Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[Bradskii]

Let's imagine a law that carries a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone caught dealing crack cocaine as a 1st time offender.

Let's imagine a judge who gives every 1st time offender 5 years....it doesn't matter what race, or gender, age, religion, etc. He gives them all 5 years.

I cannot believe how naive this is...

'Prosecutors are more likely to charge people of color with crimes that carry heavier sentences than whites. Federal prosecutors, for example, are twice as likely to charge African Americans with offenses that carry a mandatory minimum sentence than similarly situated whites.

Drug-free school zone laws mandate sentencing enhancements for people caught selling drugs in designated school zones. The expansive geographic range of these zones coupled with high urban density has disproportionately affected residents of urban areas, and particularly those in high-poverty areas – who are largely people of color.40 Legislators in New Jersey scaled back their state law after a study found that 96% of persons subject to these enhancements were African American or Latino.

Nationwide surveys also reveal disparities in the outcomes of police stops. Once pulled over, black and Hispanic drivers were three times as likely as whites to be searched (6% and 7% versus 2%) and blacks were twice as likely as whites to be arrested.23 These patterns hold even though police officers generally have a lower “contraband hit rate” when they search black versus white drivers.

...the ACLU found that blacks were 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2010, even though their rate of marijuana usage was comparable. Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System – The Sentencing Project

Plus...

'Black men who commit the same crimes as white men receive federal prison sentences that are, on average, nearly 20 percent longer, according to a new report on sentencing disparities from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC).

These disparities were observed “after controlling for a wide variety of sentencing factors,” including age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...act-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/

Your little imaginary scenario is what should be happening. The vast amount of information available that shows you what's actually happening must take a great deal of effort to ignore. Yet ignore it you do.

 

[Bradskii]

If you really meant "unequal opportunties," then you don't mean "systemic racism" as it is currently defined.

This is pure semantics and nothing more. We all know what racism is and how it affects those against whom it is directed. Institutionalised or systemic racism affects those people in the same way by denying them equal opportunity. Which, if that opportunity had always existed, would have led to a semblance of equality of outcome.

 

[Bradskii]

To some extent, there should also be protections in the process to check the power of individual racists within the system to substantially affect the process--because we know such people exist--and thereby keep the process fair.

For instance, the US Air Force enlisted promotion system was redesigned in the late 60s to greatly diminish the input of individual supervisors. It would take something drastically negative (and properly documented) for the supervisor to prevent the promotion of someone who had assiduously applied himself to studying for the promotion examinations. The US Navy during that period also applied rules to black or overcome racist individual input into the enlisted promotion system.

None of that prevents results from being unequal. It just means the process is as fair as practicably possible.

The late 60s? How about problems just two years ago?

'An officer and enlisted soldier’s race and gender are still currently visible as part of a promotion and selection board file. However, the Army is also looking at making race not visible starting with the August board, officials clarified in a statement after the press conference.' Army ditches officer promotion photos as part of an effort to eliminate unconscious bias.

Were there what we would describe as racists making the decision? I very much doubt it. But was there a problem? Most definitely, yes. There was. And admitted to by the army. Did they change the personel? No. They changed the system.

So where was the problem?

 

[Ken-1122]

Let's look at education from the second link I gave you:

'According to the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, Black preschoolers are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended than their white peers. Black girls in particular are much more likely to be suspended compared to white girls, but it isn’t because they’re committing worse offenses. According to a report from the National Women’s Law Center, Black girls are 5.5 times more likely than white girls to be suspended.

(Ken)
Is this at the same school? Or are kids in poor black neighborhoods more likely to suspend kids than those in medium income white neighborhoods.

Native American girls are 3.3 times more likely to face suspension. Schools with a higher percentage of Black students also receive less funding and less access to computers and the internet.'

Part of school funding has to do with taxes from the neighborhood. Poor neighborhoods pay less taxes thus less school funding than rich neighborhoods. This is not a racism problem, it’s an economics problem.

Now are those individual decisions to suspend a black girl overtly and intentionally racist? In all probablity not. But does the system result in a minority being disadvanted along racial lines? Obviously yes.

Is it the system resulting in this? Or crooked people working the system who are making the decisions to unfairly suspend these black girls? If it is the system, please point out the policy in the system that results in this. If it is a problem of racist people using their position to suspend black girls, then it is not an issue of systemic racism; but individual racist using their position against black girls.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I cannot believe how naive this is...



