Book 9- The Sum of Us
Read this for my work's newly launched book club. Overall, this is a worthwhile read. It goes well with two other books I've recently read: The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein (which McGhee quotes from several times), and Caste, by Isabel Wilkerson. There are many strengths to this book, which is easy to read, with an engaging tone. I liked the running metaphor of the filled public pool (which, I'd heard of this happening but did not realize the extent). McGhee uses both past and present examples of the issues we are facing, and ties them together. I also like how she outlines what hasn't worked in trying to bridge the racial divide- and what HAS worked. That is always refreshing.
However, my one issue is her entire theme that racist laws and mores have been created because of the zero-sum analogy. She argues that we need to realize that the issues are not zero-sum, and that by elevating the currently marginalized in society, we elevate everyone. I partially agree- but only partially. Yes, I agree that removing racist policies and barriers will elevate MOST people and certainly will benefit society as a whole. But to argue that zero-sum is a false narrative is a bit disingenuous. The hard reality is that any time you deal with scarce resources - finite openings at the elite high school, limited slots at the prestigious university, a handful of job openings for that Fortune 500 company, a select number of seats in the boardroom - you are dealing with zero sum. When people who have been used to things being a certain way, who have counted on having easy access to those resources, suddenly have more challengers vying for those opportunities, they will do whatever possible to keep their historic edge.
Zero-sum is not necessarily the problem. I use the example of a hypothetical high schooler who skates by with a C+ average who has an eye on a prestigious university because gee, they have an outstanding soccer team but also, once you graduate from there, you have an easy slide to a top job due to having gone there. Even though his grades are less than stellar, he still has an excellent chance in getting into that school because he's white, he's wealthy, and mommy, daddy, auntie, grandpy and great-grandpy all went to that university. A lot of universities put high emphasis on legacy students because they want that sweet alumni cash. However, legacy entries have come under fire in the past couple years. I heard one is planning to do away with giving weight to legacies, and I think one state is considering legislation to ban the practice at the public universities.
So, going back to little Mr. Mediocrity. Ten years ago, even five years ago, he would have easily coasted into that university of his dreams. But now, with legacy enrollment under suspicion and more institutes of higher learning trying to attract minority and first-generation students through scholarships, our hypothetical teen has gone from perhaps facing 300 students for 100 seats, but with a decisive edge, to facing a thousand plus students for those same seats- but without the advantages he once would have had. So, in this zero-sum scenario, he loses.
This is NOT a bad thing. Quality should be rewarded, and the mediocrities be allowed to come short of the finish line. But we also need to acknowledge that in a world order where we bring in equity- where everyone is given the tools they need to succeed - that the coasters and those wielding power and wealth will lose. Again- this is not a bad thing. But the minority that will lose are going to put up a heck of a fight- and we need to realize this. The ultimate goal, then, is to elevate as many as possible and to try to make sure that those who will lose out either won't lose anything they can't afford to lose, and slackers are encouraged to not coast and rely and privilege to get places.
However, all in all, the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses. I do recommend this to anyone wanting to learn more about the divides in our country, both past and present.