We’ve had many discussions on this board in which the disagreement boils down to, fundamentally, whether systemic and institutional bigotry/racism/bias exists as a significant force in America, in the justice system, politics, media, and/or elsewhere. There’s various pieces of data that have convinced me that it is a significant force in these and other institutions, but many folks aren’t convinced.
So I’m asking these folks – those unconvinced that systemic/institutional bias/bigotry/racism is still a significant force with significant impact on various statistical disparities in America – the following:
What kind of facts and data would convince you that systemic and institutional racism/bigotry/bias is still a significant force in American society? If you pretend you could have been an objective observer in, say, 1965, what facts and data would have convinced you then? How about 1935, and 1885?
I’ll gently request that the responses remain relatively snark-free. Trying for sincere engagement here, to understand what skeptical folks consider a reasonable bar.
I’m curious as to the implications here. Specifically, what are the implications of answering “nothing”?
The reason I ask is that ISTM that there is room for significant confusion over the meaning of the question, with great ramifications for the above issue. The question could mean one of two things:
[ol]
[li]What theoretical data or facts might convince you?[/li][li]What practically attainable data or facts might convince you?[/li][/ol]
The answer to these questions can be very very different. The world is an extremely complex place with too many unmeasurable and difficult-to-understand factors. So you might reasonably think if someone could come up with a way of isolating the impact of institutional racism from the myriad other factors at play then that could be convincing, while being skeptical that this might be possible.
Of course, there are many issues where this same type of dynamic prevails. (Ironically it’s kind of similar to the answer if the question was “what data or facts might convince you that there were differences in IQ between the different ‘races’?”) That doesn’t mean that you can’t form a reasonable opinion, or even to be convinced that you’re right. It just means that you may find it hard to overwhelm those who disagree with you via “data, facts”, since they may simply have a different take on that same data and facts.
But my point is that if your goal is to imply that your opponents are not assessing the issue in good faith and must be motivated by some sort of bias which makes them refuse to accept reality because “you’ve acknowledged that there’s nothing which will convince you”, then that doesn’t hold, as above. (Not to say that the OP has this goal, but just heading it off, because it seems superficially like an easy next step, and is also something I’ve seen other people argue in the past.)
Was that the only piece of data you’d find convincing for 1965? If not, what other pieces, and what about America a few years later when they were struck down?
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’m interested in both questions 1 and 2.
FYI, ironically in most of the many race/intelligence threads I’ve taken part of, I’ve given a very clear answer as to “what data would I accept”.
I think Shodan’s point is that if you are talking institutional and systemic racism, you are talking about things that are explicitly built into the system. I can understand that perspective, even if I think that racism that is part of our society infuses our institutions, resulting in disparate treatment of people depending on their race. I think there is a meaningful distinction to be made between:
There are laws that discriminate by race
-and-
Racism is part of society.
We are never going to get rid of racism in society, but we can get rid of racist laws.
In addition to making sure there are no racist laws on the books, we can also enact anti-discrimination laws to help deal with number 2. No we can’t legislate away personal biases, but we can make there be consequences for acting on them in certain circumstances.
The existence of Jim Crow is sufficient evidence of institutional racism in the USA in 1965 for me. Why do you want other data? I’ve accepted the premise.
What about it?
You asked for what it would take to convince me that institutional racism exists in 2018 as it clearly did in 1965, and I gave you an example of the sort that proved it existed in 1965.
[spoiler]Institutional/systemic racism can refer to some different things. Generally speaking, it is not a synonym for de jure racism. Instead, it refers to how racism is effected or replicated by systems that may or may not be race-based on their face.
Virtually the entire focus of current anti-racism efforts is policies that are not race-based on their face but that, because of individual racism or past public racism, lead to racially disparate impacts. Often, the pressures to keep those policies in place are also based on racial resentment.
So, for example, there’s nothing intrinsically racist about cash bail. But the operation of the cash bail system has highly racist results, both because of the private racism of the decisionmakers and because of the vast differences in wealth that have resulted from centuries of racism. And the pressure to keep cash bail in place includes a significant component of racism, with Willie Horton ads and the like.[/spoiler]
Thanks for answering one of my questions. That brought up more questions, which I’m interested in your answer to. I hope you’ll answer them in the spirit of exchanging ideas.
Not trying to play gotcha or anything like that. Just trying to better understand the positions of those that disagree with me, which might mean I’ll ask follow up questions.
I hate to say “it depends,” but it depends.
If we’re talking social association, I have no doubt that bias is there, in force. Online-dating data has showed that black women are considered the least desirable women (by website user preferences.) Socially, I suspect many people would consciously or subconsciously shy away from having black friends, especially if they come from a foreign nation where there are few black people.
If it’s about crime and arrests, then I also have no doubt whatsoever that black people are arrested more frequently per capita than other races, and shot by cops per capita at a higher rate than other races. But in most of those cases, it’s because black people were committing more crimes per capita than other races. Claiming “bias” in such a situation is like asking why 90% of inmates in prison are male - it’s because men commit far more violent crimes, per capita, than women. Not that racial bias or gender bias doesn’t exist, but we can’t present different things as being the same. Claiming that black people are arrested more frequently and attributing it to bias (in and of itself,) is a statistical fallacy of omission.
It’s also like asking, “Why are single Arab men profiled at airports, but not pregnant white moms pushing strollers?” Because all 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Arab men and there has never to date been an airplane hijacked by a pregnant white mom pushing a stroller.
