The Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University, Glenn Loury, argues that the liberal ideal of race-blindness in state policies represents a superficial moral stance, and, moreover, that liberal individualism is an insufficient norm in a society sharply stratified along racial lines. “I believe (and believe I can demonstrate),” he writes, “that the manner in which liberal political theory deals with the ethical problems raised by the pronounced and durable social-economic disadvantage of African Americans is troubled, inadequate, superficial, and incomplete.”

The overarching question to keep in mind when answering the questions below is why Loury thinks that racial justice (e.g. mitigating the economic disadvantage of black Americans) falls under the basic responsibilities of the State.

(Glenn Loury is a frequent blogger at Bloggingheads.tv. You can check him out here.)

(i)        According to Loury, two distinct moral desiderata animate the discourse about race and social justice in America. Describe them. (pp. 112-113)

(ii)      Although Loury is sympathetic to Charles Mills’ criticism of color-blind liberalism and his characterization of the American state as a racial contract, he is also critical of what he takes to be Mills’ wholesale dismissal of liberal universalism. Why? (And is his criticism fair?) (pp. 118-121)

(iii)     What is Loury’s criticism of the “liberal self” (i.e. the idea of the self underlying liberal individualism)? (His criticism is very similar to Yancy’s!) (pp. 121-122)

(iv)     Loury thinks that “past racial injustice is relevant in establishing a general presumption against indifference to present racial inequality”. (a) What does he mean? (pp. 125-126) He also thinks that there are two categorically different responses to the problem of a morally problematic racial history. (b) Describe them. (pp. 126-127)

(v)      Loury’s argument for racial justice is essentially as argument for equality of opportunity. How? Try to give a brief outline of the argument. (pp. 129-141)

To be continued…