Doug Glanville, the former pro baseball player, pens a personal essay for us on the persistent problem of cab drivers refusing service because of race. This passage is notably nuanced:
It’s worth noting that in my experience, the drivers who most blatantly refused me service have never been white. According to a 2004 The New York Times report, 84 percent of New York City cab drivers are immigrants (the vast majority are “of color”), just like my father was in the mid-1950s. English was not the first language of the driver who refused me at LAX. This fact complicated the story for me. On the one hand, it was sobering to see how newcomers to the United States could not only adopt longstanding racial and institutional biases, but entrench them even further. On the other hand, I knew that I was in a position of power, and that I was in danger of making assumptions myself.
But many readers furrowed their brows:
I was with Glanville until he mentioned “how newcomers to the United States could not only adopt longstanding racial and institutional biases, but entrench them even further.”
This notion that the rest of the world is a racism-free oasis, and that people come to this country and pick up racism, like some virus, is so much nonsense. Try getting a cab in Asia, the Middle East, and large swaths of Europe. For that matter, try talking to a black African about African Americans.
Another reader nods along:
I agree, especially because the author mentions that the cab driver was Asian. I’ve been to China—everyone’s racist there, even against their own kind (China is BIG, with a lot of different ethnicities), and especially against black people, whom they openly detest. For example, this Beijing shop had a sign out front saying This shop does not receive, Japanese, Philippines, Vietnamese, and dogs. And it’s not unique; I’ve seen several similar examples.
The cab driver didn’t pick up this attitude in the U.S.; he brought it with him.
Based on Glanville’s embrace of Uber, a reader sees an opening for an ideological lesson:
Problem: It’s hard for black men to get a taxi.
Leftist solution: Sue the taxi company, thereby raising rates for everyone. Talk incessantly about institutional racism. Hijack college curriculums so every student at America’s universities gets indoctrinated. Start protest movements that fail to improve the lot of black people in America but succeed at vilifying police, resulting in a violent crime spike throughout America. Cobble together a trillion dollar set of government programs that don't fix anything, but do create a permanent underclass of dependent recipients. Talk and talk and talk some more about the problem with anyone who will listen, and get angry at white people who don't have time to listen to you because they, you know, have a job and a family. Play this game for decades, creating permanent division between the races in America, then stand outside in New York and get angry that even after all that, a black man still can’t get a cab.
Capitalist solution: Invent Uber. Problem solved.
But this reader is far more skeptical of the app-based service:
Uber drivers are just as racist and discriminatory as traditional cabbies. Try sending an Uber ping with an “urban” name like “Dwayne” or “Latisha” (or worse, an Indian or Asian name) and see how long it takes for a pick-up compared to someone right next to you whose name is “Peter” or “Mary.”
Drop me an email if you have any particularly strong views here, especially ones based on personal experience. Update from a reader:
As a Black man living in Brooklyn for 20+ years who has traveled throughout the U.S. and to Europe, Asia and Africa, I read Glanville’s piece with some interest and some first-hand experience with the issues at hand. His was a nuanced piece and I congratulate him on that. However, I agree with most of the criticisms made regarding the assumption that immigrants “learn” racism once they arrive. I think they DO learn the racial pecking order (long ago, Richard Pryor had a very bitter comedy routine regarding Vietnamese immigrants learning to properly say the word “n******r”) and I think they do employ the same heuristics regarding crime, race, gender and geography that many Americans do. All very nuanced and very difficult to grapple with.
That’s why I was disappointed in your decision to include the ideological nonsense from that one reader masquerading as a response. Not only does it haul out a tired (but all-too-often employed) distinction between “leftists” and “capitalists,” but it completely ignores the issue of why drivers would discriminate and in the process ignores one of the key attributes of the taxi industry that companies like Uber eschew—“compellability.” (For a good breakdown on that issue as it affects London, see this piece on London Connections.)
I greatly appreciate the absence of a comments section. But I recognize that it puts an editorial burden on you to read through, select, and publish certain opinions. Unless your goal was to provoke a less-than-thoughtful debate, I think you failed on this one. These are difficult issues, but they are manageable ones if we can avoid the partisan nonsense that works in electoral campaigns. On your blog, you have the opportunity and the responsibility to influence how these issues are dealt with.
As an aside, in NYC, you don’t “sue the taxi company” as a general response. You take the driver to TLC Court. I’ve done it, twice. The specific driver faces fines (and potentially lost work time). To initiate the process you note license number (on the plate, on top of the cab and on your receipt) and dial 311.
That contested reader response was worth airing because, if nothing else, it prompted that far better followup email with those informative links.