Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

[Ana the Ist]

Where did your statistics come from aside from your own mind?

I'm just trying to point out how averages work. You don't seem to understand.

Again, you are going off statistics you made up to support you argument that systemic racism is appropriate. try using proven statistics.

I skimmed through your first link...can you point out (give a page number) or quote the section that attributes the disparities to "systemic racism" or "racial bias"?

Why lies get told to you by your bosses?

From your report....

"Accordingly, the results presented in this
report should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken to
suggest race or gender discrimination on the part of judges."

The federal government quite literally disagrees with your assertions that these disparities are the result of racism.

Don't be dishonest about your own links....and don't pretend to speak for the federal government.

I'm not really denying it. I am truthfully saying you can't prove it, you can only prove what blacks get arrested for.

I see....if you're not accepting arrest data as evidence, what would you accept?

Well, slavery and Jim Crow.

Oh ok....odd how we got rich off such a short period of slavery and there's nations in Africa today still practicing slavery and they're poorer than the US.

The civil rights law is new and I'm sure you're not naieve enough to believe that once a law gets passed the crimes that are made illegal just stop. Has it worked for prostitution? Has it worked for drugs, fraud, embezzlement or any number of crimes?

No...of course not.

Is that what you expected to happen? I think it greatly diminished the amount of racial discrimination but obviously it's not something that can be done away with completely.

Yes you are.

No I'm not. You were in favor of racial hiring quotas last I checked.

Ok? Then you know Jim Crow isn't ancient history

You aren't living under Jim Crow.

My claim has always been that the system we live under is racist.

In what way?

Your own links about disparities in the justice system explicitly state that they shouldn't be interpreted as racial bias.

Everything you've stated about what the "federal government believes" has been untrue.

Name Discrimination Study Finds Lakisha And Jamal Still Less Likely To Get Hired Than Emily And Greg

Economists sent 83,000 job applications to 108 companies. Applicants with Black names were called back 10% fewer times across the board.

www.wbur.org

Viewpoint: How a Person's Name Can Prompt Hiring Discrimination

Following up on an experiment from 2004, two economists have found that study participants systematically discriminated against job candidates with names they associated with Black people, especially when put under time pressure. White people who oppose a

www.shrm.org

New Research Reveals Resumes With Black Names Experience Bias In The Hiring Process

A new study revealed that job applicants with Black names receive fewer callbacks than white applicants. This article explores the research and provides guidance for employers.

www.forbes.com

Employers Discriminate against Job Applicants with Black-Sounding Names, Study Indicates

www.bowdoin.edu

Employers' Replies to Racial Names

www.nber.org

https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/study-confirms-english-sounding-names-get-more-call-backs-from-job-applications-than-ethnic-names

Study Suggests Bias Against 'Black' Names On Resumes

Employers may be selecting or overlooking prospective job candidates for interviews based on their potential race as suggested by names, according to a recent study by two professors from the...

www.shrm.org

I don't think anyone should be discriminated against by their names...but there's a huge difference between having to send out a couple of extra resumes and 1 in 6 companies flat out admitting they won't hire white people.

You don't just disagree with me, you disagree with the data provided by your neutral could never be biased Federal non-partisan reports.

I don't disagree with the data....I disagree with the fictional narrative you attached to it.

It doesn't say those disparities exist because of racism or racial bias....that's what you added to it.

It says, and I quote...

Accordingly, the results presented in this report should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken to
suggest race or gender discrimination on the part of judges.

The federal government isn't even suggesting that those disparities exist because of racism. The federal government says your interpretation of the data is wrong.

You are disagreeing with me because you feel I am blaming you specifically of approving of systemic racism.

I'm disagreeing with you because the data you linked doesn't agree with your argument. It clearly states that it shouldn't even be interpreted as a result of racism.

Before you said crime rate, now you are saying murder rate.

Murder is a type of crime.

Of course, we can look at statistics for all types of crimes if you want.

How does that work when we've seen that blacks get arrested disproportionately?

Again...is this a lesson in statistics you're looking for?

Similar situation. Now are you saying the average black done not know how to behave in court but white criminals do?

I'm simply pointing out a factor in sentencing that doesn't get accounted for in any studies. We can't accurately account for the demeanor of defendants in court....but it is a factor in sentencing.

