There’s no question that systemic racism existed in this country in the form of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the like. However, all forms of systemic racism have been made illegal since the 1960s. Systemic racism does not exist in America today. That’s not to say there are no racists left in America. Surely there are, but they are few in number. To say systemic racism no longer exists in America is to say that racism is no longer embedded in society’s systems. There are no institutions or laws that are explicitly or implicitly based on racist ideology, nor policies that treat people differently based on their race.
Many disagree with this assessment. They will agree that there are no institutions, laws, or policies that explicitly treat people differently based on their race (racism proper), but they argue that racism is still implicit in our institutions, law, and policies as evidenced by racial disparities in outcome. Black people are arrested at higher rates, have a higher incarceration rate than whites, earn less income than whites, etc.
While such racial disparities could be the result of implicit systemic racism, they could also be due to other factors as well. Racism must be proved, not assumed. If the racial disparities can be explained by differences in personal choices or behaviors, then there is no reason to think racism plays any major factor.
Let’s consider laws for a moment. If we find that there are racial disparities when a particular law is enforced, it could be the result of racism. Perhaps the law is prima facie racist. However, if the wording of the law does explicitly discriminate based on race, then the law is not racist on its face. It is race-neutral. But, perhaps those who passed the law had an implicit racist intent for passing the law. They knew it would adversely affect one race over another. It would be difficult to demonstrate this, however. Not only would you have to show that the legislators knew the law would adversely affect one race more than others, but also that the reason they passed the law was because they wanted to hurt the race they knew would be most impacted by the law.
To illustrate what I mean, consider a law that criminalizes a certain drug. Those who passed the legislation may have known that black people use this particular drug more than whites, and thus, that blacks would be disproportionately affected by the legislation if they choose to continue using the drug after the legislation is passed. However, this foreknowledge of a disparity in racial outcomes alone does not make the passage of the law racist. It could very well be that the legislators passed the law because they saw the harm that these drugs were inflicting on America, and they wanted to minimize that harm. In an alternative universe, in which whites used this particular drug more than blacks, these same legislators may have passed the same legislation, knowing that it would disproportionately affect whites. Simply put, if there is no racist intent behind a law that led to disparate racial outcomes, there is no legitimate basis on which to conclude that the legislators (or the system they run) is racist. In fact, it is a rational mistake to make such a conclusion, and yet this mistake accounts for virtually every “evidence” put forth for systemic racism.
There’s something else that should be considered when trying to establish intent. If black people are part of the system, and they also supported the legislation in question, that’s good reason to doubt that the law was racist. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that none of the black people who voted for the law could foresee the disparities in racial outcome that the law would create (only the white legislators could see that). That would mean they are either stupid or deceived. It’s more likely that they foresaw those outcomes but voted for the law because they, like their white counterparts, were doing so for the benefit of society rather than to oppress a particular race.
Perhaps neither the law itself nor the legislators who passed it are racist, but those who enforce the law are racist. One could agree that the language of the law is race-neutral and that the legislators had no racist intent when they passed it, but that law enforcement officers are racist in how they enforce that law. Instead of policing white and black communities equally, the cops choose to ignore white neighborhoods and over-police black neighborhoods. That’s possible, but to prove that, one would have to show that whites and blacks are breaking the law in proportionate numbers, but being arrested at disproportionate rates. One would also have to show that the situations were largely the same. For example, it could be that cops only arrest people for drug use when that drug is found in conjunction with another crime (e.g. robbery). To illustrate, if 80% of white people who use the drug are not committing any other crimes when they are caught by police, whereas 80% of black people who use the drug are committing a second crime when caught by police, this could explain why 80% of white people are not arrested whereas 80% of black people are.
Or, perhaps it is not law enforcement that is racist, but the criminal justice system. Maybe judges are sentencing blacks at a higher rate than whites, for the same crimes. Or perhaps judges are sentencing both in equally proportionate numbers, but giving harsher sentences to blacks. Perhaps, but this would have to be demonstrated. And once again, one would have to show that the situations are similar. A man who is being charged with both robbery and drug possession will surely be given a stiffer sentence than a man who is only charged with drug possession. One must also consider the past history of each person. The man who has been in and out of jail his entire life will probably get sentenced differently than a first-time offender.