Well as I suggested, if there were data which could tease apart institutional racism from all other factors, e.g. socio-economic class, geography, culture etc. then that would say a lot. I can’t point to any specific data which might do this, since I’m skeptical as to whether such would be possible.
In the case of race/intelligence there would be possible genetic data. That’s something else.
I was thinking of those who argue along the lines of - analogous to what we’re discussing here - “the gap in measured IQ is too great to be accounted for by non-genetic factors”. I’ve been very skeptical of that argument, because I think - similar to here - that the complexity of influences on IQ is such that it’s virtually impossible to measure the extent to which other factors contribute. If you asked me “what data would you accept which would exclude those other factors?” I would be hard pressed to come up with anything, since I’m skeptical as to whether such data could conceivably exist altogether.
Worth something, sure. But I’m skeptical of whether this disparity is the result of institutional racism, let alone whether it proves it.
ISTM that it’s unlikely that police simply decide to arrest people or not arrest them based on skin color to nearly that extent. A more likely explanation which comes to mind is geographic. In areas which have known severe drug problems, the police are more focused on these types of crimes and many marijuana users get swept up as well. In areas which are not known to have severe drug problems the police are not out there sweeping up suspected drug users to nearly the same extent, so marijuana users can evade arrest. Black people are much more likely to live in areas which have severe drug problems as compared to white people.
Sorry, realized I didn’t answer the question directly.
So - if someone could present data showing that black people commit crimes at the same or lower rate per capita, than other people, and yet get shot or arrested at a higher rate, per capita, than other people, then that would be proof of institutional bias/prejudice in terms of law enforcement.
If someone could show me that black students are studying as hard and diligently as other students (this is almost impossible to quantify since it has to do with internal thought) and yet teachers are deliberately giving them low grades unfairly, that would be proof of institutional discrimination in terms of academics.
And, it’s not just enough to ask, "Is there institutional bias/prejudice?" We have to ask, “Does the prejudice against Group A arise because of the behavior of some people in Group A, or is it totally unsubstantiated and from thin air?” For the record, I agree that *** everyone should be judged individually on their own merits, without regards to which group they hail from.* But stereotyping or prejudice rarely arises totally out of nowhere. There’s a reason black guys are seen as good at basketball, the British are viewed as tea drinkers, the Germans considered precise and mathematical, etc.
I don’t think it is a tangent, so I am un-spoilering it.
Emphasis added.
Speaking specifically of institutional racism, I need a convincing level of evidence that the policies in question are, indeed, the result of past, or current individual, racism. That, for instance, Willie Horton was used, not because he was a hideous scary criminal, but because he was a hideous scary black criminal. Or that keeping the cash bail system in place is motivated in significant part by racism on the part of those who want to retain the system. (And also that black criminals are significantly poorer than white ones because of past centuries of racism.)
Would it have to be exactly this, or would some variation satisfy you – for example, if criminal statistics say that black people commit X times more murders or violent crimes on a per capita basis, but are Y times more likely to be shot by police on a per capita basis, when Y is significantly larger than X, would some ratio of Y to X convince you or make you suspect racial bias may be involved?
This is a bit beyond the thread, and I think we’ve talked about this before, but there are tons of stereotypes (particularly some of the most vicious and harmful) with no factual basis. For example, the stereotype of black men as a threat to white women came about at a time in which far, far more black women were raped by white men than the reverse, and yet it’s carried on, to some degree, to today.
Rules which explicitly deny opportunity to people of different races.
Surveys that show massive distrust and hatred toward minorities, surveys that show people accept or support discrimination.
Studies that show that certain races are arrested at rates well beyond the rates of criminality.
Studies that show minority races doing things better than the majority race and still having worse results.
All types of minorities being held down.
Specific examples of rules that are motivated by the desire to handicap other races.
People of the majority being allowed to victimize other races without consequence.
That could work, and I have already seen data or heard similar ratios of such - however, things will not always align in a perfect ratio - i.e., if black people commit 40% more crimes, then you can expect exactly 40% more shootings or arrests of black people, etc. There is a big margin of statistical leeway.
But again - it’s not enough to say there is institutional bias. One has to ask whose fault the bias is, how the bias came about to be, and whose job it is to end the bias - and most importantly, if the onus is on the discriminators to end the bias rather than the discriminated, then why it only applies in this situation and not in other situations.
There are, in fact, a ton of studies confirming racial bias in the justice system. And the answer is not, in fact, that black people commit more crimes.
Here is alaw review article you can download, that will point you to several scientific studies on the topic. I’ll highlight one:
Joshua Corell et. al., Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot, 92 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1006 (2007).
Purpose: To establish if police officers are better at the shoot/don’t shoot task of identifying suspects who pose an actual threat. Hypothesis is that race will effect speed but not accuracy of the shoot/don’t shoot game.
Method: Three samples of participants: 1) Officers from Denver Police Department, 2) Civilians from Denver, 3) Officer from all over the Country attending a police training seminar. 100-trial video game with armed and unarmed black and white men. Push the shoot or don’t shoot button.
Results: Officers were quicker to identify correctly armed vs. unarmed targets. Duh. As well as just generally quicker on shoot/don’t shoot. All participants had greater difficulty (measured by longer latencies) responding to stereotype-incongruent targets, i.e., unarmed black men, and armed white men. This bias was present in all three samples, however it increased for civilians and officers from areas that had larger black communities.