Okay, you got one. How about the other thousands and thousands of blacks that are treated more harshly by the courts?

You didn't present any evidence of thousands of black people being treated more harshly in court.

You presented evidence of disparities.

Everything you have claimed about why the disparities exist was made up by you. Did you even read the report you linked?

I'm not talking about individual racism, I'm talking about systemic racism

What part of the system is racist? The laws? It's not the judges....that would be individual racism again....

 

[rturner76]

No they noted statistics. YOU chalked it up to systemic racism. They told you not to, but you did it anyway.

What else could it be? Here's a quote from another group that seeks to root out racism in the justice system.
"The evidence for racial disparities in the criminal justice system is well documented. The disproportionate racial impact of certain laws and policies, as well as biased decision making by justice system actors, leads to higher rates of arrest and incarceration in low-income communities of color. However, there is no evidence that these widely disproportionate rates of criminal justice contact and incarceration are making us safer."

Just like the government said racial disparity in the legal system is well documented.

Excerpts from the sentencing project's assessment, there are many:

Criminal justice practitioners also operate with and reinforce racial perceptions of crime.​

Disparities in police stops, in prosecutorial charging, and in bail and sentencing decisions reveal that implicit racial bias has penetrated all corners of the criminal justice system Racial perceptions of crime have distorted the criminal justice system.

Racial perceptions of crime, combined with other factors, have led to the disparate punishment of people of color. Although blacks and Latinos together comprise just 30% of the general population, they account for 58% of the prison population.​

Racial perceptions of crime have undermined public safety.​

Crime policies that disproportionately target people of color can increase crime rates by concentrating the effects of criminal labeling and collateral consequences on racial minorities and by fostering a sense of legal immunity among whites. Finally, racial perceptions of crime have even led to the deaths of innocent people of color at the hands of fearful civilians and police officers.

Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies – The Sentencing Project

www.sentencingproject.org

From nature.com a humanities and social sciences communication a peer-reviewed publication
Race-based inequity in federal criminal sentencing is widely acknowledged, and yet our understanding of it is far from complete. Inequity may arise from several sources, including direct bias of courtroom actors and structural bias that produces racially disparate impacts. Irrespective of these sources, inequity may also originate from different loci within the federal system. We bring together the questions of the sources and loci of inequity. The purpose of our study is to quantify race-based disparate impact and differential treatment at the national level and at the level of individual federal judicial districts.

Further:
How can such inequities exist alongside a system designed specifically to eliminate them? There are at least three reasons. First, the sentence recommended for an individual is determined primarily by their criminal history and the type of crime for which they have been convicted. This system can have a disparate impact on minoritized populations as compared to white ones if minoritized individuals have more substantial criminal histories or are likely to be convicted of more severe crimes. Second, some federal districts may apply sentencing guidelines in a manner that implicitly penalizes racially minoritized defendants as compared to white ones (Spohn, 2000; Yang, 2015). For instance, judges in a particular district may tend to use the upper end of presumptive sentencing ranges for certain offenses, adopting a stance such as “We’re tough on drugs in this district.” This type of structural differential impact could potentially amplify the first type. Finally, actors in the federal system may treat members of racial groups differently even after accounting for legal factors (Spohn, 2000). We are concerned with all three of the aforementioned sources of racial disparity. We will estimate the structural disparate impact and differential treatment by courtroom actors at the national level and, for the first time, within individual federal judicial districts.

Read more here:

Federal criminal sentencing: race-based disparate impact and differential treatment in judicial districts - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Race-based inequity in federal criminal sentencing is widely acknowledged, and yet our understanding of it is far from complete. Inequity may arise from several sources, including direct bias of courtroom actors and structural bias that produces racially disparate impacts. Irrespective of these...

www.nature.com

 

[rturner76]

I'm just trying to point out how averages work. You don't seem to understand.

I understand you are trying to weasel out of facing facts

I skimmed through your first link...can you point out (give a page number) or quote the section that attributes the disparities to "systemic racism" or "racial bias"?

Disparity usually indicates bias.

The federal government quite literally disagrees with your assertions that these disparities are the result of racism.

Don't be dishonest about your own links....and don't pretend to speak for the federal government.

