I don’t understand. When it comes to large groups like societally defined races, which is what this thread is about (as opposed to something like “bias against convicted child molesters”), when is any bias the fault of the group being discriminated against? And when has the onus ever reasonably been on the group being discriminated against to end the bias? How would this even work – how could a group being targeted for discrimination stop the discrimination?
No, we’ve gone into that in many other threads, and that’s not the purpose of this one. My goal in this one is to better understand the reasoning and standards for those who don’t believe there is significant institutional/systemic bias/racism/bigotry in American society.
I was writing up a much longer post in reply to this - quite long - but decided to just truncate it. If what you are saying applies to categories like race, gender, religion, etc. If we’re going to say that we shouldn’t have bias against someone because of race, then we shouldn’t have bias against someone because of gender (i.e., the stereotype that men are potential rapists or gropers, etc.)
The reason Arab Muslims are associated with terrorism is because of a large number of terrorist attacks carried out by Arab Muslims. Now, those Arab Muslim terrorists may be a small minority within the broader Arab Muslim community as a whole, but the mental association will persist as long as such attacks exist. The only way the association ends is if there are no more attacks carried out by Arab Muslims. Now, someone may argue that it’s impossible for the majority to prevent the minority from doing their thing, which is a fair argument, but at the end of the day that’s the reality - as long as there are attacks carried out by Group X, even if just a minority of Group X, then Group X will be associated with those attacks.
Interestingly enough, Correll found that the bias did not correlate to negative attitudes towards black people, and was similarly present among black police officers as white.
I don’t think there is systemic/institutional bias against men as potential rapists/gropers. Rather, I think recent news shows that there is some level of systemic/institutional bias against those who report that they have been raped or groped or otherwise sexually assaulted. Thankfully, it appears that this is starting to be addressed in a positive way.
This isn’t really a thread about stereotypes. Do Arab people experience systemic/institutional bias in various situations? I think it’s very possible. I think it’s always wrong to blame large groups for their own discrimination and oppression; it doesn’t matter what some very small minority of them have done. Systemic and institutional bigotry/bias/racism is always wrong and should always be opposed. Further, it’s always the responsibility of the society in general to fix it. In fact, I believe that’s the only possible way for such bias/bigotry/racism to be addressed successfully – for society at large to recognize its existence, and put forth serious efforts, often including changes in law, to eliminate it.
So what would be the goal of a “yes” answer? What is your goal?
The average person can do little outside their small world about larger issues.
Do you think white men should do what THISprofessor says? She says all cis white men should either quit their jobs or take demotions to allow a POC, transgender, or a female to have their job.
If you are around someone that uses a racial slur or says something derogatory about a certain race, do you say anything to them? Or do you just stay quiet?
That is a way that the average person can do something about this larger societal issue. If more people spoke up when this sort of stuff is said, maybe those that that do will realize that maybe they need to rethink things. If everyone stays silent perhaps they will assume more people agree with their views than really do.
I try to when I can, but of course there are some times when getting into a whole thing isn’t the best idea. I do think it’s up to all of us to effect change in society, even if you only have a few opportunities to do anything, think about if everyone took a few opportunities to do something. Holding up our hands and saying “what can we do” is certainly not going to do anything though.
The goal of this thread was to help me (and maybe others) better understand the views and standards of those who don’t believe such systemic/institutional bias exists or is significant. No, I don’t believe that all cis white men should quit their jobs or take demotions (nor do I see how that is relevant, in any way, to this discussion).
I already addressed your questions in post #7. Maybe I wasn’t clear.
I haven’t given any thought to the matter. That one thing, in and of itself, I find convincing for 1965. Thinking up other ways to prove that the US was institutionally racist in 1965 seems to me to be a waste of time. The US was institutionally racist in 1965. I am convinced, and no further proof is necessary as far as I am concerned. If you want to reassure yourself that I am capable of being persuaded, fear no more - I have been convinced by the evidence that the US suffered from institutional racism in 1965.
Not applicable. I don’t care what other information is available to prove that the US was institutionally racist in 1965.
Like I said before, what about it? I don’t understand the question.
If you want to prove that America was still institutionally racist after Jim Crow, go ahead. If you have anything like the same level of evidence as Jim Crow was, you won’t have any trouble. But trying to get me to tell you what your argument is won’t fly.
