of their skin.

The scales of success should be tipped in favor of merit.

- [Announcer] The Civic Discourse Project is brought to you by Arizona State University's School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

Now, Andre Archie, an Associate Professor at Colorado State University, breaks down the virtue of colorblindness and the American Project.

- So when Martin Luther King Jr spoke in 1963 during his march on Washington, he famously said in his I Have a Dream speech, that he dreamed that his four children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Earlier that same year, and in a radically different context, King's Letter from a Birmingham jail spoke movingly about the collateral damage of racial prejudice done to Black Americans and white Americans, and done to quote, "Those great wells of democracy, which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

No other public figure in modern times has expressed sentiments so consistent with the colorblind principles in the Western philosophical tradition, given King's moral and practical advocacy, he seems to have understood that he was a mere vessel of many strands of ethical thought.

That privilege, the individual, the individual character ethos.

Martin Luther King made famous this idea that colorblind principles are at the foundation of our republic, in fact, at the foundation of the Western philosophical tradition.

And it's that tradition that I want to talk to you about.

So what exactly is the colorblind approach?

It's important that we understand the significance of the ancient Greeks in their discussion of character, and then I'll connect that to discussions of race, DEI, et cetera.

The colorblind approach is grounded on the moral belief that the mere possession of hereditary qualities like race should not confer moral merit by their possession or non possession.

Instead, moral merit can be and should be conferred upon an individual's actions because actions reveal one's character.

So when I speak about character, I should be understood as speaking about the right desires, fillings, pleasures and pains that make up the states of the virtuous character, the belief in character as opposed to a script of qualities as the Locus of Moral Agency has a rich and comprehensive history in the West, and it continues to animate our own founding documents and way of life.

And in order to see just how significant prioritizing character over ascriptive qualities has been in the West, we must first begin with some of the first recorded reflections on moral importance, the moral importance of character, which began with the ancient Greeks and the ethical tradition of Eudaimonism.

That's a very important concept.

As an ethical framework initiated by Plato and Aristotle, Eudaimonism assumes that the ultimate human good is happiness.

Ancient Greek ethics is person-centered, which means that in thinking about the best way to live or what to do, the ancient Greeks focused on two things, determining the right thing to do and doing it properly motivated.

Although bad people can certainly do good actions, they cannot do actions as the good person would do them, which is to say properly motivated.

Properly motivated actions are anchored in and generated by one's virtuous character, which is the end result of an individual's autonomous choices.

Character is not the product of factors that fall outside of the sphere of choice, voluntary action, and how choice is exercised morally, the body and what belongs to it are not involved with the manifestation of virtue.

Thus, for the ancient Greeks, ascriptive qualities like race played no role in the formation of character, nor the assessment of character.

And the historical record shows that.

The virtuous character comes about by habit or practice, because virtue is a disposition that an individual manifests through the motivation to act in an appropriate way and to the appropriate extent in the right circumstances.

In the same way that we learn arts or sports by doing them, so we become morally good by performing morally good actions.

Doing courageous deeds makes us courageous persons.

Ancient Greeks, most notably Plato and Aristotle, relied on the formation of characters to secure good actions, properly motivated.

The most important things that Socrates speaks of are those things that fall outside the body and what belongs to it.

These things are truth, wisdom, and virtue, and they enable one to properly use the body and what belongs to it as well as external goods.

So this brings me back to the colorblind sentiments expressed so powerfully by Martin Luther King.

He tapped into the rich western philosophical tradition initiated by the ancient Greeks to gain much needed support from a broad swath of Americans who knew that racism was wrong.

Socrates' message that character counts all these years later resonated with the deep sense of dignity had among good, decent Americans.

So one other person we should discuss is Aristotle.

I won't spend too much on Aristotle, but Aristotle too talks about character.

So let me just say a little bit about Aristotle.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics illustrates the role choice plays in the conferring of moral merit upon human action.

So here too, like Plato, Aristotle argues that the type of choices one makes is anchored in one's character, certainly not in the body, and its physical qualities.

So character can be morally praised or condemned because it results from our prior choices and actions and our prior choices and actions were voluntary.

So we are responsible for our own characters in the present.

It makes no sense to praise, condemn or assign moral status to descriptive qualities like race because one's race is an indelible feature of one's body, and it has not come about through choice.

So for Aristotle, choice is key in terms of conferring moral merit on a person, because it's through choice that we see a person's character.

So when society does assign moral status to race, as Dr.

King illustrates, bitterness and hatred become the main currency through which Americans interact with one another.

The reason for the bitterness and hatred has everything to do with the arbitrariness of assigning moral status to racial characteristics.

When character becomes the main currency which Americans interact with one another, the relations between the races is less stilted, more fluid and natural.

So fair play and judging others by the content of their character is an abiding theme in the intellectual traditions of Western thought, especially in the ancient Greek philosophical tradition.

So it's this tradition that Martin Luther King is expressing in many of his writings.

In his most classic writings, I Have a Dream speech.

He talks about Socrates, he talks about Aristotle.

King embodies this tradition of character.

And so when he says he dreams that his four children would be judged by the content of their character as opposed to their skin color, this is the tradition that he is drawing on.