Systemic racism must be proved rather than assumed. Racial disparities in outcome alone is not sufficient to demonstrate racism. One must either show that (1) the law is prima facie racist, (2) the legislators who passed the law had racist intent for doing so, (3) enforcement of the law is based on race rather than behavior, or (4) the criminal justice system is meting out punishment based on race. If you cannot demonstrate racism at any of these levels, then there is no basis for claiming there is systemic racism.
June 4, 2021 at 2:25 pm
The definition of “systemic racism” doesn’t refer only to legal racism, but “includes the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions, which result in the exclusion or promotion of designated groups. It differs from overt discrimination in that no individual intent is necessary” (https://www.aclrc.com/forms-of-racism). This means that the harsher treatment by police against black people for the same crimes as white people (like the George Floyd murder, or how police treat armed white men vs. armed black men) is an example of systemic racism. When similar situations in our institutions occur with different outcomes, and the only significant factor between the two types of situations is race, that is evidence of racism and thus the default assumption should be racism until proven otherwise (although it’s certainly true that if other factors are also clearly involved, the default assumption should NOT be racism, pending further investigation).
Jim Crow laws were laws that deliberately and disproportionately affected blacks, using loopholes designed to get around laws prohibiting discrimination. That’s why the current flurry of “election integrity” laws that just so happen to largely affect black voters are called “Jim Crow 2.0” laws. They are based on the same premise and achieve the same outcome as the original Jim Crow laws.
LikeLike
June 4, 2021 at 2:52 pm
So please name me a single policy or practice today that results in the exclusion or promotion of designated groups where the only significant factor between the different groups is race.
I’m assuming you think how police treat armed black men vs. white men is one such example. Where are your stats for this claim?
And how could you ever know you are truly comparing apples to apples given how different every police encounter is? There are so many variables that go into each outcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 6, 2021 at 9:49 pm
Theosophical Ruminator says: “So please name me a single policy or practice today that results in the exclusion or promotion of designated groups where the only significant factor between the different groups is race.”
WELL HERE IT IS! maybe you can apologize for lack of knowledge but of course who would expect a believer to apologize for believing? He would have to apologize for a wasted life.
If you can get your head out of the belief hole you live in long enough you might consider the truth about systemic racism. ONE OF THE BIGGEST IS AT THE TIP of the heap, as I speak, as you read:
FAVORITE SPORTS? NO LESS.
NFL’s ‘RACE NORMING’ POLICY— is a sad example of systemic racism.
By CLARENCE PAGE
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
JUN 04, 2021 AT 2:27 PM
Oops! Who would have guessed that the NFL, after committing $250 million to combat “systemic racism,” would uncover the sort of racism in their own systems that they are committed to fight?
As part of a more than $1 billion settlement of class-action concussion litigation against the NFL, the league said Wednesday it would stop “race-norming” in dementia cases.
That racial bias in the league’s method of evaluating dementia claims by its former players apparently was so subtle that even the players’ lead attorney apologized for failing to pay more attention to it earlier.
“Ultimately this settlement only works if former players believe in it,” Christopher Seeger, who negotiated the players’ landmark 2013 concussion settlement, said Wednesday in a statement, “and my goal is to regain their trust and ensure the NFL is fully held to account.”
Good luck with that. Lawyers for Kevin Henry and Najeh Davenport, the two retired players who had filed the discrimination suit against the league, asked the court to replace Seeger in March.
The two filed a civil rights suit and a suit against the settlement that accused the league of using separate race-based benchmarks for determining eligibility for dementia-based payouts, which can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Henry, who retired at age 33 from the Pittsburgh Steelers after eight seasons, and Davenport, who retired at 29 after seven seasons with the Green Bay Packers, had applied for payments and weredenied under an evaluation system that they credibly argue penalized them for not being white.
At issue is “race-norming,” a system for evaluating claims that assumes Black players seeking compensation under the league’s concussion settlement have lower cognitive function before they even begin to be tested for brain damage.
“That’s literally the definition of systemic racism,” said Davenport, and numerous other critics, including me.
Indeed, the practice of adjusting test scores to account for the race or ethnicity of the test taker, is like many other remedies that create new problems. It was first implemented in the 1980s and outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
But the increasingly disputed practice continued in neuropsychology, using race as a rough proxy for other factors, such as socioeconomic background and education. The NFL claimed there is “no merit” to charges they discriminated unfairly since the protocols were designed “to stop bias in testing, not perpetuate it.”
