Instances of the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

By Emmanuel Musaazi

Made infamous by Pres. George W. Bush in his first term of office, the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations was invoked while pitching the ‘compassionate conservative’ idea of ‘No Child Left Behind.’ The 2001 Act of Congress supported standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. As part of his overreaching compassionate argument, Bush asserted that students, irrespective of economic background or race were capable of achieving the same as their peers – and thus, ought to be subjected to the same standard of tests like everyone else. This, in the 43rd President’s opinion would lead to improved accountability standards and performance in public schools. This, of course, was in contradistinction to the belief – mostly held by the Democrats, Liberals and Progressives – that standardized tests were unfair and worked against minorities [black and hispanic] who came from more disadvantaged and economically poor backgrounds.

As a pitchman for what was apparently a lofty ideal, Mr. Bush came off as authentic. It seems as though he was saying that race and socio-economic status ought not to be a criteria for evaluating achievement since all human being are naturally endowed equally by the Almighty. However, the soft bigotry of low expectations has underlying messages that suggest a double standard – basically, lower standards based on race and the subtle and yet clearly derisive notion that a group of people do not have the capacity to succeed on their own without external help. This is the same philosophy – this very vituperative soft bigotry of low expectations – that is scattered throughout the philosophies of the politics within both the Republican and Democratic party. Individuals and institutions have used the soft bigotry of low expectations to advance their agendas, albeit for positive or nefarious ends.

Case in point: Donald Trump, a so called self made billionaire, television personality, real estate mogul and one time potential presidential candidate from the Republican Party cynically suggested that President Obama – a man he could have run against in 2012 – could not have gotten into Harvard on his own without affirmative action, insinuating that African Americans cannot make it on their own into the American Ivy League on pure merit. In the same vein, while this very element was a hot button issue with a historical narrative based on slavery and racial prejudice, the famous ideological rivalry between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B Du Bois helped shape the concept of civil rights as we know it today.

In founding the Tuskegee Institute, Mr. Washington advocated a bootstrapping economic approach to black empowerment with minimal political footprint so as not to antagonize the white establishment of the day. Washington felt that political equality was unattainable and was willing to settle for the status quo which, in my opinion was the ultimate allusion to the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.

My case is made even stronger by Dr. Du Bois who exhorted an approach to black empowerment that bundled politics and economics together; demanding equal rights between blacks and whites in direct conversion to Washington. Even though Du Bois is viewed as one of the major architects of the civil rights movement it is arguable that he would have supported an affirmative action approach to equality given that he was the first black man to obtain a PhD from Harvard pre-affirmative action.

In response to this, there is a growing school of thought within the African American community that views affirmative action as an instance of the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations that has run its course and become a hindrance to sustainable integration and economic empowerment. However, we need to insert ourselves here and ask: Should everyone be subjected to the same standard despite their background? What are we to do with the curious case of the African Americans and especially the males who seem to be making a mark more as incarcerated wards of America’s prison system than as parents and present parents? This was at the heart of the Obama | Jackson Incident of 2008.

Former presidential aspirant [and civil rights icon] Rev. Jesse Jackson excoriated the then Senator Barack Obama for ‘talking down to black people’ when the latter gave his version of tough talk about dead beat dads and how they were destroying the fabric of the African American society. To this, it’s no secret that in the Unites States, African Americans have the highest percentage of single family homes mostly headed by women. In castigating Senator Obama, Rev. Jackson seemed to suggest that African American men were incapable of doing better – an incident of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Historically African politics has been dictated and shaped by interplay between ethnicity, religion and colonialism. In recent times, however, aid has become a political lightning rod. The camp supporting the present aid regime is made up of western governments and institutions, wealthy philanthropists and artists, and recipient government bureaucrats some well meaning, some not. The opposing side is made up of mainly academics, government and opposition leaders from recipient countries, and some politicians from western donor nations.

Obviously the former holds more clout and star power and represents the long standing establishment policy. However after over 50 years of aid, representing an estimated US$1 trillion with little to show, the latter, championed by the likes of Professor Dambisa Moyo, Professor George Ayittey and President Paul Kagame of Rwanda are propounding an alternative “tough love” approach. They view the present timeless aid policy as counterproductive as it has fostered and perpetuated corruption and bad governance encouraging recipient countries to look outward rather than inward for socio-economic solutions. They argue that recipient countries have become beholden to donor nations and institutions thus making them less independent and vulnerable to manipulation. They suggest that recipient nations need to be weaned off aid and compelled to look inward for solutions which they believe exist given the vast amount of resources that abound on the African continent. Prof. Moyo has pointed her elegant finger at the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations by aid donors which suggests that African nations cannot make it on their own without external aid.

Emmanuel Musaazi is a college professor based in Toronto, Canada

Editors Note: This Opinion Piece was reissued on September 19, 2012. The first version was published on September 16, 2012.