The way we tell the story of racial disparity—whether we see it primarily as a consequence of systemic oppression or as a problem rooted in social and cultural development—determines the policies we advocate for and the solutions we pursue.
By Dr. Tim Orr
Few subjects in American public life generate as much tension as race. Conversations about racial inequality are often charged with emotion, entrenched in historical pain, and shaped by competing narratives. While facts matter, how we interpret them is just as crucial. The way we tell the story of racial disparity—whether we see it primarily as a consequence of systemic oppression or as a problem rooted in social and cultural development—determines the policies we advocate for and the solutions we pursue. Dr. Glenn Loury, an economist and social theorist at Brown University, offers a compelling critique of mainstream racial narratives, urging us to reconsider how we understand and address persistent racial inequality (Loury, 2021a).
His lecture challenges the prevailing assumptions that systemic racism is the singular force driving racial disparities. Instead, he presents an alternative framework—one that considers personal agency, cultural values, and social capital as essential factors in shaping racial outcomes. While it may be uncomfortable to discuss, Loury’s argument raises an important question: Are we limiting Black success by focusing too much on external barriers and too little on internal development? This article explores his insights and their implications for the future of racial discourse and policy.
The Two Competing Narratives: Bias vs. Development
Understanding racial inequality requires grappling with competing narratives shaping public perception and policy. Before diving into these frameworks, it is essential to recognize that the way we interpret racial disparities is not purely a matter of data but also of perspective. Our chosen narratives influence the policies we advocate and the solutions we deem viable. Glenn Loury identifies two primary ways of understanding racial disparities: the bias narrative and the development narrative.
Loury identifies two primary ways of understanding racial disparities: the bias narrative and the development narrative. The bias narrative sees racial inequality as a consequence of systemic racism, historical oppression, and ongoing discrimination. It argues that disparities in education, income, crime, and incarceration result primarily from structures that disadvantage Black Americans. This narrative has dominated public discourse, shaping policies such as affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and criminal justice reform (Bonilla-Silva, 2018).
In contrast, Loury’s development narrative argues that while historical injustices have played a role, disparities persist largely due to differences in social behaviors, family structures, and cultural attitudes toward education and work. In this view, addressing racial inequality requires fostering personal responsibility, strengthening family dynamics, and encouraging academic achievement rather than merely blaming systemic racism (Loury, 2021). This perspective does not dismiss history but suggests that social change depends as much on community values and behaviors as on external policies. If communities focus only on external solutions, they risk neglecting the internal transformations necessary for long-term progress.
How Narratives Shape Policy and Public Perception
The power of narratives is evident in how certain events become symbols of racial injustice. Consider the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The phrase “Hands up, don’t shoot” became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement, despite later investigations—by both local and federal authorities—confirming that Brown had attacked a police officer before being shot (Department of Justice, 2015). Regardless of the facts, the narrative endured because it aligned with a broader story about racial oppression and police brutality.
This illustrates Loury’s argument that narratives are often chosen, not simply discovered. Certain narratives gain traction over others because they align with deeply held social and political ideologies, reinforcing preexisting beliefs. Media amplification, political agendas, and historical memory all contribute to why one narrative may dominate public discourse while others are dismissed. When a narrative fits within a broader ideological framework, it becomes self-reinforcing, shaping public perception and policy responses in ways that may not always align with the full complexity of the issue. What we emphasize in these stories shapes public opinion and policymaking. Suppose we consistently frame racial disparities as the result of oppression. In that case, we risk ignoring other crucial factors, such as educational culture, family stability, and personal choices, contributing to social outcomes (McWhorter, 2021). The challenge is balancing the need for justice with the responsibility of individuals and communities to take ownership of their future. Failing to do so can lead to a culture of perpetual victimhood rather than empowerment.
The Role of Family and Culture in Development
One of Loury’s most controversial yet critical points is the importance of family structure in shaping life outcomes. Currently, around 70% of Black children in the U.S. are born to unmarried mothers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Research consistently shows that children from two-parent households perform better academically, have lower crime rates, and achieve greater economic success (Murray, 2012). This does not mean that single mothers cannot raise successful children, but it highlights the statistical advantage of stable family structures in fostering upward mobility.
Loury argues that policies should focus on redistributing resources and encouraging strong families and cultural values that prioritize education and discipline. Imagine two students in an underfunded school—one who goes home to a stable environment where parents emphasize studying and discipline and another who lacks that structure. While both face external obstacles, their differing home environments significantly shape their academic performance and long-term success. Government programs can provide financial support but cannot substitute for the social capital that comes from strong family and community networks.