Ah, but the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head in many mysterious ways. Race-norming in this instance is one of them, coming off as the worst nightmare of affirmative action opponents.
I support affirmative action that takes reasonable steps to expand and diversify employment or education opportunities. Yet when race becomes not just a factor but the only factor in such decision making, no one should be surprised that alarm bells go off.
In this example, race is simply too rough of a standard to make judgments about something as critical and complicated as one’s cognitive health — or something as personal as the average condition of retired NFL athletes.
What other profession subjects a person to the sort of punishment that Kevin Henry, now 52, ticked off in a list of injuries he noted during an ABC News report that helped lead to the players’ discrimination suit and the NFL’s dropping of race-norming.
“Both knees, both elbows, both wrists, all my fingers have been broken,” he recounted. “I’ve had 10 concussions or more. I’ve had at least 17 surgeries. Seventeen! And I’m still gettin’ ‘em.”
“Football doesn’t give you an expiration date,” he said. “You just expire.”
And we’re talking about the NFL only a year after the league announced a commitment of $250 million over 10 years to fight “systemic racism,” battle “historic injustices faced by African Americans” and support programs to “address criminal justice reforms” and “police reforms” among other issues.
Gee, those sound like the sort of reforms for which former quarterback Colin Kaepernick repeatedly took a knee to protest.
With Black players making up roughly 60% of NFL teams, it’s not surprising that the league has tried to stand on the right side of the past year of racial reckoning. They can begin with fairness to their own players, past and present.
“I just want to be looked at the same way as a white guy,” said Davenport.
He deserves at least that much.
LikeLike
June 7, 2021 at 11:09 am
I generally agree with these sentiments. I avoid the use of “structural” or “systematic” racism, however I would dare argue that there is a type of ubiquitous racism, and it’s very subtle and not so easy to root out. To illustrate, I will ask my white brethren a few questions….
Have you ever been sitting in a vehicle with a white woman drinking coffee and chatting for a few minutes when a police officer drives up beside you, asks the woman to get out of the car, and asks about her safety and if you were a threat to her?
Have you ever been shopping in a chain store in a majority-white town, when you hear over the loudspeaker, “Security, please monitor zone 3.”? Next time you’re in the same store, in the same section, you hear the same thing. Then it happens a third time. You finally ask, where is Zone 3 and are told it’s the area you were just shopping.
Have you ever been walking and listening to Christian music, you feel the Spirit and you lift your hand in worship, only to have a cop pull up beside you and ask you to take a breathalyzer?
In your youth, have you ever been at a youth convention playing hacky sack in a very large hotel lobby with a few other black males (as teenage boys will do) when security is called? You only started to play literally because you saw a group 3 white boys doing the same thing.
Do little white grannies suddenly cross the street when they see you? I wish I had $1 for every time this happens….I could make a sizable dent in my college debt!
I could go on and on, but why is that black people seem to look suspicious? Why do tall black males tend to appear threatening? (I’m 6’3″ and pretty broad.) Why do we often get denied the benefit of the doubt? I would posit these can be attributed to a very quiet and subtle form of racism. It may not be public lynchings, church bombings, and Jim Crow, but it’s very real, and if every black person you know anywhere can share similar experiences, could we not argue that racism is ubiquitous? Perhaps this is what some mean by ‘systemic’, in the sense of affecting the nation generally versus being confined to any certain states or regions in particular.
These academic arguments on the pervasiveness of racism might be veracious and needful, but I would ask that folks consider the pain, hurt, and fear that black folks live with every waking day of our existence (especially in predominately white areas). Maybe there isn’t systematic racism, but America definitely has lingering problems with race. We feel them in a very real way, and just like any sentient being, we get tired of hurting too. I think a nuanced discussion on the present effects of past systemic racism should accompany these attempts to pull down the left’s ideology.
LikeLike
June 7, 2021 at 1:17 pm
@Jeremy Brown
Hello! Thanks for your post. As a racial minority myself, I was subjected to severe and direct racism in my youth, so what I’m about to write comes from an empathetic perspective.
People are going to dislike a person for various reasons, and I have no interest in forcing them to think for feel otherwise. It is enough for me that I am protected by the law of the land and that I have recourse through the court system.