You see the disparity and you know why it's there. What you read was a disclaimer so people who were treated unfairly can't use their study against them in court.

I see....if you're not accepting arrest data as evidence, what would you accept?

It's evidence of arrests, I accept that but there is no way to track everybody that has committed a crime or else these cartels would be included and the CIA would also have to be included. It just shows how they patrol high density poor black neighborhoods and pluck nickel and dime dealers off the streets. If they spent have of those resources on suburban highschool and organized crime in white neighborhoods I'm convinced they would find just as much crime. It's just easier to go to the hood and pick on people who don't know their rights. Part of that systemic racism I preach about.

Oh ok....odd how we got rich off such a short period of slavery and there's nations in Africa today still practicing slavery and they're poorer than the US.

Whites are still exploiting minorities for cheap labor here and overseas.

No...of course not.

Is that what you expected to happen? I think it greatly diminished the amount of racial discrimination but obviously it's not something that can be done away with completely.

One generation will not erase an entire system built on racism.

You aren't living under Jim Crow.

My dad was and it affected how he thinks and the people who benefit from Jim Crow are still around and so are the one's they have indoctrinated. They just have to be more slick about it now that the law doesn't impose their racism for them.

In what way?

Your own links about disparities in the justice system explicitly state that they shouldn't be interpreted as racial bias.

Everything you've stated about what the "federal government believes" has been untrue.

Theyhave to protect themselves fromlawsuits but the picture that they painted is clear.

I don't think anyone should be discriminated against by their names

You don't seem to mind systemic racism. That is an example of it. I'm glad you don't approve of systemic racism.

The federal government isn't even suggesting that those disparities exist because of racism. The federal government says your interpretation of the data is wrong.

Did they say hy they exist? What else could it be? Oh yeah, blacks don't know how to act in court. Another stereotype you seem to subscribe to. Blacks don't know how to behave in general even when they have a lawyer sitting right next to them.

I'm disagreeing with you because the data you linked doesn't agree with your argument. It clearly states that it shouldn't even be interpreted as a result of racism.

Again...is this a lesson in statistics you're looking for?

I think YOU need a lesson on how to interpret them. It's the same statistics that existed under Jim Crow. Like I said, they just don't advertise it anymore. The fact that you see nothing wrong also perpetuates the system. It's called willful ignorance. It doesn't affect you or yours so it doesn't matter.

I'm simply pointing out a factor in sentencing that doesn't get accounted for in any studies. We can't accurately account for the demeanor of defendants in court....but it is a factor in sentencing.

Again, do we need to brown nose just to get equal treatment? Defendants get told how to behave by their lawyer and I have seen plenty of white people act up in court. Especially the ones that expect special treatment.

You presented evidence of disparities.

Yes and they are the same disparities that have always been there. Granted it is getting better than my grampas day when it was legal to lynch a black man for a perceived slight.

What part of the system is racist? The laws? It's not the judges....that would be individual racism again...

The entire justice, education, real estate, and countless other areas have systemic racism. It hasn't been eradicated in one generation no matter what you best insight tells you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Disparity usually indicates bias.

Where did you get this idea?

Because it's 100% untrue.

There's no serious statistician or even sociologist who would argue that "disparities indicate bias".

It doesn't matter what two groups of people we're looking at, disparities are the norm and equality is the rare exception. It doesn't matter if we're talking about people over 35yo and people under 35yo....or people on the east coast and people on the west coast....people in the northern hemisphere or people in the southern hemisphere.....or brothers born 1 year apart in the same household. Disparities are the norm....there's absolutely nothing unusual about them and they don't indicate bias.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You see the disparity and you know why it's there. What you read was a disclaimer so people who were treated unfairly can't use their study against them in court.

Most of those reports showing racial disparities typical emphasize in the conclusion that they cannot capture every single factor that legitimately goes into sentencing and the disparities shouldn't be considered proof of racial bias.

Without looking at the post, or the study in which he brought it up, I'm going to guess that his response when you pointed this out was....and I'm paraphrasing...

They have to put that in there to keep everyone from getting in trouble.

Or something very similar. Am I right?

They just have to be more slick about it now that the law doesn't impose their racism for them.

You keep saying that the "system is racist".

I asked you what part of the system.

