Minority Report

The 2020 US census included the designation of six race/ethnic groups for which people were to self- identify. They were:

• White
• African American
• Hispanic or Latino
• Asian American
• American Indian or Native Alaskan
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

For those believing they did not fit into one of those six groups, there were additional categories called “Other” and “Multi-race”¹.

Except for Whites, these groups are generally recognized as disadvantaged “minority” groups and are given preferential treatment for employment, business opportunities, and admission to universities in the US. That special treatment is often referred to as Affirmative Action. The goal is to achieve equality among these groups and with whites, and to protect them from racial bias.

This practice began in the 1960’s shortly after the terms African American, Hispanic American and Asian American became popularized. It is important to note that in this context, the term African American generally refers to a mono-cultural group. While originally from different parts of Africa, African Americans living in the US today mostly descend from many generations of ancestors who were all born here in the US and share a common culture. Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans are multi-cultural groups. For example, Asian Americans include people from China, Japan, India, The Philippines, Vietnam, and Korea. These are vastly different cultures all combined into one group.

Affirmative Action has now been in practice for almost 60 years and has spanned three generations. The first beneficiaries in the mid-1960’s are now grandparents and in some cases great-grandparents. That would seem to be enough time to observe meaningful results and determine if Affirmative Action has made a difference.

It is important to note that at the outset, each of these minority groups were generally assumed to be disadvantaged in the same way. Therefore, the Affirmative Action remedies were the same for each group. However, the progress achieved (or lack thereof) by each of these groups has differed significantly over that 60-year period.

The two groups who exemplify this disparity the most are Asian Americans and African Americans. The first and most obvious difference between these two groups over the last 60 years is the change in their proportional size to the rest of the population. In the 1960 census, Asians accounted for just 0.6% of the US population. In the 2020 census, that percentage had risen to 6%, a 10-fold increase. In that same 60-year interval, the African American portion of the US population remained virtually unchanged, varying up and down within a narrow range of 11 – 13% the entire time.

Even at 6% of the US population in 2020, Asian Americans as a group are still significantly smaller in size than Hispanic Americans (18.7%) and African Americans (12.4%). Yet, Asian Americans now own far more employer businesses (businesses with paid employees) than all the other minority groups combined. The percentage of Asian American students enrolled in elite US Universities is higher than every other minority group. In fact, Asian American students with academic qualifications exceeding all other applicants are now regularly denied admission to these Universities because of self-imposed racial quotas by those Universities.² Finally, the median income level of Asian Americans in 2020 was the highest (by far) of all groups, including Whites.

By contrast, African Americans own far fewer employer businesses than Asian Americans despite being more than twice the size of the Asian American population. In fact, during the 17-year period between 1997-2014, the number of African American employers declined by 12%. In higher education, the percentage of African American students enrolled in Ivy League universities has been unchanged for decades, hovering around 8%. That is three times less than the number of Asian Americans enrolled in those same schools. And while the median income of African Americans has risen during the last 60 years (accounting for inflation), it is still well below the other minority groups and Whites.

 Was Affirmative Action the engine for the meteoric rise of Asian Americans in the US over the last half-century? If so, then why haven’t those exact same Affirmative Action policies been anywhere near as beneficial for African Americans?

While Affirmative Action may have helped in individual instances, overall, we believe it had little or nothing to do with the success story of Asian Americans as a group. Likewise, it has not intervened as hoped to overcome the disadvantages of African Americans as a group. The reason, we believe, is because Affirmative Action was founded on a flawed premise – that all the different cultures within these minority groups have similar goals and priorities in life. They don’t. In particular, we’re convinced what sets them apart is how the family structures within each of these minority groups affects the future success of their children.

Numerous studies have shown that children who are born into a family with both biological parents who remain together throughout the child’s upbringing have much greater odds of success than those who aren’t.³ These studies typically compare youth education (receipt of a high school diploma) and incidence of early (unwed) pregnancy. Those two indicators tend to correlate strongly with the likelihood of prosperity as an adult. Given that the 60-year period being discussed here is long enough for two generations of children to mature to adulthood, cultural differences between minority groups as regards their family structures cannot be ignored.

There exists a wealth of statistics for each minority group that bear on this topic. That allows for a legitimate comparison between groups to assess the possibility that family structure, as opposed to racial oppression, could be a significant or even dominant factor in the observed outcomes for each group. If it is, then policies like Affirmative Action were attempting to remedy the wrong root problem.