Moreover, any dialog on race relations must be multi-directional. It cannot merely consist of getting white people to see how racist they are or forcing them to acknowledge “white privilege” when they’re struggling as much as anybody to make ends meet. If whites are expected to be sensitive to the feelings of others to the extent that they’re expected to change their vocabulary every few years, then “people of color” have to consider the effect reverse discrimination has on their feelings.
People of color seem oblivious that perhaps well meaning but misguided slogans like “Black Lives Matter” do more to aggravate than ameliorate racial tension, especially when whites are called racists for saying, “All lives matter!” When you create the perception that the game is rigged against whites, even if your “rigging” is justified, then anybody who knows anything about human nature should expect pushback. And the pushback isn’t due to racism; it’s due to perceived unfairness.
When you (not you personally, I’m speaking generically) tell a group that discrimination will be solved by reverse discrimination, that racial privileges will be rectified by reverse racial privileges, that racial sensitivity applies only to whites, that racist comments made by persons of color are not really racist, that law enforcement must be defunded because of the actions of the extreme minority of officers, and that dishonor to the flag which by extension impugns the entire nation of racism is to be applauded and that anybody who opposes that is racist, don’t feign surprise when people who do not have a racist bone in their bodies tell you that’s a bridge too far.
And when these objections are raised, all whites get in reply is how stupid they are and that they’re really cross-burning savages (so that they can be simply ignored as irrelevant). And that’s what our liberal contingent here will probably do, but that of course misses the point you raise: dialog. If you really want a dialog, then be persuasive. Don’t try body-slamming those you disagree with, and be willing to admit error on your side of the fence. If you keep pushing, they’ll push back. And though I do not support violence, it’s a fact of reality that we’re heading for violence if the rhetoric isn’t toned-down. And don’t forget that the Left, for the most part, hates guns while most of those on the Right have them.
LikeLike
June 7, 2021 at 9:01 pm
BLACK LIVES MATTER” was not a misguided slogan by any stretch of the imagination. The slogan was not targeting white people “struggling as much as anybody to make ends meet.” To think that way is myopic. It was black people being mowed down like Chinese dogs going to the meat market, not mowed down by the common people “struggling as much as anybody to make ends meet.”; it was the hierarchy power base in positions of authority in high places who had the authority and the power and the weapons AND , hold on. wait for it: Qis a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force
LikeLike
June 7, 2021 at 9:22 pm
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY shields government officials from accountability for breaking bones, bruising flesh, and killing black people who they brought to America as slaves like cattle.
So there’s no high horse to ride in this matter whether you are white or not. When Black Lives Matter march in protest against qualified immunity for injuring and killing, shielded by that immunity from free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of their person, empathetic people march with them and do not blame the victims as misguided. for rising up with an impetus thrust targeting officials in high places not common people.
And I can assure you that it is not common people who raise objections to excessive force use or resent the Black Lives Matter movement, common people march and protest with them and cry mournful tears of empathy. They do not resent the rise-up against the kind of brutality shown to the world by the public killing of George Floyd, nor do empathetic people curse the victims and tell them they need to “be willing to admit error on your side of the fence.” It’s a misguided use of the term “empathy” and disgusting poisonous.
LikeLike
June 7, 2021 at 9:44 pm
Another conspiracy that opponents to democratic values repeat is the lie that democrats want to defund the police, NO THAT is not true but they repeat in nevertheless. What the DEFUNDING was all about was to redirect funds to a force less likely to abuse the victims whose cause they are suppose to champion and help so instead of sending armed officers ready to kill you for any perceived or unperceived missteps, the redirected fund would send medical interventionists, food, clothing, medicine, warmth, human understanding, compassion, a warm embrace and a hug with empathy, real empathy that a victim can trust, not lies and deceit and conspiratorial rubbish, a bible verse and a prayer. Humanity has been subjected for thousands of years of deceitfulness.
The struggle is against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. And those who are in that ilk, pretending not to be.
LikeLike
June 8, 2021 at 12:46 am
And as I predicted, one of the lefties launches into a defense and completely misses the point.
LikeLike
August 16, 2021 at 6:48 pm
“I’m assuming you think how police treat armed black men vs. white men is one such example. Where are your stats for this claim?”
Sure, it’s a serious example. Every black male I know has had “the talk” from his parents during his early teens on how to behave around the police. They don’t do this because they’re much more concerned about civil behavior around authority figures, they do it because a disproportionate number of young black males get killed at the hands of the police.
