Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell—A Review and Reaction

I haven’t done a book review in a while, and yes, it is long past due. The books I have read on my Kindle or listened to on Audible have kept me busy through the 2020 pandemic. This is good thing. I reread some such as Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”, and one of her follow up books, ”No is Not Enough” (which I will review in a future post). The material I have been reading stirred my conscious. This is also a good thing. 

First of these books came by a recommendation from a friend (so did the other), “Blackout—How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation” by Candace Owens (I will review in another future post), and the second book recommended Thomas Sowell’s “Discrimination and Disparities”. This book is an argument why government corrective measures are obtrusive verses letting markets (monied) forces to sort themselves out naturally. He argues that groups are self-selecting, actual discrimination and disparities are not so much deliberative as they are self-imposed, and that behavior set by the dominate caste determines the overriding outcomes. 

In Thomas Sowell’s book are the usual well bandied arguments between the right and left, when it comes to income, education, property, policing, and healthcare. He asserts that these issues viewed from a particular ideological perspective hinders the development of markets, disparities in terms of correction, while true discrimination are over adjusted instead of allowing for their natural fruition to balance.

Additionally, Sowell argues that governmental policies are cumbersome, are slow to respond, and restrictive. His treatise within this book is to deliberate the quantification of disparities and discrimination, in that, the social construction writ-large obfuscates the process of self-selection. Sowell proports that the actual inequities are inconsequential if those within learn to adopt (buy in) to the dominate caste rules of behavior (or assimilation). Moreover, Sowell’s assertions are performative, in that, they are liminal in nature essence, liminal definitionally means occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold, and by characterization meets the criteria of culture writ-large social contract. 

Sowell’s delineation then is a well-rehearsed apparent libertarian ideological perspective that gleans from the right side (and left as well) of the aisle advocating for individuals, individual groups, “pull themselves up by the boot straps” with the reliant, well adjusted, quite responsive self-sorting in order to organize the rooted ideals of how disparities and discrimination works.

It is Sowell’s use of probabilities, statistics, and cultural assimilation from both dominate caste, and, the culturally disenfranchised to enable the assertions that provide that disparities and discrimination would not be self-fulfilling. And though—he (Sowell) acknowledges the existence of discrimination and disparities can be agonizing and filled with discrepancies, the disenfranchised must simply acknowledge the dominate castes advantages—fair or not. After all, no one guarantees fairness, not even within families, access, and certitude. Sowell’s implicit agenda sets the ideological definition of what it means to be assimilated within the dominate caste—and how to behave properly—statistically, ethically (as defined by the dominate caste), morally (as defined by the dominate caste), and cultural populism of the moment set within the definitional terms. 

And yet—and yet, there is disingenuous within Sowell’s arguments from the definitional to the actual, from the implicit to explicit, in terms of behavioral (do what we say not what we do) are gilded fallacies—simply based on how the foundation of this country were founded the rebel nature is allowed by the dominate case not the disenfranchised that we set boundaries upon. How dare you exceed beyond the boundaries of expectations? Stay in your lane. Behave the way we tell you. Do not rock the boat. Sowell book does not address this directly, but through smoke and mirrors within explication of statistics, probabilities, and disjointed fallacies he provides assertion not solutions. His failure to address the language of disparities and discrimination, although defined early within his book, is not genuine but gymnastically wrestled—and for one group ideological spectators—and he addresses them accordingly into their feedback loop of believe.