We begin by comparing the percentage of children not born into a two-parent family for the two minority groups that have grown the most disparate since the start of Affirmative Action in the 1960’s. In 1965, 24% of African American children in the US were born to single mothers (Brookings Institute). By 2021, that number had nearly tripled to 70.4% (CDC). By comparison, the percentage of Asian American children born to single mothers is much lower (12.2% in 2021 according to the CDC) and was relatively consistent over the entire 60-year period.

Some children are born into a two-parent family whose parents later get divorced before the child is grown (this situation is included in the study literature referenced in footnote 3). Asian American women have consistently had the lowest divorce rate of all racial/ethnic groups, including White women, over this period. The divorce rate among African American women increased at a steeper rate than all other groups after the 1960’s and is presently three times the rate of Asian American women. In fact, African American women are currently the only group in which the divorce rate is now higher than the marriage rate.

For these two minority groups, these statistics strongly suggest a correlation between family structure within the culture and the social/economic/educational outcomes that have resulted for each group. Family structure appears to us a much stronger correlation to the observed outcomes than any outcome that could be derived from Affirmative Action. It also provides a reason why Affirmative Action might appear to have worked for one minority group but didn’t work for another group.

This analysis is based entirely on statistics, probabilities, and surveys. It is an exercise in following objective logic to a reasonable conclusion based on actual data. It is not intended to be judgmental. There are other possible explanations for the disparity that has arisen between the African American and Asian American minority groups.

For example, it could be argued that within the Asian American population there are a lot of white-skinned people (other physical differences notwithstanding) who may not generally be as affected by racism, and therefore not as disadvantaged as dark-skinned people. It could also be argued that the importance of the nuclear family structure in a child’s upbringing is overstated, especially in cultures where there is a strong sense of community with extended family members always present in the home to fill the parenting gap left by the absence of one or both biological parents.

Both these positions suggest racism based on skin color, as opposed to family structure, is still the primary reason all or parts of minority groups remain disadvantaged and have a continuing need for Affirmative Action. However, other statistics refute this theory. For example, as was mentioned earlier in this article, within the Asian American group are people from India (20%) whose skin tone can be as dark as African American skin. Yet, Indian Americans currently have the highest incomes and education levels of all other groups or sub-groups, minority or otherwise. Despite their skin color, they are thriving as a group. A similar observation can be made within many parts of the Hispanic American minority group.

We believe the evidence points strongly to the cultural differences outlined above regarding family structure as the dominant reason for the differing outcomes of these minority groups. We additionally believe the politics of racism, rather than actual racism itself, plays a big role. Liberal politicians do not want their large voting block of African Americans to follow the same path as Asian Americans because it has shown to be a path that results in more personal freedom and self-sufficiency. Today’s liberal ideology is precisely the opposite of that, fostering limited freedom and dependency on government.⁴

That dependency is what captures and holds some minorities forever in the grip of government assistance. The creation of minority group designations beginning in the 1960’s was a means to that end. African Americans, who as a group once voted overwhelmingly Republican, have become a consistently reliable Democrat voting block as a result. To maintain this voting block, liberal politicians use the specter of oppressive racism with its attendant need for government intervention as a tool. This is uniquely effective with African Americans because of the sensitivities surrounding the history of slavery in America.

While it is certainly possible for minority groups to grow out of the need for preferential treatment from their government (Asian Americans are living proof), it is much harder to change entrenched parts of a culture. That kind of change can only come from within.

¹The Census Bureau states that in both the 2010 and 2020 census, the “Multi-Race” group was the fastest growing group in the US. We wrote about the interesting ramifications this has on racism in a previous article: The Inevitable Implosion of Critical Race Theory

²As we’ve written previously (Harvard’s Omission), Harvard University has been embroiled in several court challenges to its admissions policy regarding Asian Americans. Harvard admitted, by way of its own internal study, if academic achievement alone were the sole criteria for admission, Asian American acceptances would be more than double what they have historically been at Harvard.

³Two excellent examples of these studies are: Family Structure and Outcomes in Emerging Adulthood – How Children Born to Unwed Mothers Fare; The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

⁴This difference in governing philosophy was made crystal clear during the COVID pandemic by observing the actions of Republican Governors verses Democrat Governors regarding lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and public gatherings.