And this is the tradition that we've completely, or at least some of us have completely forgotten about.

Which brings me to the opponents, who are the opponents of colorblind principles?

The colorblind approach to race relations and its emphasis on character is challenged by a number of individuals.

But before we get to those individuals, what do they argue?

They argue that racism is a systemic feature of American society and Western civilization in particular.

The systemic racism claim also has been referred to as the original sin argument.

You might have heard of it.

The argument holds that America's racism against people of color, Black Americans in particular, isn't simply a fading anachronistic holdover from a bygone age, but that racism's presence permeates every aspect of America because it flows from the very foundations of the American founding.

In other words, racism for America is a secular form of original sin.

Now, these anti colorblind defenders are an assorted group of individuals.

These individuals populate and influence institutions and organizations that hold enormous power and sway over everyday Americans.

They consist of primary and secondary school teachers, journalists, public intellectuals, activists, academics.

And it's no accident that these individuals find themselves in positions of power among their like-minded cohort, right?

Because any attempt to undermine a society's traditional beliefs and practices requires what?

You get to the kids.

You get to the children, right?

You get to education.

And that's precisely what they have done.

The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci puts it nicely.

He says, "To change society, you conduct a long march through society's leading institutions."

That's how you affect change.

This is precisely what the opponents of the colorblind approach, this is what they've done.

They've been quite effective, especially in academia.

So in the context of race relations, I would argue the long march began with the institutionalization of ethnic studies, things like African American studies.

I'm talking about in the sixties.

Because if you remember, if you know anything about the history of ethnic studies departments, there was a lot of nuttiness in the beginning.

You had people like Leonard Jeffries, if you remember him from the eighties and nineties, very antisemitic.

He said Black people were like children of the sun.

There was a lot of nuttiness.

Since then, these departments have professionalized.

There's a lot of great African American studies departments.

They've been professionalized, real academics.

But I think what has remained consistent is the following refrain, that the United States and its history is irredeemably racist and exploitative.

I think that's been consistent.

So I would argue the proper way to construe this institutionalization of a lot of ethnic studies programs is to make a distinction between the core and the fringe.

What do I mean by core?

America was settled by an English speaking Protestant core.

The attributes of which include both substantive ideas such as constitutionalism, the rule of law, human equality, and local traditions among particular communities found throughout early America.

These attributes became pillars on which America waged a revolutionary war against England, and African Americans fought their enslavement and second class citizenship in America.

So the influential role played by these departments in academia is one that has undermined a particular conception of the American identity that is grounded in colorblind principles, and that transcends race.

Firmly embedded in these institutions, these anti colorblind defenders have parlayed their dubious moral authority into aiding and abetting a cottage industry of the aggrieved.

Some of the most pernicious and delusively aggrieved of these individuals have become academics and public intellectuals who claim to be speaking racial truth to power.

But it's important to get a grasp of what it is they're saying.

So the question demands that one's assumed identity be recognized and have juridical standing, standing in law.

It's this sort of demand for recognition that we find on college campuses.

So what am I saying?

I'm saying it's no longer enough to appeal to an American creedal identity in the way Martin Luther King Jr.

and the civil rights movement did to a great effect.

The formation of an American national identity does not begin with creedal or notional ideas only.

It begins in a particular geographic location among a particular culture and among a particular people.

America consists of a core culture animated by ideas.

The overriding feature of the core American culture is its Anglo Protestant disposition, individualism, not excessive nor expressive, moral reform, religiosity, and a robust work ethic.

The promotion of this core culture, its values and beliefs, amounts to a robust American identity, such an identity steers clear of both a specific American racial identity and a feeble notional creedal or civic American identity.

Embracing an American identity of this type gives as the political scientist, Samuel Goldman puts it, a constituent status to Anglo Protestant culture, but no such status to white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

That would be absurd, right?

WASPs, I'm not arguing that at all, but I'm arguing it's the culture that's significant.

It's the culture that makes this exceptional, and it's that culture that Martin Luther King embodies with an African American idiom, which makes it, which made it so powerful in why he convinced a nation that racism was wrong.

But certainly Martin Luther King embodied that Anglo Protestant culture.

So in other words, creedalism coupled with specific cultural practices defines America and what it means to be American.

The particularities, the preferences, the ascriptive qualities of one's identity are secondary if we are to take the American identity seriously.

The creedalist's conception in isolation grounds the American identity solely in propositional or notional ideas, constitutionalism, rule of law, and human equality.

So creedalism without a cultural emphasis is especially ineffective against racial identity politics.

So as I conclude, what do I have in mind?

There are two possibilities, or at least there are two solutions that I propose to put some muscle, if you will, on creedalism.

The first is, let's make English the official language of the United States, and let's also implement some version of a national service program nationwide.

Each of these practices would be enacted at the federal level.

It's at the federal level that these two practices will be most effective.

So America is in a radically different place today when we speak about language, than where it was in the past and the change in this area is desperately needed to confront the present.

So demographically making English our official language would at a minimum complement the argument that we're not a nation of immigrants, but rather a settler nation.

