‘Private Racism’: It’s Not About Politics

In a new book published just last year in late 2019, Dartmouth government professor Sonu Bedi takes on one of modern society’s greatest moral cancers. Sadly, the cancer he addresses isn’t TikTok or the entire state of New Jersey, either (for both legal and social reasons, this is a joke). Bedi takes on the institution of racism, specifically, Private Racism—the title of his completed work.

Typically when addressing racism, people are referring to public racism—racism that happens in politics, the public sphere, or as a result of the enforcement of public policy. Private racism is racism that occurs in the private sector. Some examples that Bedi mention and dispute throughout the book are racial steering (racism towards prospective homeowners) and casting racism (racism that occurs in the film and television industry). Bedi utilizes both legal and philosophical claims to build a bipartisan argument that private racism in all forms is a moral injustice. Despite being relatively short in length, the book is made dense because it is loaded with historical and legal references, and it is evident that Bedi has researched this topic extensively. However, his clear and systematic writing style made relatively complicated strands of logic easy to follow, even for readers less well-versed in law and philosophy.

Bedi breaks down his argument into five parts, along with an introduction and a conclusion. The first part, “Enlarging the Boundary of Racial Justice,” contends that addressing private racism should be within the boundary of racial justice and also sets the logical framework for the remainder of the book.

Racism, as Bedi describes, is universally understood as an evil practice. However, the condemnation of racism is justified using contrasting veins of logic. Because of this, opposing sides of the political aisle often propose drastically different solutions to address the practice of racism. For example, we can examine disagreements on affirmative action college admission policies. Conservative ideology views affirmative action as an act of racism in itself, and thus, wishes to abolish it, while liberal ideology sees affirmative action as a way to rectify the wrongs of racism, and thus, wishes to prolong it. What causes this disparity?

Bedi explains that it is largely due to what each respective ideology defines as the predominant moral violation—in other words—what ultimately makes racism such an unjust practice. Conservatives tend to view racial discrimination as the main racial injustice, a theory known as the ideal society approach. Liberals tend to believe that racial inequality is the main racial injustice, a theory known as the actual (or non-ideal) society approach. Advocates of the ideal society approach make decisions on how the world ought to exist; advocates of the actual society approach make decisions on how the world currently exists. By making this distinction, Bedi broadens his potential audience, as his argument can appeal to both Republicans and Democrats, alike.

The remaining four parts, “Casting Racism,” “Digital Racism,” “Sexual Racism,” and “Reproductive Market Racism,” use the foundation set in part one to address private racism in practice. In each area, Bedi uses the moral arguments of the ideal society approach and the actual society approach along with legal precedents set in historic court cases to justify why each respective form of private racism is morally wrong and violates (or should violate) federal law.

“Casting Racism” details racism in the film and television industry. Bedi points out that the Hollywood Diversity report “shows that as of 2016 whites constitute around 80 percent of all the leading roles in film and television.” Race was not specified for a large portion of these roles. In cases like these, where race is not essential to the role itself, he considers this an act of private racism. Bedi explains that this is private racism because private employers—in this case, the film and television studios—are discriminating on the basis of race, as “equality of opportunity is an essential feature in a liberal constitution.” Denying opportunities for employment due to race also furthers cultural imperialism, thus harming societal equality.

Bedi analyzes ABC’s reality television show, The Bachelor, to illustrate his point. This, quite possibly, was my favorite part of the entire book for both comical and serious reasons. It was amusing to me to read Bedi’s description of the show: “The Bachelor is a reality show that depicts a group of women who compete for the affections of a single man.” The transition between dense legal rhetoric to this Wikipedia-esque description of the absolute joke of a television show that is The Bachelor gave me one of those silent exhale laughs you make when you see a good meme (I wrote this line at 2:00 am).