Now you're saying that the laws aren't racist anymore.

If the laws aren't racist....what part of the system is racist?

Theyhave to protect themselves fromlawsuits but the picture that they painted is clear.

"Without looking at the post, or the study in which he brought it up, I'm going to guess that his response when you pointed this out was....and I'm paraphrasing...

They have to put that in there to keep everyone from getting in trouble."

Amazing , right? I managed to figure out what you'd say before you said it.

Did they say why they exist?

No.

I think YOU need a lesson on how to interpret them.

I'm sure....I'll let you know if I find a good interpreter to take lessons from.

 

[rjs330]

What else could it be?

In the report they gave you a bunch of reasons it could be. Even the defendants attitude is taken into consideration.

Now there definitely could be some racist judges out there too. No one is denying that racism exists. It does. And some judges could have racist attitudes. If they do it's an individual problem and not a systemic one.

Excerpts from the sentencing project's assessment, there are many:

I see now where you are getting your information. This article is riddled with bias. One need look no further than his reference to Ferguson. While any loss of life is tragic, what was equally tragic were the lies and the riots. A teen robs a store and attacks a police officer, tries to take his gun and gets killed for it. The only person who was responsible for his death was him. What's tragic is that he thought he could do these things and brought it upon himself. And it was tragic that the media and race baiters used these events to stir up massive amounts of trouble through their misrepresentations and lies.

The article is nothing but a biased and inflammatory opinion piece that offers no context or support for his opinions.

From nature.com a humanities and social sciences communication a peer-reviewed publication

At least this article acknowledges rhat

First, the sentence recommended for an individual is determined primarily by their criminal history and the type of crime for which they have been convicted.

That's the way it should be done. Then it goes on to admit that blacks may have longer criminal histories. Well duh. If you have a longer criminal history your sentencing will be worse. You know what black people should be doing? Stop committing more crimes. That goes for ANYONE. If you don't want harsher sentences stop committing more crimes.

We’re tough on drugs in this district.” This type of structural differential impact could potentially amplify the first type.

So? I guess that district ought to quit doing drugs then. The law is no racist. It's not the laws fault if blacks end up with more drug dealing and drug offenses. That's not a systemic problem it's the districts problem. They really can't derive any specific issues in the system itself that this is racially motivated. When talking of districts and specific law the report says this.

This racially disparate treatment is important but may account for a relatively small part of the overall racial disparity in the system (Baumer, 2013; Mitchell, 2005).
Unfortunately, the literature on intra-city (including inter-judge) and interdistrict differences is sparse.

It's relatively small and the information is sparse. That certainly does not create any confidence that it's systemic racism or real evidence of it.

Secondly the report says there has been NO real research into the judges and their own bias. Individual judges may some of the issue, but we have no idea becauae there isn't any information on it on purpose.

That said, the government’s publicly released sentencing records do not attach judge names to individual sentences, thereby precluding judge-level analysis. The aforementioned judge-level studies (Scott, 2010; Yang, 2014) were possible only because they used proprietary data. However, the data usage agreement prohibits public access and disclosure of judge names.

Furthermore in reading this there are a ton of "may be" statements. Statements that are conclusive that they are simply making might be or may be conclusions and nothing is definitive. That's the problem with all of this. You are jumping to.conclusions on why there is disparity. You are jumping to conclusions that it's systemic racism. But even your sources, except for opinion pieces, don't state that.

 

[rjs330]

Read more here:

Taking a look at one of the charts it accounts for many factors. And when it does the gap closes significant between the races. When all.factors Inluding criminal histories are taken into account the disparity falls greatly to a 2 month difference between ARI and blacks.

"After conditioning the sentence outcome on age, gender, educational attainment, sentencing year, presence of a guilty plea, presumptive sentence, application of mandatory minimum laws, government-sponsored downward departures, and judicial district, there remains a statistically significant Black-white disparity of 1.9 months. The Hispanic-white disparity is negligible and not statistically significant. The ARI-white disparity of 2.8 months is significant and yet is difficult to interpret, as mentioned previously, due to the government combining many different racial groups into one. In summary, even after controlling for numerous factors that should explain sentencing disparities, there remain unexplained differences for Black and ARI defendants."