Your little imaginary scenario is what should be happening.

All this scenario is going to tell me is whether or not you and @gaara4158 are talking about the same thing when you say the words "systemic racism".

That's why it's a yes or no question.

Is my example systemic racism or not?

FYI I simply deleted everything you wrote that was a non-answer.

 

[Bradskii]

Is it the system resulting in this? Or crooked people working the system who are making the decisions to unfairly suspend these black girls? If it is the system, please point out the policy in the system that results in this. If it is a problem of racist people using their position to suspend black girls, then it is not an issue of systemic racism; but individual racist using their position against black girls.

Again, this is an incredibly myopic view of the problem.

Why do you think most black people live in poor areas? Do you think that all teachers that suspend black girls are racist? Do you think that every individual cop that searches a black guy's car is doing it because he is a racist? Are all officers in the army selecting a majority of white candidates members of the local KKK clan? Do you actually and honestly think that systemic racism doesn't exist because no-one can point to a racist policy?

Try and joint a few dots yourself.

 

[RDKirk]

The late 60s? How about problems just two years ago?

'An officer and enlisted soldier’s race and gender are still currently visible as part of a promotion and selection board file. However, the Army is also looking at making race not visible starting with the August board, officials clarified in a statement after the press conference.' Army ditches officer promotion photos as part of an effort to eliminate unconscious bias.

Were there what we would describe as racists making the decision? I very much doubt it. But was there a problem? Most definitely, yes. There was. And admitted to by the army. Did they change the personel? No. They changed the system.

So where was the problem?

There is a basic point you're not grasping here. There is a difference between creating a "fair process" and trying to ensure "equal outcomes."

I just said, you quoted me, that part of attempting to create a "fair process" is to install some guards against personal prejudice. I pointed out big changes made years ago. So, you referenced a recent tweak. The Army perceived that people looking at officer promotion photographs (photographs are not included in enlisted promotion folders) might be prejudiced at the officer's appearance. This is not a new consideration, btw. It's been long a worrying factor that "pretty privilege" could creep into the process through the officer photographs (even men tend to favor handsome men for promotion). Because officers pay for their own photographs, it's also been a worrying factor that some officers can pay for better photographs than others.

The Army did not "admit" there was a problem. They recognized the possibility of a problem. As another example of such a thing, after each promotion board selection cycle, the US Navy does take a look at whether they proportionately promoted certain groups, such as blacks, women, and Latinos. (Promotion boards are used for the higher ranks, which means they are dealing with relatively small numbers of candidates in the pools.) If they see a group has not been proportionately promoted, that's a flat to the possibility of prejudice among the board members--someone on the board may have "blackballed" that candidate. So, the board looks again at the highest rated non-selectee of that group, giving that record another review and comparing it closely to those persons that they did select. If they see on this review that the highest rated non-selectee is, indeed, equal to those who were selected. then they select that person and look at the next highest-rated non-selectee of the group.

But, if indeed, the highest rated non-selectee is truly not equal to the other selectees, then they don't consider that person any further. They are not trying to force "equal outcome," they are trying to ensure a "fair process."

Nothing wrong with continuing to tweak toward the goal of a "fair process."

But that's not the same thing as "unequal outcome," which is explicitly what "systemic racism" has been re-defined to mean.

 

[Bradskii]

All this scenario is going to tell me is whether or not you and @gaara4158 are talking about the same thing when you say the words "systemic racism".

That's why it's a yes or no question.

Is my example systemic racism or not?

Is treating everyone equally with no regard to their race an example of racism?

That's the question? And you want me to treat that as a serious question that might advance the topic? I have better things to do. Let me know when you have something constructive and I'll join in.

In the meantime, everything else in my post were examples of exactly why what you proposed doesn't align with reality. No wonder you chose to delete it - it means that you don't have to acknowledge it. Which is a problem that lies at the very heart of this thread. A total disregard for any and all facts being produced.

 

[RDKirk]

This is pure semantics and nothing more. We all know what racism is and how it affects those against whom it is directed. Institutionalised or systemic racism affects those people in the same way by denying them equal opportunity. Which, if that opportunity had always existed, would have led to a semblance of equality of outcome.

There is a big difference between racism that is literally (and I do mean "literally") written into the laws and racism that individuals within the system may be able to practice. And, as I've said before, creating a "fair process" should involve setting up means in the system for detecting and blocking ways that individuals can insert their own prejudices into the system.

