TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 At your request, Larry: Please list the institution you believe to be racist, and in what ways they are racist.
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 North Carolina legislature http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 The Congressional Black Caucus. The NAACP. The UNCF. 1 1
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 North Carolina legislature http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/ This is a pretty good example. Might as well start the discussion there. At your request, Larry: Please list the institution you believe to be racist, and in what ways they are racist. If we're going to have this/these discussion(s) we're going to have to try to use nuance and analysis. I don't think "list the racists!" is going to get us very far.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 If we're going to have this/these discussion(s) we're going to have to try to use nuance and analysis. I don't think "list the racists!" is going to get us very far. Why not? He asked for examples of institutions actively practicing racism, and explanations why they're racist. If you're gonna make the accusation, back it up.
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Why not? He asked for examples of institutions actively practicing racism, and explanations why they're racist. If you're gonna make the accusation, back it up. If we're going to discuss complex issues, we should treat them with the respect they deserve. Although, you've provided a nice example of why these issues never seem to go anyway: the tacit implication that if something is not actively, aggressively and explicitly racist (eg. Jim Crow) then it isnt racist.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 The University System of the State of California.
FireChan Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 College admissions. Professional school admissions.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 If we're going to discuss complex issues, we should treat them with the respect they deserve. Although, you've provided a nice example of why these issues never seem to go anyway: the tacit implication that if something is not actively, aggressively and explicitly racist (eg. Jim Crow) then it isnt racist. Because it isn't. INSTITUTIONAL racism is an active thing by its very definition.
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Blacklivesmatter. The New Black Panthers. BLM, clearly not. The New Black Panthers....perhaps. I wouldnt deny that there are racists (or at least prejudiced folks) among racial/ethnic minorities. However, the source of their racism is different in character. 1
FireChan Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 The University System of the State of California. Cali? My man, that's the entire US.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Cali? My man, that's the entire US. I chose the UC system because they kept the dream act for illegals, but cut endowments for middle-class students, typically white.
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Because it isn't. INSTITUTIONAL racism is an active thing by its very definition. Not really. Institutional refers to institutions. Institutions are not actions. Institutions are structures/systems. So when we look at things like community structure or housing policy or criminal justice practices, we can find the frame work for racism absent explicit "screw over dark people" motivations.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Institutions are structures/systems. *sigh* Yes, exactly. Institutions are systems. Systems are enforced actively through rules and regulations. Not exactly rocket science.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2017 Author Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) This is a pretty good example. Might as well start the discussion there. Disparate impact is not evidence of institutional racism. Just because a law has a greater impact on members of a certain race does not make it racist. An argument that more cases of negative impact is a firm indicator of racism must start with the base assumption that members of a given race are more prone to negative impacts because they are members of that race, which to me, in and of itself, seems to be a racist argument. I'll give you a borrowed example: According to the Bureau of Justice, in 2013 across local, state and federal prisons, 213,700 women were incarcerated, while 2,092,400 men were incarcerated. Making an argument based on disparate impact, the American penal system is amongst the most sexist institutions in history, given the population is greater than 50% female, while approximately 90% of the prison population is male. That, however, is a poor argument, and I think you know why. Edited March 3, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) Disparate impact is not evidence of institutional racism. Just because a law has a greater impact on members of a certain race does not make it racist. An argument that more cases of negative impact is a firm indicator of racism must start with the base assumption that members of a given race are more prone to negative impacts because they are members of that race, which to me, in and of itself, seems to be a racist argument. I'll give you a borrowed example: According to the Bureau of Justice, in 2013 across local, state and federal prisons, 213,700 women were incarcerated, while 2,092,400 men were incarcerated. Making an argument based on disparate impact, the American penal system is amongst the most sexist institutions in history, given the population is greater than 50% female, while approximately 90% of the prison population is male. That, however, is a poor argument, and I think you know why. 1) Yes, the disproportionate impact of certain laws IS evidence of racism. Not ALL disproportionate impact, but just as one does not necessarily entail the other, you cannot claim it precludes the other. Disparate impact analysis has a pretty firm foundation in the study of law so its clearly not irrelevant. 2) Your gender-based analogy isnt really on point. But EVEN IF I grant that the underlying rationale is worth considering, why would it be so difficult to conclude that the criminal justice system may treat the sexes in a "sexist" manner when it comes to enforcement? I don't think that's out of the question given traditional social norms and gender roles. The city of Chicago. True! Although probably not in the way you think it is... Edited March 3, 2017 by DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2017 Author Posted March 3, 2017 (edited) 1) Yes, the disproportionate impact of certain laws IS evidence of racism. Not ALL disproportionate impact, but just as one does not necessarily entail the other, you cannot claim it precludes the other. No, it does not. This is an assertion that correlation is causation. In order to prove institutional racism, you need to demonstrate that racism is a motivator of the policy. When examining the case of North Carolina's voting laws, you must prove that the desire to eliminate electoral fraud was not the motivator. All requirements and prohibitions imposed by the law in question can far more linearly be squared with the desire to protect the integrity of the vote than it can with seeking to disenfranchise minorities. 2) Your gender-based analogy isnt really on point. But EVEN IF I grant that the underlying rationale is worth considering, why would it be so difficult to conclude that the criminal justice system may treat the sexes in a "sexist" manner when it comes to enforcement? I don't think that's out of the question given traditional social norms and gender roles. Because statitcs have always borne out that men commit a largely disproportionate amount of crimes compared to women. Edited March 3, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 Not really. Institutional refers to institutions. Institutions are not actions. Institutions are structures/systems. So when we look at things like community structure or housing policy or criminal justice practices, we can find the frame work for racism absent explicit "screw over dark people" motivations. You have an odd definition of "institutional racism." Usually, that term refers to the unrecognized or unacknowledged bias in social, commercial, or governance systems, where such bias is historically inherent and slow to change. You are the first person I've ever seen describe it as "institutions that are racist." That's a bizarrely concrete interpretation of a phrase I've always seen defined in a very abstract manner.
Recommended Posts