How Racial Statistics Lie

Even though Tukufu Zuberi poses solutions which emphasize the shortcomings of academia, the existence of his body of work itself symbolizes a positive stride towards addressing racial bias.

The book, Thicker than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie, can be used to highlight the weaknesses of academia as Zuberi, like various other academics, seek a clear cut solution to a socially embedded problem. Therefore, Zuberi’s own solutions are not only naïve but also lack viability and practicality. His solutions to “de-racialize” statistics only weakly address the inherent racial bias from the potentially narrow perspective of the researcher. Therefore, he is quick to note that the researchers should go beyond their own social constructions in order to collect data; however, he fails to address how they would manage thinking independently from their own preconceived thoughts and beliefs about race. Zuberi also suggests that we must “demystify” the notion of racial statistics, yet one cannot help but wonder how this demystification will ever occur.

It is even more astonishing that Zuberi simply makes claims to assess partial solutions to problems in racial statistics after pointing out the complex relationship of race in the context of society. Hence, not only are his claims somewhat short sighted, they also signify a greater problem within the disciplines of academia. Academic rhetoric attempts to critically analyze and assess various matters in order to pose viable solutions to potential problems. However, because these solutions are derived largely from a theoretical perspective, they remain quite distant and inapplicable in the real world. Hence, academia falls into the trap of critical analysis in the sense that in the process of analysis it fails to intrinsically address the problems in a systematic and conducive manner. Furthermore, Zuberi’s work treats race as a factor of choice in statistics when the concept of race itself is not only dependent upon other social constructs but it is also a factor which is intrinsically present in societies. Furthermore, race also plays a factor in research regardless of whether it is indicated in explicit ways when it is reported or in implicit ways when it is not.

Zuberi’s attempts to seek a viable solution also indicate the innate nature of academia in the context of societal factors. Various academics seek a universal truth which can be highly problematic and erroneous. Firstly, because race is socially constructed with respect to which unique society it inhabits, there is no universal truth in regards to race. Secondly, societal problems cannot be solved with the proposition of a single idea. Because societal problems are deeply embedded within a larger cultural construct, potential solutions also need to be embedded in respect to this construct and should take in consideration the complexities rather than making attempts to oversimplify societal matters. Zuberi ignores the fact that even though race is a social construction, it has now become a part of our world. It is embedded in the way we view ourselves as well as those around us. This overriding social factor cannot be overcome. It would be naïve to assume that such a utopian like existence would be present where race could completely be eliminated both in the discipline of statistics as well as otherwise.

Zuberi thoroughly supports the extent to which race is a social construction, yet it is important to note that this realization exists among a very small subset of the population. Most individuals cannot escape the everlasting implications of race in their lives and consequently have internalized race. This inescapability creates a cyclic pattern of dependence and creates further inequalities and misconceptions to spread. For this reason, using race as an independent and removable entity in statistics denies its true construct. In elaboration, race basically legitimizes a system of classification where people are deemed unequal based on a factor as fickle as skin color. Many people live their daily lives in these constructs, so much so that it becomes a glaring reality rather than a socially constructed concept. Even though the concept of “race” has had a fairly short history, it has been able to create a psychological and socio-emotional havoc among various subsets of populations and manifests itself through the beliefs and assumptions about ourselves as well as others who surround us.

While clear cut solutions to such complex matters do not exist, the act of critical thinking, analyzing and questioning these statistics is what makes Zuberi’s work promising. Zuberi himself can be perceived as a positive symbol as he poses questions and dissents from blindly believing in racial statistics. Furthermore, the body of work symbolizes an optimistic step towards the future which may not ever escape the problematic nature of race relations, but may encourage a fertile ground for dialogue, discourse and dissent where individuals are able to pose questions about their social surroundings and bodies of agency instead of blindly accepting normative arguments. Even though this dissent may be in a very small sector of the population, it still indicates a sliver of hope for individuals who continue to question and reconstruct the ideas of race and how it impacts us in our daily lives.