But that is not by writing rules that make the process unfair in the other direction just to ensure "equal outcomes." That just throws down on the capabilities of the minorities that are selected...was I selected just to make the quota, or because I am truly the equal of the whites selected with me?

 

[Bradskii]

But that's not the same thing as "unequal outcome," which is explicitly what "systemic racism" has been re-defined to mean.

So if 'the Army perceived that people looking at officer promotion photographs might be prejudiced at the officer's appearance' and didn't select someone based on their race then that's not an unequal outcome? The white guy was selected over the black guy purely on what he looked like.

Just...what? How is that not an outcome that is based on nothing but prejudice? How is that NOT the army recognising a problem in their selection system? And if they are revising their system to correct it, then a system that resulted in prejudicial outcomes is being changed. I'll repeat that: a system was found to result in racial prejudice and was changed.

How much clearer can that possibly be?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is treating everyone equally with no regard to their race an example of racism?

Did you miss the part where I said it leads to a disparity?

That's the question?

I wrote the example and the question.

I'm sure you know what the question is.

And you want me to treat that as a serious question that might advance the topic?

Honestly, it's just as much fun watching twist and turn anyway you can to avoid answering the question.....

Apparently, you don't even realize that you don't have a topic unless you answer the question.

What you have is a shared belief in a faith based concept called systemic racism.

You don't even agree with the other people who share your faith based beliefs. They think systemic racism is something else entirely. Who would even waste their time disputing whatever your faith is? Why? So I can turn around and argue with someone else's version systemic racism?

You don't even agree on what it is. You came in here congratulating a poster for making a point that you don't agree with.

You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Someone posted that systemic racism doesn't require any racist actors or racist rules or regulations or laws anywhere in the system.

You praised him for pointing that out.

I gave you a basic scenario with no racist actors or racism anywhere in the system. You can't even tell me if it's systemic racism.

You aren't moving any topic forward, you're just running in circles.

 

[Bradskii]

I gave you a basic scenario with no racist actors or racism anywhere in the system.

And you want me to tell you if a scenario that has zero connection with racism has any connection with racism.

Get serious.

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, this is an incredibly myopic view of the problem.

Why do you think most black people live in poor areas?

3 out of 4 back children are born to single mothers. Single mothers are 6 times more likely to be poor than 2 parent households.

Do you think that all teachers that suspend black girls are racist? Do you think that every individual cop that searches a black guy's car is doing it because he is a racist? Are all officers in the army selecting a majority of white candidates members of the local KKK clan?

I’m not the one claiming all of this happens; you are. I’m saying if teachers, cops, military officers are doing all of these things you say they are, THEY are the problem; not the system they are violating when they do this. They are the problem even if they are doing it unintentionally.

Do you actually and honestly think that systemic racism doesn't exist because no-one can point to a racist policy?

Yes! If the system requires you to treat everybody equally, and for whatever reason you don’t, how can you call this a problem with the system? Please explain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And you want me to tell you if a scenario that has zero connection with racism has any connection with racism.

Get serious.

Here's a post made on page 59....

Interesting. So it’s about the threat of being called a racist for you? Ironically, if you took the time to really comprehend what the scholars and I are talking about, you’d recognize that systemic racism doesn’t have anything to do with people being racist. Systemic racism isn’t about racism as a determining factor, it’s about unjust racial disparities as an outcome. You denying that systemic racism exists thus ends up making you more of a racist actor than simply admitting that it does.

See where he says systemic racism doesn't require any racist actors?

See where he says it doesn't require racism as a determining factor?

Well over a thousand posts and it's about time this was pointed out. Although it won't change the conversation because those who deny that anything like systemic racism exists will ignore it.

This is the post where you praise him for pointing this out. At the very top, your post which I'm writing a reply to now....makes the ideas you were just praising sound absurd lol.

I told you that you flip flopped. It's the fastest flip flop in CF history. 3 pages later you completely disagree with the statement you just agreed with.

Nice work.

 

[RDKirk]

So if 'the Army perceived that people looking at officer promotion photographs might be prejudiced at the officer's appearance' and didn't select someone based on their race then that's not an unequal outcome? The white guy was selected over the black guy purely on what he looked like.