I’m not trying to prove anything in this thread. The only purpose of this thread is so I can better understand your views and the views of others who don’t believe systemic/institutional bias is still significant. I’m only trying to gather information here, and better understand the views of those who disagree with me on an issue that I deeply care about.
I’ll try and rephrase my question. Do you believe that there was significant systemic/institutional racism/bias/bigotry in the years after Jim Crow laws were struck down (let’s say 1968), and if so, what data and facts from that time motivate this belief? I’m just trying to determine your standards for believing in the existence of systemic/institutional bias/bigotry/racism.
I don’t think there’s “institutional racism” anymore.
I do think that there’s a lot of biased individuals out there. It might be conscious, or unconscious, but really can only be addressed on an individual basis. You can’t legislate what’s in people’s heads. You can look at individual judges and cops or whatever, and see if they’re doing their jobs impartially.
I think a lot of biased people are in positions of power. I think that will reflect itself in statistics. Nothing institutional, but prevalent individual bias.
What I think of as institutional racism is when you have individuals who are racist, and other individuals who don’t call them out on it.
When a manager is racist, and the other managers don’t stand up for the minorities that they mistreat, that’s institutional within a company.
When a politician is racist, and the voters don’t stand up against that and prevent that racist politician from exercising power, that’t institutional within society.
In institutional racism, IMHO, the reason that the racists are not called out is twofold. The first is because the person is uncomfortable about the reaction that they may get for confronting someone who has expressed racial biases. And the second, and more insidious, is when the person personally benefits from those racial biases that others hold, even if they do not hold them themselves.
That debate is a tangent. I was pointing out a problem with the conceptual distinction between private bigotry and de jure discrimination. It leaves open this huge middle ground that is actually the whole subject of dispute.
You should not take any of the stuff you quoted me saying as a given. On the contrary, I think it would do you a lot of good to learn about things like the effect of home ownership on household wealth and the effect of racist policies on rates of home ownership. Maybe you don’t come out of that literature convinced. But engaging with that literature would, I suspect, be quite informative.
I think a component of the recent move toward restrictive work policies in Medicaid is illustrative. Depending on the state, these are either statutory or regulatory.
In Michigan, they’ve decided to put a requirement in place that people have to demonstrate they are working or volunteering a set number of hours to be eligible for Medicaid. The legislature, aware that finding work can be harder under some circumstances, voted to exempt certain counties from this requirement, so people who live there do not have to demonstrate they are working or volunteering. The counties have high unemployment in general. Other places in the state have higher unemployment, like the city of Detroit, but Detroit is part of a county that has lower unemployment as a whole because unemployment is low in Detroit’s suburbs. Residents of Detroit will not get an exemption.
Now, it turns out that the counties (I think ALL of the counties) they are planning to exempt are very white. The city of Detroit is not very white.
So how do we account for something like this? One person looks at it and says “They are doing it by county, so it can’t be biased/racist.” Another looks at it and says “People in the rural area are assumed to be unemployed because of circumstances while people in the urban area are assumed to be unemployed because of their choices.”
I look at it and say “This may be either an intended or an unintended consequence, but either way it’s not okay.”
What does this illustrate? If we can’t agree on what the data are, it’s hard to agree on what they show, and if we can’t agree on what they show, it’s hard to agree about what are systemic issues and what are not.
It’s “institutional racism” if the underlings don’t keep note and report descrimination by people in power? I really don’t think so, and that actually makes it harder to do anything about, because then you’re just saying “it’s everybody’s fault” and easier to shrug off. Nope, it’s only the fault of the people doing the damage.
Plus, at a corporate level, it’s just plain harder to observe. At my last company (tech), there were like 2 black people in a company of 150 people. That sounds wrong, right? But at what level were the black candidates filtered out?
Were there not enough technical black people in the area where the job was advertised? Did the headhunters and referrers ignore them? Did they not make it past the phone interview? I was pretty observant of unfamiliar faces coming in for interviews, and very few black people made it that far. A lot of our recruits came straight out of the local university. Out of pack you had mostly whites, some asians, some indians. Never a black person. Were they filtered out in college? Were they filtered out BEFORE college?
That’s the problem when you put the blame on the “non-whistleblowers”. It is usually not cut and dry where the biased people are. It’s easier with judges and cops, because you could theoretically look at their records.