Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins since 1896
March 28, 2024

Loury, Spence debate effectiveness of Black Lives Matter movement

By MORGAN OME | March 10, 2016

A2_TopLeft-1024x683

IVANA SU/PHOTOGRAPHY EDITOR The debate was moderated by associate professor Steven Teles.

The Department of Political Science and the Center for Africana Studies hosted a debate entitled From Protest to Politics? #BLM and the Future of Black America this past Wednesday in Levering’s Great Hall. The debate featured JHU’s Associate Professor of Political Science Lester Spence and Brown University’s Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics Glenn C. Loury. The two professors discussed the Black Lives Matter movement and the state of social and racial justice in America.

Loury obtained his BA in Mathematics from Northwestern University and his Ph.D. in Economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In November 2015, Loury published an op-ed in The Brown Daily Herald entitled “The political inefficacy of saying, ‘Black lives matter.’”

Spence obtained his BA and Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan. At Hopkins, Spence specializes in the study of black, racial and urban politics. In 2015, he received the JHU 21st Century Cities Seed Grant for his research project “How do Black Lives Matter? Assessing the Determinants of Municipal Police Spending.”

Associate Professor of Political Science Steven Teles moderated the debate.

Loury opened the debate reflecting on the current state of Black America and black politics.

“I’m going to try to serve here as a provocateur,” Loury said. “My primary goal is to induce a critical dialogue which I think is necessary at this time.”

Loury discussed activism in black communities, affirmative action and the BLM movement. Regarding affirmative action, Loury stated that while he is not against affirmative action, he finds it problematic.

“If our people, that is black people, don’t wake up, we’re going to be dependent on white liberal largesse for the next half century,” he said. “I’m disgusted by people who think that because we needed affirmative action a half century ago to open up closed spaces in the wake of Jim Crow’s demise, that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will continue to need it, too.”

He proceeded to read from several of his published pieces, including his op-ed from The Brown Daily Herald, which argues for the adoption of the All Lives Matter movement.

“At the end of the day, there can be no racial justice that will last without establishing universal social justice,” Loury said.

Loury stated that he does not see the All Lives Matter movement as an opposition to the BLM movement, but rather as a movement with a more comprehensive and universal end goal. He took issue with making race central to the discussion of police violence.

“[It] invites a counter-discourse in which the race of the perpetrators and the victims of everyday street crimes comes to be accepted as a legitimate topic of public argument,” he said.

Spence began his counter-remarks by first acknowledging the importance of Loury’s work and by addressing the purpose of politics and political action. He then discussed the definition of black politics, using a definition submitted by a student in one of his classes. According to this student, “black politics is about bringing pressure to bear on institutions for the purpose of social reform.”

Spence argued that the role of black politics should be to generate change and better the quality of life for people living in communities with socioeconomic disadvantages. He believed that the BLM movement is attempting to institute change by using the issue of police encounters, claiming that activists are trying to extend the level of care types of black people that the public cares about. Spence stated that victims of police brutality Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and Eric Garner, for example, were not “choir boys” or figures like Rosa Parks.

In response to Loury’s advocacy for the All Lives Matter movement, he stated that there is a reason for the emergence of the BLM movement. Cities such as Baltimore and Chicago are places of concentrated, hyper-segregation. Thus, Spence believed it made sense that BLM targeted a specific group in generating a sense of group within the black community. He also gave credit to the progress that the BLM movement has spurred. Spence attributed the changes in Ferguson’s tax structuring and the recent acquisition of two out of three city council positions to BLM protests. In Baltimore, Spence credited the election of Marilyn Mosby and the poor public opinion of Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to the efforts of the BLM movement.

Spence further challenged Loury’s criticism of affirmative action, explaining that studies about the gap between the qualifications of black students and the requirements of universities are not conclusive. 

“Institutions are not just about credentialing kids,” Spence said. “Institutions are about shaping society in the idea of what the public good should be. Politically, it behooves us to do everything we can to make those institutions more reflective, and as reflective of the country as we can make it.”

In countering, Loury stressed the importance of police in protecting the general public and the need to recognize the legitimacy of police officers. He cited the drop in the murder rate in New York as an example of the success that police forces can have in effectively helping people.

“Police ought to be held accountable, they ought to face justice just like anybody else when they misstep, but they ought not to be constructed as the enemy,” he said.

Several audience members asked questions about the differences between the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the current BLM movement. In response, both professors stated that the civil rights era was a drastically different time compared to the present day and age. According to Loury, the civil rights movement appealed to a moral charge that emphasized the collective “we” in America. Spence stated that present day social justice movements such as Occupy Wall Street and BLM cannot be viewed with the same lens that people view the civil rights movement with, because present day social justice movements are still in their beginnings.

BSU Vice President Tiffany Onyejiaka asked Loury what black youth are expected to do besides protest, when there is a systemic lack of opportunity to express their opinions. Loury conceded that there is nothing inherently wrong with protesting, but believed that protests are not a viable, long-term method of enacting change.

“I don’t see anything wrong with people getting organized and out into the streets to petition and make their points,” he said. “I just want that energy to be channeled and guided with a conception of what the goals ultimately are. It is not enough to be outraged, angry and [to protest], one has to marry that to some broader political conception.”

Spence and Loury both acknowledged the limitations of the BLM movement. For Spence, he felt that the BLM had not dealt with the economic problems that plague many people in the black community and are equally deadly. He cited lead poisoning as a leading health problem that can ultimately cause individuals’ deaths. Yet, Spence appreciated the opportunity that the young activists have provided for the general public to implement real change.

“To a certain extent, I see us debating the role of action,” Spence said. “Do we talk to the activists about reforming themselves or take the moment they’ve provided and engage? At a certain moment, we should be engaging ourselves.”

Spence also conceded that there are some benefits to All Lives Matter, in that it can appeal to a wider audience.

“I think BLM means something and should stay, but a good argument for the All Lives Matter movement is that [police brutality] happens enough to people who aren’t black, outside of cities and inside cities, that if you have All Lives Matter you can more likely engage in the type of coalition building you need to deal with police.”

Loury concluded his remarks by recognizing the role of morality and politics in creating a just society and re-emphasized the importance of fostering universal equality for all people.

“I’m not advocating that moralizing is a substitute for politics,” he said. “I still think there is a role for moral leadership in politics... I want to keep the goals in mind as racially transcendent and universalistic and not parochial and racially specific.”

Students responded positively to the debate. Junior Liam Haviv appreciated that the conversation addressed concerns that students have with social justice movements.

“I think that our whole generation has put the movements we really care about into very distilled forms that sometimes miss the ultimate goal,” he said. “When we put our anger and frustration... into 140 character tweets and hashtags, it takes away from so much of what we’re trying to say. Both of [the professors] were looking for a bigger goal, a bigger product, from BLM.”


Have a tip or story idea?
Let us know!

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.