Maybe based on race, may be that the guy is just ugly--yes, that's been discovered a factor. May be that he wears glasses--yes, that's been discovered a factor.

But you don't seem to understand, or you're just ignoring, that I keep saying the important thing is that the process is fair, not that the outcome is equal.

I don't expect outcomes to always be equal.

I just want the process to be fair.

Just...what? How is that not an outcome that is based on nothing but prejudice? How is that NOT the army recognising a problem in their selection system? And if they are revising their system to correct it, then a system that resulted in prejudicial outcomes is being changed. I'll repeat that: a system was found to result in racial prejudice and was changed.

How much clearer can that possibly be?

The Army is aware of areas that the process is open to prejudice--and not just racial prejudice--and does what seems practical to reduce the chances of that happening. That's not "admitting" to anything. The Army mentality is to look at their systems, try to guess what could go wrong, and fix them before they do go wrong. Just because the Army changes something, it doesn't mean that it's already gone wrong.

 

[rjs330]

The lack of social mobility in the US is what perpetuates cultural ghettos and reservations.

You are assuming again. You assume there is a lack of social mobility.

Can you please give us some things that black people can't do or pursue that white people can?

no, that’s not it. I’m assessing data and applying appropriate characterizations to their implications. What you do with the same data is your own business, but it’s also your funeral.

Yes you are assessing data with an extremely biased viewpoint. Your world view drives your application. You assume simply because certain things are happening they are happening because of systemic racism. Yet you have failed to prove your assumptions.

You continue over and over again to fail to prove there is systemic racism. If something occurs and that something would occur based upon the activities of the area no matter who lives there, then there is NO such thing as systemic racism.
If white people lived predominately in white ghettos and the police police the same way then systemic racism is a fallacy.

 

[rjs330]

You could have easily checked. From wiki: 'The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.'

That's well over fifty years ago. Plus this, which just about sums up everything that a few people in this thread have been trying to get across:

'Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than individual racism".[3]

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin". It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.'

There then follows a litany of examples of 'institutional racism' right up to the present day.

What you wrote fails to prove the poster incorrect.

 

[rjs330]

Good grief...what else is racism but a concept that results in unequal (and obviously negative) outcomes for people based purely on their race? When was racism ever defined as having equal outcomes?

Unequal outcomes? You know better than that. Unequal outcomes don't and never have proven systemic racism. In those definitions unequal outcomes are never mentioned.

 

[Bradskii]

The Army is aware of areas that the process is open to prejudice--and not just racial prejudice--and does what seems practical to reduce the chances of that happening. That's not "admitting" to anything. The Army mentality is to look at their systems, try to guess what could go wrong, and fix them before they do go wrong. Just because the Army changes something, it doesn't mean that it's already gone wrong.

If you say the system is open to prejudice then it's a problem within the system. That can't be said any clearer. As Ken said upstream, people do these things unintentionally. It's not a problem with specifically racist white officers refusing to promote a black guy simply because he's black. It is, mostly, a subconcious act. It's generally termed implicit bias.

You can ask 100 people if they are racist and 99 of them will say no (the one will be explicity racist). But the majority of the others will have implicit bias to a certain degree. It will vary with background, upbringing and environment but it's there. And it needs to be taken into account.

The army realised this. And they knew it wasn't a problem with the people who were making promotion decisions. They'd be some of the 99% who would deny, quite rightly, that they weren't (consciously) making thise decisions on racial determinations. The army knew it was a problem of implicit bias and the system didn't correct for it. The system itself allowed the results of implicit bias to affect who was promoted. A result that was prejudicial to the black applicants. So what did the army do?

They can't eliminate implicit bias. You can't tell people that the results show that promotions are skewed against black applicants and that they need to take that into consideration. Because they will then use race as a determinant which is what they are trying to avoid in the first place. So...they recognise that the system is the problem and they change that.

And this is obviously not simply a military problem. If affects all aspects of our lives. And it's not just a problem for white people.

 

[Bradskii]

Here's a post made on page 59....



See where he says systemic racism doesn't require any racist actors?

See where he says it doesn't require racism as a determining factor?





This is the post where you praise him for pointing this out. At the very top, your post which I'm writing a reply to now....makes the ideas you were just praising sound absurd lol.

I told you that you flip flopped. It's the fastest flip flop in CF history. 3 pages later you completely disagree with the statement you just agreed with.

Nice work.

You need to read the post above this one.