They don't have an explanation. And since they can't talk to individual judges they have no idea why there may be a difference. In fact I certainly can come up with a few. One is the defendants attitude. Another is the defendants situation. Do they have a job? What is their job history? Are they trying to support a family? We know for a fact that. The black family is problematic. They have the highest rates of out of wedlock births. Men not taking care of their families and responsibilities. Judges are more reluctant to toss a dad in jail for longer if his family needs his income and support.

So even with all your so called evidence there is no conclusion that it's a systemic racism.

There are disparities. No.one is claiming there aren't. But one thing is really missing from this equation is research into each case and interviews with the judges as to why some defendants get a little more than others on a case by case basis. That's really the only way we can really know why. Until then it's mere speculation. And speculation can certainly be based on biases.

 

[rjs330]

"Without looking at the post, or the study in which he brought it up, I'm going to guess that his response when you pointed this out was....and I'm paraphrasing...

They have to put that in there to keep everyone from getting in trouble."

Amazing , right? I managed to figure out what you'd say before you said it.

I have to admit that was really spot on. You totally nailed that one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have to admit that was really spot on. You totally nailed that one.

Here's the weird part....

That's not a legal disclaimer lol. If the research proved whatever he thinks it proves, a sentence at the end doesn't in some way remove legal responsibility for anything lol. It's not for the sake of the justice system protecting itself...

It's literally because the authors know there are people out there who could lose a coin toss....and they'll conclude that either the person flipping the coin or the coin itself is somehow racist. That's who that disclaimer is for...it's for people who jump to lazy conclusions.

 

[rturner76]

There's no serious statistician or even sociologist who would argue that "disparities indicate bias".

It doesn't matter what two groups of people we're looking at, disparities are the norm and equality is the rare exception. It doesn't matter if we're talking about people over 35yo and people under 35yo....or people on the east coast and people on the west coast....people in the northern hemisphere or people in the southern hemisphere.....or brothers born 1 year apart in the same household. Disparities are the norm....there's absolutely nothing unusual about them and they don't indicate bias.

It's not about east or West Coast or over and under 35. It's about this racist system that you are blind to. When it comes to black and white, white always ends up on top of every statistic. You might think it's because blacks are somehow less moral or more stupid but this country took people out of their culture, enslaved them, and took away all of their culture, language, and everything they stood for and you wonder why they can't adapt to a classist European system. You seem to be completely blind to what taking away everything a people stands for and expect them to thrive in a racist society.

 

[rturner76]

Now there definitely could be some racist judges out there too. No one is denying that racism exists. It does. And some judges could have racist attitudes. If they do it's an individual problem and not a systemic one.

They are not all overtly racist they have prejudices that they don't even know they have. When you have prejudice cops, prosecutors, judges, and prison officials, that makes up a system.

I see now where you are getting your information. This article is riddled with bias.

Anything that proves you wrong is biased I've noticed

First, the sentence recommended for an individual is determined primarily by their criminal history and the type of crime for which they have been convicted.

That should be tempered with the report that shows that blacks with a similar background to whites get a harsher sentence. The fact that you don't see how racist that is amazes me.

 

[rturner76]

there remain unexplained differences for Black and ARI defendants."

There is an explination.....systemic racism

They don't have an explanation.

I do, a system based on unequal treatment.

So even with all your so called evidence there is no conclusion that it's a systemic racism.

I think there is a conclusion. The system, the people in power, and the citizens (like you) are unable to recognize their prejudice.

There are disparities. No.one is claiming there aren't.

But there is absolutely no reason for that right. Oh, I know, maybe it's the 400 years of oppression that continues to this day.

 

[rturner76]

It doesn't matter what two groups of people we're looking at, disparities are the norm and equality is the rare exception.

Just like the norm in the United States is to trash the black and uplift the whites.

I asked you what part of the system.

The prejudice part. I'm not going today it's overtly racist. Many people aren't even aware of their own prejudice. Still, the prejudice is there and it can't be denied

 

[rjs330]

They are not all overtly racist they have prejudices that they don't even know they have.

I guess then there's nothing that can be done. I mean if I have stuff I don't even know I have there's no way for me to fix it.

Actually it's interesting that you could say that. Somehow you magically know rhat they have prejudices, but they don't know? Some special.powet you have.

