race – Houghton STAR

In response to the “Shades of Black” incident that took place in February, and in order to further campuswide education on the topic of race, Student Life and Spiritual Life will be hosting several dinner discussion panels before the end of the semester to continue the conversation on race at Houghton. According to Rob Pool,vice president of student life, the intent behind the events is for students to come to a fuller understanding of “where people are coming from individually” in order to help “shape a better community picture” on Houghton’s campus.

Mike Jordan, dean of the chapel, stated that while it would be difficult to coordinate too many events before the end of the semester, “we’d like events to continue into the fall.” Jordan also said that he was “working hard to bring in speakers to chapel next year who will be able to speak to the realities that divide white Christians and Christians of color.”

According to the Community Covenant, which all students sign, the Houghton community pledges to “seek to be a community of inclusion… [and] joyfully celebrate one another, rejoicing in our uniqueness, diversity, environment, heritage and calling.” The Covenant also condemns “discrimination and prejudice (whether of race, gender, ethnicity or socioeconomic class).”

After the Shades of Black display, which showcased the stories of African and African-American students of varied backgrounds, was vandalized in February, Student Life took action to identify the person responsible—an alum of Houghton. That evening, Greg Bish, Director of Student Programs, gathered students who had been involved in planning and who were featured in the display for a discussion. One of the key pieces of information that emerged from this dialogue, according to Pool, was that “those who were victimized should not be the ones tapped to help solve or address it” but that “it really needed to be an institutional response.” The diversity events that will be occurring are a direct response to those prior events/

Pool stated that while it is “the student’s responsibility to learn, to grow, to discuss, to grow and to change,” the college has “a major role” in planning events and providing resources and forums at which education on race-related topics can occur. Jordan echoed that concern, stating that while the college is seeking to be “very open to student input, especially the input of students of color,” the college is simultaneously trying to avoid making students feel “if anything’s going to get done, they have to do it”. Spiritual Life’s role in this process should extremely important as well, because “Making room for each other, listening to each other, not jumping to conclusions, finding ways to live peaceably together–these are essential [Gospel] things”, Jordan said.

The defacing of the Shades of Black was described by Pool as “eye-opening” to a “lack of understanding among some of our students,” as the person responsible was an “an outgrowth of the experience here in this community” while other students responded with “gross ignorance” to the fact of the privilege white students experience.

Jordan stated that one of the important things he learned was “how very important it is to mourn with those who mourn.” Jordan also said that that when someone has been deeply hurt “the Gospel doesn’t call us to defend ourselves, nor to lecture the person about why their pain is illegitimate.” As a Christian liberal arts college, it is important that we have continue to explore “each other’s stories about what the Gospel does for us; and students from a dominant white culture need to listen attentively to the stories of non-white Christians even when it’s a bit jarring to them,” Jordan said.

For those not personally affected by the incident but who condemned it and the attitudes who produced it, Pool recommended continuing to speak out in support of their fellow students who were hurt. He commended those who responded with “with genuine, visible expressions of support” for their fellow students and friends after the defacing of the Shades of Black display. Jordan called for bravery on the part of white students who may have been “reluctant or unwilling to see if they actually had something to learn from the experience,” saying that the Houghton community needs to have “the humility to listen to others’ pain and examine our own hearts.”

According to Pool, the freshman class this year has the highest percentage of racially diverse students in Houghton’s history; at present, the incoming first year class for the fall is set to surpass that record.

While I agree with Joe Gilligan’s point that free market capitalism has benefitted society through encouraging innovation and thereby increasing the wealth and living standards for societies as a whole, it is not immediately apparent whether these accomplishments classify capitalism as good and just. The statistic that Americans have a higher median income and standard of living than Swedes merely demonstrates that free market capitalism, as compared to socialism, may be a more effective route to materialist ends. In order to take the next step and assert that capitalism is then good, one would need to assume that maximal wealth is the good to be pursued by an economic system. However, this would be to assume what capitalism already asserts: that the ultimate goal is maximization of profit. In order to avoid circular reasoning, the goodness of capitalism cannot be analyzed on the basis of resulting wealth. Fulfillment of materialist objectives, such as the effective production of goods and the increase of societal wealth, is a significant merit for an economic system, but does not provide adequate basis for qualifying capitalism as good and just. The standards of what is good and just for an economic system should be defined in ethical rather than purely economic terms.

The traditional ethical defense of capitalism is on the basis of freedom. According to Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom, while efficiency and the ability to improve living standards are important reasons to maintain free markets, “the more immediate case for the freedom of market transaction lies in the basic importance of that freedom itself.” Though we might dispute how freedom should be defined or realized, most of us probably agree that freedom is intrinsically valuable, and the promotion of freedom is an acceptable basis for asserting that free market capitalism is “good.”

The issue to be explored, then, is to what extent the theoretical good of free market capitalism—freedom—is actually realized in capitalist societies. In this context, the attainment of individual freedom will also be my criteria for measuring whether the system is just.

Perhaps the issue of greatest concern for individual freedom in capitalist societies is immense (and growing) wealth and income disparity. The Gini coefficient, which measures the income inequality within a particular group, has risen enormously within countries with capitalist systems over the past quarter-century. Since China began capitalist market reforms in 1979, its baseline standard of living has increased considerably, but its Gini coefficient has increased from about 28 points (marking relatively equal economic distribution) in 1991 to over 47 points (marking gross inequality) in 2012.

While economic inequality is not necessarily inherently unjust, it may still pose a significant barrier to individual freedom, thereby perpetuating injustice. Individuals with less money have less freedom to act in various areas of life, for instance to access education or healthcare. Individuals with less money also have less power to influence what happens in society. This is particularly true in circumstances where wealth may literally buy political influence, a common occurrence in countries such as China. To the extent that the gross economic inequality associated with capitalism limits freedom, it is unjust.

Defenders of capitalism might respond by suggesting that the underlying structure of capitalism is just, however, because it rewards individual effort and achievement with economic success. But basing economic justice solely on individual effort mistakenly assumes that individuals begin on level playing fields with equal capabilities to succeed. A recent World Bank study showed that 80% of variability in a person’s income is accounted for by country of birth and parental income level. The remaining 20% is primarily affected by sex, race, and other variables over which persons have no control; individual effort has a very small impact on economic success. Even in capitalist societies where there might be a stronger relationship between effort and success than exists globally, there is no question that factors over which an individual has no control significantly influence his or her life success or lack thereof, economic and otherwise. Although capitalism is structured individualistically, in reality, the “individuals” who take part in capitalism are shaped by communities.

So am I suggesting that free market capitalism is not good and just? Perhaps this is not the most relevant question. When evaluating capitalism, we must consider it in relation to alternate economic systems. Other systems might come closer to the ideal of the good and the just in some regards, but there are always tradeoffs. While free market capitalism cannot be unqualifiedly characterized as good and just, it may still be the best alternative. However, we must be careful to recognize the limitations of capitalism so that we can be open to pursuit of the good and just through whatever measures may be most effective rather than limiting ourselves to a single framework.