Crime, Social Breakdown, and Agency
Crime disparities also complicate the bias narrative. Black Americans, who make up 13% of the U.S. population, account for over 50% of homicide victims and offenders (FBI, 2019). The common explanation for this—systemic racism—fails to account for why crime is so concentrated in specific neighborhoods. Loury contends that addressing this issue requires fostering social capital—the networks, values, and behaviors that help communities thrive—rather than simply blaming external forces (Putnam, 2000).
Ignoring the role of personal agency and communal responsibility in addressing violence does a disservice to those who suffer the most from crime: Black Americans themselves. Data supports this claim—consider the significant decline in crime rates among Black communities that have implemented strong neighborhood watch programs, mentorship initiatives, and faith-based interventions. For example, New York City’s Harlem Children’s Zone has demonstrated how investment in education, family stability, and personal accountability can improve life outcomes (Tough, 2008). Similarly, community-based efforts in Chicago, such as the 'Becoming a Man' program, have successfully reduced violent crime involvement among young Black men by emphasizing cognitive behavioral therapy and social-emotional development (Heller et al., 2017). These examples highlight the power of personal agency and communal responsibility in breaking cycles of violence and fostering upward mobility. As Loury notes, treating Black Americans as passive victims rather than as individuals capable of self-determination is both demeaning and counterproductive (Loury, 2021). Without a strong emphasis on agency and social norms, policies risk reinforcing cycles of dependence and dysfunction rather than breaking them.
Systemic Racism: A Biblical Perspective
As an evangelical, I acknowledge that systemic racism exists—not in the sense that structures themselves are inherently evil, but because sinful people create sinful systems. Scripture teaches that human nature is fallen (Romans 3:23), and when sinful individuals shape institutions, those institutions inevitably reflect human sinfulness. This does not mean that every disparity results from oppression. Still, it does mean that racism can be embedded in legal, economic, and social systems in ways that require vigilance and reform (Noll, 2006).
However, I vehemently disagree with the woke approach to systemic racism, which relocates sin from the human heart to impersonal structures. This shift fundamentally alters how we understand justice and moral responsibility. In a biblical framework, sin is first and foremost a condition of the human heart (Jeremiah 17:9), manifesting in individual and collective actions. While unjust systems can and do exist, sinful people create and sustain them. The danger of the woke framework is that it externalizes sin entirely, treating structures as the root cause of evil rather than fallen human nature. This view often leads to policy solutions focusing solely on dismantling institutions without addressing the moral transformation necessary for genuine justice. Without changed hearts, no systemic reform can bring about lasting equity. The biblical model calls for both repentance and structural integrity, ensuring that justice is pursued holistically rather than reduced to a sociopolitical agenda. In this view, individuals are absolved of moral responsibility, and sin is externalized into systems that must be dismantled rather than hearts that must be transformed. This contradicts the biblical understanding of personal sin and redemption (Ezekiel 18:20). From a Christian perspective, justice involves societal reform and personal repentance—not just deconstructing institutions but also calling individuals to moral accountability. Mark Noll rightly points out that if it were up to evangelicals alone, the Civil Rights Movement might never have happened, exposing a deficiency in the evangelical understanding of justice (Noll, 1994).
The gospel provides the only true solution to systemic sin because it changes people and the institutions they shape. Biblical justice is not merely about dismantling corrupt systems but transforming the hearts of individuals who create and sustain those systems. This transformation, as seen throughout history, has led to profound social change. The abolitionist movement, for example, was deeply rooted in Christian convictions about human dignity (Wilberforce, 1797). Similarly, the Civil Rights Movement drew heavily on biblical principles of justice and reconciliation (King, 1963). These historical examples demonstrate how a gospel-centered approach can influence policies that uphold individual responsibility and social equity. Practical policy recommendations from this perspective would include strengthening family structures, promoting faith-based mentorship programs, and advocating for education reforms that prioritize moral development alongside academic achievement. Without personal transformation, structural reform alone cannot bring lasting justice. This is why I reject the reductionist view that racial disparities are solely the result of oppressive systems. True justice requires a holistic approach that upholds accountability and grace.
References
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2018). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.
Department of Justice. (2015). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. U.S. Government Printing Office.
FBI. (2019). Crime in the United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Loury, G. C. (2021a, June 9). Preserving the American project: The bias narrative vs. the development narrative [Video]. YouTube. Pepperdine School of Public Policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97moM_cGOA
Loury, G. (2021b). The anatomy of racial inequality. Harvard University Press.
McWhorter, J. (2021). Woke racism: How a new religion has betrayed Black America. Portfolio.
Murray, C. (2012). Coming apart: The state of white America, 1960–2010. Crown Forum.
Noll, M. (1994). The scandal of the evangelical mind. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Household and family characteristics. U.S. Government Printing Office.