Anything that proves you wrong is biased I've noticed

If it's overtly biased it's pretty obvious. This one is.

They are not all overtly racist they have prejudices that they don't even know they have. When you have prejudice cops, prosecutors, judges, and prison officials, that makes up a system.

Anything that proves you wrong is biased I've noticed

That should be tempered with the report that shows that blacks with a similar background to whites get a harsher sentence. The fact that you don't see how racist that is amazes me.

Or maybe the the report that shows blacks with similar backgrounds to whites get harsher sentences should be tempered by the other one.

 

[rjs330]

There is an explination.....systemic racism

They said it was unexplained. I'm glad you figured it out when everyone else couldn't.

I do

Yeah I know.

think there is a conclusion. The system, the people in power, and the citizens (like you) are unable to recognize their prejudice.

Well it's a good thing we have you around to read all our minds then and delve deeply into our subconscious.

But there is absolutely no reason for that right. Oh, I know, maybe it's the 400 years of oppression that continues to this day.

Or maybe it's the things that we've mentioned. And the things the reports pointed out.

 

[rturner76]

Actually it's interesting that you could say that. Somehow you magically know rhat they have prejudices, but they don't know? Some special.powet you have.

It's not magic, it's history. Do you really think the entire white population of the United States has completely let go of their prejudice of 400 years in one generation? Maybe you have and that's good but you still put forward the notion that black people are inherently criminal and that's why they get treated differently by the justice system than whites. Are you part of the problem or the solution?

If it's overtly biased it's pretty obvious. This one is.

You're little nothing can prove there is systemic racism in this country is overtly biased. The fact that you think 400 years of oppression can be cancelled out in one generation is overtly ignorant but that doesn't matter because whites right right?

Or maybe the the report that shows blacks with similar backgrounds to whites get harsher sentences should be tempered by the other one

You would love to try and prove racism is a thing of the past but it just perpetuates this racist system to not even question it.

 

[rturner76]

They said it was unexplained. I'm glad you figured it out when everyone else couldn't

It's obvious. Do you think the perpetrators of a racist system are going to admit their bias? Like you they want us to think that everything is kosher and the problem in the projects is a personal problem with absolutely no consideration for this classist racist system. Like poor people are poor because they choose to be.

Well it's a good thing we have you around to read all our minds then and delve deeply into our subconscious.

Somebody need to wake you up to the system that keeps you on top. It's classist, racist, and anybody without a large enough bank account or the wrong skin color are two steps behind the "masters" that control basically everything.

Make your excuses for all of these statistics that prove the white male is king

Gleeson Library: Statistics and Data: Racial Discrimination

This guide provides data and reports that document the prevalence of systemic and individual anti-black racism throughout U.S. institutions and society.

library.usfca.edu

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not about east or West Coast or over and under 35.

I don't think you understood what I was saying there.

It's about this racist system that you are blind to.

Well you keep saying it, I keep asking for the part of the system that's racist...

You don't seem to have any answers.

When it comes to black and white, white always ends up on top of every statistic.

Untrue.

You might think it's because blacks are somehow less moral or more stupid

Never said those things.

but this country took people out of their culture, enslaved them, and took away all of their culture, language, and everything they stood for and you wonder why they can't adapt to a classist European system.

Ok. If black people can't make it in this "classist European system" that was invented back when Europe had a bunch of monarchs....what do you think they should do?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just like the norm in the United States is to trash the black and uplift the whites.

Is this some kind of joke? White people are the only people who are openly trashed and denigrated and not only is it acceptable....you can make a living off it.

The prejudice part.

People who are racially prejudiced?

 

[rjs330]

Maybe you have and that's good but you still put forward the notion that black people are inherently criminal

I certainly don't think blacks are inherently criminal. Anymore than I think poor people are. There are people who are. But neither skin color nor wealth make people inherently criminal.
I'm with RDKirk on this.

The fact that you think 400 years of oppression can be cancelled out in one generation is overtly ignorant but that doesn't matter because whites right right?

That sounds like your a bit prejudiced.
The oppression of the past can't be canceled out no matter how long it was ago. It's history.

History doesn't have to be the present.

You would love to try and prove racism is a thing of the past

You keep saying this. Why? Especially when I've said more than once that racism exists.