But if you want statistics, studies are ongoing and some have shown no racial bias, especially from the more limited studies. However, more comprehensive studies have shown racial bias. A 2017 study concluded that “The results indicated civilians from “other” minority groups were significantly more likely than Whites to have not been attacking the officer(s) or other civilians and that Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed”: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12269.
A 2019 study concluded that “Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police”: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
A 2020 study on over 2 million 911 calls concluded that “white officers dispatched to Black neighbourhoods fired their guns five times as often as Black officers dispatched for similar calls to the same neighbourhoods”: Hoekstra, M. & Sloan, C. W. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 26774 (2020).
And Pew Research has a number of statistics that indicate systemic racism: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/
And police racial bias is only one area of evidence for systemic racism. The healthcare industry is rife with similar problems, as shown here: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/racism-in-healthcare
Again, there are a few contradictory studies, but most show clear evidence of systemic racism. Given that, and the fact that minority groups have a long history of being ignored, does it not make sense to take seriously those claiming racial bias unless and until definitively shown otherwise? But conservative white males are the group most likely to dismiss racial bias and want to sweep it under the rug–conveniently the very people who are being accused most of systemic racism.
LikeLike
August 16, 2021 at 11:21 pm
All parents should give “the talk” to their kids. I gave the talk to my son. White kids need to be respectful to police as well. White kids need to show their hands as well. It’s common sense. The idea that only black people need to tell their kids this makes no sense.
You act as if police just randomly pull unarmed, cooperative black people over and shoot them. Please show me those stats. This is fantasy.
The question should never be if one group experiences something more than another group. The question should be whether what they experienced was justified or not. If whites were 2x more likely to deal drugs than Asians, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that whites are arrested for drug dealing 2x as much as Asians. The notion that all races behave the same way, and therefore should all have equal outcomes, is naïve to the nth degree.
Is their racial bias among some police officers? I don’t doubt there is, just as their can be racial bias in any group of people. Black cops can have racial animus against whites, and white cops can have racial animus against blacks. The question is whether or not disparate outcomes prove such a bias. It doesn’t. More must be considered.
As for the https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-9133.12269 study, it is based on a small number of cases for a single year. Thinking one can extrapolate from that is wrong-headed. I’ve used the WaPo database many times to look this kind of information up. Unfortunately, now it is requiring a subscription, so I cannot look these stats up personally. When I blogged on this in June, at that time there were just 30 unarmed white people and 22 unarmed black people who were killed in a 1 1/2 year period.
All of the evidence for systemic racism is based on unequal outcomes. Why? Because there is no law or policy that one can point to that is explicitly or implicitly racist. At best, you can find racist individuals within a system, but you won’t find any system that is racist. So what do you do when the demand for racism exceeds supply? You invent it. You say that unequal outcomes is evidence of systemic racism. But that’s just dumb thinking. There are so many possible reasons for disparate outcomes, but they are never even explored by those mining for systemic racism. It doesn’t occur to them differences in behavior between racial groups might account for differences in outcome.
LikeLike
August 23, 2021 at 9:56 am
“The question should never be if one group experiences something more than another group. The question should be whether what they experienced was justified or not. If whites were 2x more likely to deal drugs than Asians, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that whites are arrested for drug dealing 2x as much as Asians. The notion that all races behave the same way, and therefore should all have equal outcomes, is naïve to the nth degree.”
And what accounts for the differences in behavior? It’s not race since that’s not an intrinsic quality or characteristic. Race, more specifically those categories we call Black or White, is SOCIALLY constructed and imposed. In the absence of a historically created racial hierarchy in America, there would be no good reason for any significant divergences in behavior or outcomes between members of its two largest legacy racial groups.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear this smells a lot like racial essentialism and biological determinism.
As an Apostolic who happens to be Black, I am profoundly and deeply disappointed to see such secularized rightwing political rhetoric, lacking any sense of nuance or context, on this blog coming from someone I previously admired and whose work at onenesspentecostal.com has significantly helped me better articulate my faith. I’m extremely saddened by this and it just goes to show how deep the racial divisions continue to be in a movement that originated in true spiritual racial unity.
I sure hope Dr. Bernard, Dr. Seagraves, and Dr. Mark Hanby don’t also espouse such views because that would be pretty devastating to me.
LikeLike