Dear Reader:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
How could a “scientist’s instinct” square with the unquestioning acceptance of the myth that buying a house or choosing a place to live in a highly segregated city is a “voluntary exchange”? How could a “scientist” on the one hand trumpet his preliminary conclusion that African Americans in Chicago do not suffer disproportionate exposure to hazardous waste sites, yet on the other hand “admit that it’s not the whole story”? How could a “scientist’s instinct” cavalierly dismiss Charlie Cray’s well-founded charge of racist and classist institutional biases of the EPA by saying: “I don’t think [emphasis added] there is less chance of something being reported in a poorer neighborhood than in a richer one”? Clearly, Coursey’s willingness to question assumptions doesn’t go too deep. He assumes that even one call would generate a paper trail–what about the 36 files the EPA couldn’t even find? This is sophistry, not science.
The example he gives of a Chrysler plant in Detroit is a clear-cut case of environmental racism: a community desperate for jobs is forced to accept less environmental cleanup than any white suburb would ever accept. That Coursey denies this is environmental racism is as outrageous as his answer to the similar situation of siting an incinerator in Robbins. His answer is that the rich have troubles too. The name for these situations is environmental blackmail.
Franklin Dmitryev
But clearly there are bigger issues here than research design. I urge Tverdek and Dmitryev to throw off their shyness and tell us what lies behind rhetoric like “better’ form of society” and “revolutionary question.” Do these words allude to some noncapitalist way of organizing society that can (a) produce the wealth we need to survive (and clean the environment) and (b) respect democracy and individual rights? If so the world is waiting to hear. If not let’s get serious about eradicating racism from the system we have.
