Similarly, black crime rates were much lower during the first half of this century -- even during the Great Depression, even in the Deep South -- than during the past three decades. Those who automatically assume -- like Loury, Lemann, and their apparent mentor Wilson -- that black cultural pathology is due to historical oppression have offered no explanation for why many of these pathologies were much less serious when the discrimination and hardship facing the African-American community were vastly more intense.

None of this to deny that Americans must work together as a nation to address the country's problems, including its race problem. But the best way to do this is to appeal to the goodwill of whites and other citizens. Human nature dictates that we who are not black are more likely to want to help if we see that blacks acknowledge the nature of the problem, and are taking concrete actions to do something about it.

Americans are unlikely to respond favorably to Loury's strategy of moral intimidation. Already it is a bit comical to see this economist put on his preacher's robes and subject middle-class whites and the rest of us to tiresome lectures on our supposed moral duties. If Loury is so concerned about the underclass why doesn't he give up his prestige-press punditry, get off the lecture circuit, and devote his energies full-time to teaching disadvantaged kids in an inner-city school?

The point is not that Loury should put his resources where his mouth is. It is that as a black man, Loury is more likely to influence the thinking and cultural practices of other African-Americans than a non-black would be. If Nick Lemann or I showed up in a predominantly black neighborhood to talk about skills and responsibility, we would be viewed with suspicion and even hostility. Although it has been repeatedly denied in this symposium, my point is an obvious one: as a practical matter, African-American preachers, teachers, and parents are often in the best position to reform the mores of the black community.