I do think that Bedi’s analysis of The Bachelor substantially clarified his position: If race is not an integral part of a role, racial discrimination when casting that role should not be permitted. In other words, if changing the race of a character does not affect the overall plot of a story, race should not be a determining factor. An example where race would matter would be in Disney’s upcoming live action remake of Mulan. The story follows a woman who disguises herself as a man in order to save her father and serve in the Chinese army. Mulan as a character must be played by a woman of Chinese descent because changing both ethnicity and gender of the main character would damage the cultural significance of the story. Bedi would consider racial discrimination to be permissible in cases like these due to federal law which grants exemptions to bona fide occupational qualifications.

Bedi’s perspective reminded me of Hamilton on Broadway. Admittedly, I am a huge Hamilton fanboy. However, the contemporary-style musical is nationally renowned, setting records and even receiving the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for drama. Interestingly enough, the race of the cast members do not necessarily match the race of the character they portray because the race of the characters in the musical do not affect the overall story. All three separate times I watched Hamilton, the race of the actor who played Alexander Hamilton changed. While some were better than others, the race of the cast member was not the deciding factor—only his ability to perform. As the 2016 Republican Platform states, “[m]erit and hard work should determine advancement in our society.” Race should not be a factor.

Part three of Private Racism focuses on “Digital Racism,” which he considers to be discrimination and steering that happens within the digital realm. Racial injustice that happens digitally is significant because, as Bedi cites, a Pew Research poll conducted in 2018 found that “one quarter of adults in the United States say they are ‘almost constantly’ online.” Bedi breaks down two kinds of injustices that occur digitally: digital discriminantion and what he calls “digital steering.” Digital discrimination occurs when internet users use race to discriminate online. Bedi cites the example of eBay transactions. According to studies, users are less likely to buy products listed by black sellers than they are to buy from white sellers. Bedi acknowledges that there is “a difficulty in holding the platform or website responsible for simply hosting the discrimination.” This is where Bedi’s idea of “digital steering” comes into play. Because platforms often encourage or direct discriminatory behavior, we can hold websites accountable for digital racism. Due to the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress has the power to prohibit steering in websites, since today’s day and age heavily relies on the internet for commercial and social purposes.

The titles of parts four and five, “Sexual Racism” and “Reproductive Market Racism,” initially didn’t sit right with me. I believe that using race as one of many factors in choosing a romantic partner is permissible; in fact, I believe it is a personal liberty. However, Bedi’s points did not contradict my belief in any way. He states that “we do not simply wake up one day and proclaim that we are attracted to those of a particular race (or not attracted to those of another race). We cannot simply switch our desires on or off. That’s not how desire operates.”

So what does Bedi argue as the injustice in sexual racism? He says that our desires may be due to “unconscious racism” or “implicit bias[es]” that result from the sexual marketing of one race over another. Again, steering is at play here, and it occurs in digital forms such as dating apps. These platforms that discriminate on the basis of race by portraying certain races as “sexier” than another discriminate on the basis of race, and thus, facilitate sexual racism. This is how Bedi argues that “racism makes it more difficult for those who are not white to find intimacy.”

Similarly, “Reproductive Market Racism” does not argue against the right to reproduce with a person of your choosing—it argues that racism in the buying and selling of gametes is the injustice, another area where steering occurs. Bedi’s conclusion touches briefly on private homophobia and private economic injustices using similar logical processes that he has already laid out.

Bedi’s book is certainly an educational journey. However, this was not the main reason that I thoroughly enjoyed it. In a time of dire political polarization, it was refreshing to digest an engaging argument that did not contain a clear partisan objective. Instead, the book presented a logically sound commentary on an unnecessary societal evil that should be condemned by all, regardless of party identification. Perhaps this is what made Bedi’s book so compelling to me—I even found myself reading this on a Friday night (partially because I needed to finish this book review on time, but also because I just couldn’t put the book down). I highly recommend this book to political connoisseurs, legal scholars, anyone looking for a good weekend read, and all who oppose racism.

Although I have seemingly outlined many of Bedi’s arguments against private racism, I have only scratched the surface. Read the book yourself to dive further into his brilliant and thought-provoking analysis. Happy reading, friends.