More importantly, elevating the status of the English language on the federal level would play an important symbolic role by serving as a proxy for many of the unifying core cultural features that we as Americans have rallied around historically.

Secondly, implementing a national service program based on the core cultural features I've mentioned, would contribute to the formation of a national American identity.

The program would be directed mainly toward young adults and would be modeled on the integrative procedures currently used by the armed services to instill a sense of esprit corps among its enlistees.

Because aside from our all voluntary military force, there are a few places or institutions where young adults socialize with those who are of a different social class or race.

And when young adults do come into contact with one another, it is often on a college campus with other middle and upper class students.

But a national service program would hopefully motivate Americans to think more sympathetically about their fellow citizens when sorting themselves along the lines of class, race, region, or other sub national identities.

So in addition to the need for a broad American national identity that's more integrative than self-regarding identities based on race, gender, or religion, we need a positive, compelling American narrative in the public square that's more effective at promoting integration and rootedness.

This is the only way to counteract the ever proliferating anti-American ideas that are tearing us apart, especially in our institutions of higher education.

Narratives are supposed to glue us together as a people.

So when you think about new immigrants to America, aren't they supposed to exchange their old narratives from where they're from and identities that wants to find them in their old countries for a new American identity and narrative?

But except for a few facts about American history and how the government functions, it's not clear at all today what narrative or narratives new immigrants to America actually are taught.

So this more positive American narrative would tell a story about the role that faith, family, and tradition have played and continue to play in the evolution of the country, both politically and culturally.

That story would celebrate what were once widely agreed upon, cultural precepts of upward mobility that you should, for example, speak English competently, finish high school, complete college, get married before having children and respect the laws.

Now, I recognize this is aspirational, but at least it's a goal to strive towards.

Not everyone are born into circumstances that make the ingredients of upward mobility possible.

I get that, I'm sympathetic to that, I've experienced that, but at least we can have the aspirational goals.

That's what's key.

So that uniquely American narrative and the story that it tells should be top of mind as we celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King.

No other narrative, especially weird racial narratives, is equipped to address the psychological and existential needs of alienation among sizable groups of Americans.

As we witnessed the gradual decline of the DEI regime, we can take solace in knowing what precisely should take its place.

With this in mind, it's imperative that we not forget that American principles are exceptional, not ethnic or racial groups.

We must remember that what made the 13th Amendment in particular exceptional among the Civil War amendments was that in abolishing slavery, it gave Congress new powers to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.

So those who sympathize with the opponents of colorblind principles and who cast people of color, and Black Americans in particular as forever in need of various types of racial remediation, are wanting to assign again, those very badges and relics of slavery on successive generations of people of color and Black Americans in particular.

So those of us like Martin Luther King on the side of colorblindness, understand that race as an ascriptive quality isn't meritorious.

Character, culture, and effort are meritorious.

The scales of success or opportunities should not be tipped in favor of some Americans at the expense of other Americans because of the color of their skin.

The scales of success should be tipped in favor of merit.

Now, this approach to merit, like colorblindness itself is aspirational.

Let's not forget that it's aspirational, but it's certainly a worthy goal to keep in mind and to strive toward in a country as diverse as the United States of America.

There's no other option.

Thank you.

(all clapping) (gentle music) - Andre.

Thank you very much.

That was an enlivening challenge to a lot of public discourse today.

And it was interesting the way you framed the distinction of colorblindness and of these badges and tokens of slavery, what your character is as you develop it, that that is your choice.

And so that is what is essential.

And so that's a very interesting framing, and it really challenges a lot of the current debate.

- That's right, and I think that what's important too is that when we teach young kids, especially kids of color, that they have no autonomy, meaning they really don't have a choice because everything is arrayed against them, right?

So if America is systemically racist, then why put forth effort and effort, right?

Because the system is stacked against you.

So I think that we do a lot of damage to the young in particular, who are just beginning to figure out who they are, how they fit into the world.

And so I think it's really destructive for society and even for good intentioned people to think this way.

My wife was a teacher years ago, and she would just tell me stories about things that she would hear.

You know, when we're talking about the formation of skills and capacities to limit a person's ability, given what their race is and what they can know, and what they can learn is just detrimental.

It's just unfortunate.

So this idea of character, I think King did a fabulous job at communicating that, especially as it relates to the whole tradition in which character is discussed quite philosophically.

- This isn't an intellectual question, but you repeated one word over towards the end, and I'm not gonna pass, right?

I don't know what the word is.

Creedalism?

- Yeah, Creedalism.

Yeah.

Creedalism is the idea.

Basically it's Lincoln that really captures creedalism.

It's the idea that American should, what unites us as Americans are certain principles like Constitutionalism, private property, equality before the law.

So these sort of big ideas and concepts, which really emerged in full force after the Civil War.

It's these sort of concepts that unite us.

It's not race, it's not religion, but it's like concepts of democracy that we all sort of subscribe to as Americans because we have presumably very little else in common.

- Andre, thank you again for taking time.

- Thank you.

(audience clapping) - [Announcer] The Civic Discourse Project is brought to you by Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

(upbeat music) (upbeat music continues) (upbeat music continues) (upbeat music concludes)