At the Wall Street Journal, Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes that many of the most vocal players in our re-energized race debates are incentivized to maintain conflict rather than seeking solutions. I have seen what Ali has seen about the the resistance to facts and statistics when these things are inconvenient to the narrative of choice by those supporting the Black Lives Matter political agenda (which is separate and distinct from the idea that Black lives do, of course, matter). Whenever there is such a disconnect between narrative and evidence, that is a big red ultra-suspicious flag.

Here are a few dozen other issues and facts courtesy of Sam Harris (Making Sense Podcast Transcript: "Can We Pull Back From the Brink") that the reform movement not only ignores, but intensely refuses to consider. Why doesn't BLM's website take a careful look at available statistics regarding policing on its website?  If it did, BLM would find significant support for the claim that police harass Blacks more often than non-Blacks, but they would not find evidence that police use lethal force against Blacks disproportionately.

If the people insisting on reform refuse to first discuss the facts on the ground--a vigorous exploration the facts, pro and con--why should the rest of us--the country at large--trust that movement?

Here is an excerpt from Ali's WSJ article:

Although I am a black African—an immigrant who came to the U.S. freely—I am keenly aware of the hardships and miseries African-Americans have endured for centuries. Slavery, Reconstruction, segregation: I know the history. I know that there is still racial prejudice in America, and that it manifests itself in the aggressive way some police officers handle African-Americans. I know that by measures of wealth, health and education, African-Americans remain on average closer to the bottom of society than to the top. I know, too, that African-American communities have been disproportionately hurt by both Covid-19 and the economic disruption of lockdowns.

Yet when I hear it said that the U.S. is defined above all by racism, when I see books such as Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility” top the bestseller list, when I read of educators and journalists being fired for daring to question the orthodoxies of Black Lives Matter—then I feel obliged to speak up.

The problem is that there are people among us who don’t want to figure it out and who have an interest in avoiding workable solutions. They have an obvious political incentive not to solve social problems, because social problems are the basis of their power. That is why, whenever a scholar like Roland Fryer brings new data to the table—showing it’s simply not true that the police disproportionately shoot black people dead—the response is not to read the paper but to try to discredit its author.

I have no objection to the statement “black lives matter.” But the movement that uses that name has a sinister hostility to serious, fact-driven discussion of the problem it purports to care about. Even more sinister is the haste with which academic, media and business leaders abase themselves before it. There will be no resolution of America’s many social problems if free thought and free speech are no longer upheld in our public sphere. Without them, honest deliberation, mutual learning and the American problem-solving ethic are dead.