Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[essentialsaltes]

How is this systematic racism?

There is a system - the evaluation of police recruits - where the people running the system and selecting applicants expressed themselves in highly prejudicial racist (and other prejudicial) terms. Authorities are evaluating whether there were adverse outcomes for minority applicants.

 

[rjs330]

There is a system - the evaluation of police recruits - where the people running the system and selecting applicants expressed themselves in highly prejudicial racist (and other prejudicial) terms. Authorities are evaluating whether there were adverse outcomes for minority applicants.

That's individualistic not systemic. The fact that these people were reported on, and released is evidence that it was not systemic. There was absolutely no policy, procedure or process out into place for this. The fact they were released for their actions is proof of this.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The fact that these people were reported on, and released is evidence that it was not systemic.

It was not authorized, but it was systemic.

 

[RDKirk]

That's not the definition of systematic racism. According to NAACP President Derrick Johnson, the definition of systematic racism is, "systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages African Americans."

I don't know of any police department that has making racist, sexist and homophobic comments as a procedure or process. On the other hand there was a process in place for this police office who made these recordings to file a complaint which lead to these police officers being removed. This looks more like systematic anti-racism to me.

Once upon a time, we knew what "structural racism" meant. That definition was what Johnson apparently now things "systemic racism" means.

Structural racism originally referred to racism that was more or less written in ink into laws and policies of government and public accommodations. In some cases it was blatant, in some cases subtle, in some cases a matter of layered effect.

But the distinction was this: If a non-racist person in the job or position merely followed the rules, with the result being discrimination against a particular minority group, then that was structural racism. If all you do is follow the rules, follow the policies, go by the guide lines, and the result is, for example, black applicants are never hired or never get the loan or never get promoted, then there is likely structural racism. The last quarter of the 20th century was spent rooting out structural racism. There's probably some to go, but it's certainly been reduced by great measure. And that's not impossible to determine by asking the same question: If a non-racist in that position merely follows the rules, will there be a racist result?

"Systematic racism" is something recently categorized, and to my mind it's been invented to explain why racial disparity continues to exist despite the general fact that racism has been removed from the basic laws and policies of government and public accommodations. "Systemic racism" is kind of like "dark matter" in cosmology. The calculations didn't work out, so "something we can't detect" must be out there affecting the results.

I can go along with the premise that even if the systems and structures and procedures and processes have been cleaned of inherent racism, people in critical positions who are racist can still create racist results. That's not exactly what is meant by "systemic racism," but it's what I'm willing to go with. The answer then, IMO, is that the racist result is a flag that we might have to start looking for behaviors in specific people.

 

[MrMoe]

There is a system - the evaluation of police recruits - where the people running the system and selecting applicants expressed themselves in highly prejudicial racist (and other prejudicial) terms. Authorities are evaluating whether there were adverse outcomes for minority applicants.

Which the system itself didn't authorize, and when they were discovered, they were purged from the system. Systematic anti-racism.

 

[Bradskii]

Which the system itself didn't authorize, and when they were discovered, they were purged from the system. Systematic anti-racism.

So if it's systemic anti racism taking them out of the system then that obviously means that it was systemic racism when they were in it. We know that it's illegal to have rules which are racist. But that doesn't prevent a system for being racist because of the the attitudes of those within it.

 

[Aaron112]

If so, how does it exist?

Part and parcel with all or much of humanity.

 

[Aaron112]

So because I eat a meal on a traditional holiday, I'm oppressing native americans?

Some groups of people oppress native americans past and present (and future plans);
the same people also eat a meal on a traditional holiday;
ergo
if someone eats a meal on a traditional holiday, they may also oppress native americans.

 

[MrMoe]

So if it's systemic anti racism taking them out of the system then that obviously means that it was systemic racism when they were in it. We know that it's illegal to have rules which are racist. But that doesn't prevent a system for being racist because of the the attitudes of those within it.

Systematic means: Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical. That would apply to the officers being removed but not to the officers making racist comments.

A system can have racists in it but that doesn't make the system itself racist. Because like you said, it's illegal to have rules which are racist. Society is a system. There are racists in society. Does that mean society is systematically racist? No.

 

[Aaron112]

According to Galatians, and the rest of Scripture,
"society" is death dealing.

 

[Bradskii]

Systematic means: Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical. That would apply to the officers being removed but not to the officers making racist comments.

A system can have racists in it but that doesn't make the system itself racist.

For very many years there have been laws introduced which have removed explicitly racist aspects from many systems. There is no argument about that. But as we have seen, in some cases, there have not been moves to remove people from those same systems who have racist attitudes. So there is still racism within the system.

Arguing that that somehow means that one can't describe that as systemic racism seems a somewhat meaningless distinction. If people are in charge of deciding who gets hired, are responsible for the correct functioning of that system and the result is that people are not hired because of racist attitudes then the system is not working as it should.

That's beyond dispute. The argument appears to be more about semantics.

 

[RDKirk]

So if it's systemic anti racism taking them out of the system then that obviously means that it was systemic racism when they were in it. We know that it's illegal to have rules which are racist. But that doesn't prevent a system for being racist because of the the attitudes of those within it.

If you catch influenza, that doesn't mean you are an influenza system. But you can have an immune system that will fight the influenza.

