How would you define systemic discrimination?

[mcgato]

Since most are just speaking in generalities, I’ll add some concrete things.
Grades: I taught high school years ago. Another teacher gave better grades to white students than to black students for essentially the same work. Two white students and three black students had essentially the same results and work handed in. The two white students got a B, the three black students got a D. Because of this, I always posted everybody’s entire set of grades (blinded by using a student ID). Then everyone could see that they were being judged the same.
Jobs: I’ve read that many groups will look for reasons to not hire minorities while looking for reasons to hire white males. It is of the sort “candidate black doesn’t have experience in this specific software package.” It doesn’t matter that the white candidate also has no experience in that package, since the white candidate has extensive experience in something else.
Sports: It has gotten better, but in the old days white and black athletes were judged differently. The announcers would describe the skills of a black athlete as “natural ability” and “something you can’t teach.” The white athlete would have skills described as “a result of hard work” or “intelligence.”

[iamthewalrus_3]

@mcgato

Another teacher gave better grades to white students than to black students for essentially the same work. Two white students and three black students had essentially the same results and work handed in. The two white students got a B, the three black students got a D.

I don’t think that’s systemic racism. That’s racism on the part of one individual giving unfair grades.

Systemic racism in education is more like when available extra credit assignments require parental involvement, or access to one’s own vehicle, or reliable internet at home, all of which are easier for (on average) richer whiter students than poorer black ones to take advantage of.

Like, a civics extra credit assignment of going to a local city council meeting and writing a report on the results isn’t on its face racist, and is actually a great civics lesson! But the poor black kid who has to take the bus home right after school to help watch her younger siblings and make dinner until her parents who both work long hours get home is going to have a much harder time doing it than the rich white kid with her own car and minimal after-school responsibilities.

[Northern_Piper]

@Dr_Paprika

This article goes too far… there is a big difference between legal precedent and a revised definition. But along those lines…

Merriam-Webster’s coming amendment to the definition of “racism” illustrates the power that voices like Kimberlé Crenshaw’s and Ibram Kendi’s have wielded.

I found this article interesting, because it illustrates a significant difference between Canadian and US discrimination law:

Until recently, allegations of racism in the public sphere have operated like first-degree murder charges do in courts of law—in order to establish such a charge, mainstream media often demanded proof of the alleged racist’s intent . Dictionary definitions have long tracked this blinkered view of racism . For decades, Merriam-Webster’s entry described racism as a “belief” of racial supremacy, or a program designed to put that belief into action. Because many people—and some judges—treat dictionary definitions as if they are legal prescriptions, accusations of racism have required proof of intent: a purposeful, race-based disparity in conduct or consequence. Without that, the accusation wouldn’t stick.

Thus, the legal framework for considering racial discrimination has largely echoed the dictionary’s narrow take on racism. The intent requirement was even written into the Supreme Court’s constitutional case law. And while the court recognized in [Griggs v. Duke Power that the Civil Rights Act “proscribe[d] not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation,” the history of that 1971 ruling is measured predominantly by its erosion. As scholar Ibram X. Kendi summarized “intent—not outcome—became the preferred proof of discrimination.” Ultimately, a requirement to show racist intent infected our legal instruments just as it lingered in our dictionaries.

US law appears to treat allegations of discrimination under a criminal/mens rea approach. Proof of intent can be very difficult to prove.

Canadian law treats allegations of discrimination on a civil standard, similar to negligence. Intent can be a factor, but the real issue is what impact the alleged discriminatory conduct had on the individual bringing the complaint. Did the conduct have the effect of denying services based on a prohibited ground? If so, an allegation of discrimination will likely be made out.