 

[RDKirk]

Systematic means: Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical. That would apply to the officers being removed but not to the officers making racist comments.

A system can have racists in it but that doesn't make the system itself racist. Because like you said, it's illegal to have rules which are racist. Society is a system. There are racists in society. Does that mean society is systematically racist? No.

That is precisely what people are saying: That American society is systematically racist because there are racists in the system.

The reality is that is endemic to the demographics of majority in society overall and in pockets of society. A black person or a white person attempting to start a small business in landscaping or carpentry is going to find the same problem here in Texas confronting Latinos. In certain parts of Michigan it's going to affect you if you're not Muslim. At the small business level, it affects you in Hawaii if you're not some variety of Asian. Anyone who is not the majority group of society at the level you're dealing with that society is going to run into that problem.

But this can be largely mitigated systemically as well. Society can build in "immune systems" that identify racists and remove them...and not just specific kinds. We have seen an example noted in this thread. I can cite military anti-racist and anti-sexist systems in the military.

The problem with DEI ideology is that it sets up specific groups as "oppressor" and "oppressed" and deals with those specific groups only on that bases. So, for instance, under DEI, a straight white male can never be considered discriminated against because he's an "oppressor" in three different ways. Even if the demographics were such in his micro-society that he was technically the "minority" (say, in a university staff) he could still never be considered discriminated against in DEI ideology.

And by that same ideology, a black homosexual female university president could never be found discriminating against a straight, white male professor because he is always classed as her oppressor in that ideology. The DEI ideology does not recognize organizational power as a factor of discrimination, only its established classes. That's why with DEI in the military, we have actually had black senior officers required to teach their white subordinates that white enlisted men were the oppressors of black senior officers.

 

[rjs330]

It was not authorized, but it was systemic.

Under this type of argument if any business or agency has any individuals within that business or agency that are considered racist then that business or agency has systemic racism. Even if they remove those people.

If racism is as prevelant as many on the left believe then nearly every business and agency is systemically racist. Simply because they have indviiduals who are considered racists there. Even if the business or agency has rules against it.

Is that your position?

 

[RDKirk]

Under this type of argument if any business or agency has any individuals within that business or agency that are considered racist then that business or agency has systemic racism. Even if they remove those people.

If racism is as prevelant as many on the left believe then nearly every business and agency is systemically racist. Simply because they have indviiduals who are considered racists there. Even if the business or agency has rules against it.

Is that your position?

Remember that under DEI ideology, a straight white male can't help but be inherently homophobic, racist, and sexist. But if he works very hard and gets the correct re-education, he may be able to suppress it. But he must be very carefully watched.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Under this type of argument if any business or agency has any individuals within that business or agency that are considered racist then that business or agency has systemic racism. Even if they remove those people.

If racism is as prevelant as many on the left believe then nearly every business and agency is systemically racist. Simply because they have indviiduals who are considered racists there. Even if the business or agency has rules against it.

Is that your position?

No. The racist stereotypes were open and widespread and (this is key) directed at applicants by the people judging applicants. In other words, the very function of this (sub)system.

I am unable to believe that 'monkeys' received an impartial evaluation. So if the function of the system was unfair due to racial prejudice -- I.e. employment discrimination -- that failure of the system was systemic racism.

[Systemic racism is] "a collective failure of an organisation" that "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."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"Systemic and structural racism are often used interchangeably, but they are quite different. Systemic racism refers to the ingrained and pervasive practices, policies and social structures that disadvantage and discriminate against certain groups based on their race. On the other hand, structural racism describes how those societal structures, institutions and policies reinforce racial inequities.

"Another way to think about it is that systemic racism refers to the overarching norms society creates that perpetuate racial disparities. Structural racism, meanwhile, focuses more specifically on how societal barriers, like laws, regulations and policies, contribute to and reinforce racial inequities."

11 Examples of Systemic Racism in the U.S.​

11 Examples of Systemic Racism in the U.S. | Robert F. Smith

Learn more about real-world examples of systemic racism in the U.S. and why it is important to combat.

robertsmith.com

 

[RDKirk]

No. The racist stereotypes were open and widespread and (this is key) directed at applicants by the people judging applicants. In other words, the very function of this (sub)system.

I am unable to believe that 'monkeys' received an impartial evaluation. So if the function of the system was unfair due to racial prejudice -- I.e. employment discrimination -- that failure of the system was systemic racism.

[Systemic racism is] "a collective failure of an organisation" that "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."

And do you think that won't occur with a young white guy who applies for a job in a Texas contracting company that has a primarily Latino workforce?

As I said before, that is always going to be an issue of majority/minority demographics, at least for my remaining lifetime. DEI purports to "solve" it by declaring that certain classifications of people always the oppressors and those who are always the oppressed, and then setting rules to give advantages to the oppressed.

But because majority/minority demographics vary in the different micro-societies we inhabit, those fixed classifications are not always appropriate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And do you think that won't occur with a young white guy who applies for a job in a Texas contracting company that has a primarily Latino workforce?

That is certainly possible. And I'm sure it happens in various contexts.

 

[rjs330]

That is certainly possible. And I'm sure it happens in various contexts.

Systemic racism then?