Racism

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I am not aware of any single "systematic racism" argument. Perhaps you can present an example of the argument, and we can go from there.

mchasewalker writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

One argument could be 

"African Americans being disproportionately thrown into prison because the judicial system is systemically racist." 

Or 

"African Americans are disproportionality pulled over or shot by police because many police districts are trained to systemically look for black people."

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Ms. Elyce]

"African Americans being disproportionately thrown into prison because the judicial system is systemically racist." 

The first part of the claim is unclear. What is meant by "disproportionately"? Are we calculating this according to population percentages, or crime rates? Depending on which measure you use, this could be true or false, so ask the person to explain.

If population percentages are used, this could be part of a misleading argument, to imply unfairness (discrimination) based on different outcome (disparity), when this does not logically follow. This is because groups do not commit crime at the same rates, so it does not make sense for there to be 'equality' in terms of who is arrested when sorting by group.

The second part of the claim is unsubstantiated. We need to define what we mean by 'systemic racism', and then demonstrate it is the cause of the disparity. This is complicated if there are multiple factors as Dr Bo points out below.

"African Americans are disproportionality pulled over or shot by police because many police districts are trained to systemically look for black people."

Same as above; the first part of the claim is unclear, and the second part unsubstantiated. 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

You are forgetting that races aren't groups, they are classifications.  Either racism is responsible for the disparity or racism is actually true and black people are inherently more criminal.  Unless criminality is part of the classification itself, we do not expect that there will be a different level of 'attention' from the police in a racially equal society. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

You are forgetting that races aren't groups, they are classifications.

Antics and semantics.

Either racism is responsible for the disparity or racism is actually true and black people are inherently more criminal.

The second part of your quote makes the unwarranted assumption that, if something correlates with a group, it must be caused by the group, rather than being caused by something else that correlates with the group. So if black people are overrepresented in crime stats, it must be essential or 'inherent' to being black, as opposed to, say, being the result of greater poverty. 

This makes it easy for you to claim, "ah, but why are they poor? Systemic racism, no? So I have gained my point!" However, this would likely result in equivocation unless you made the form of racism you are referring to explicit, since different expressions of racial discrimination are conducive to different angles of attack with regards to fixing the problem. If the police were not institutionally racist, but society still had disparities in terms of committing crimes, then these inequalities would be reflected in the rate of arrest by police. "Fixing the police" to make them appear less racist would then be a form of missing the point, since the disparity would be exogenous (not determined by the cops themselves, but by the economic system they work within).

Basically, you set up a false binary. You also appear to forget that classifications can include elements other than themselves - for instance, the classifications for race may include criminality.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

Antics and semantics.

Very much not.  Groups can have emergent properties, which is they can possess even if the individuals do not inherently possess them separately.  Classifications do not, so if black people are more criminal as a classification this simply means the individual members of the group are (on average) more criminal than other classifications. 

The second part of your quote makes the unwarranted assumption that, if something correlates with a group, it must be caused by the group, rather than being caused by something else that correlates with the group. So if black people are overrepresented in crime stats, it must be essential or 'inherent' to being black, as opposed to, say, being the result of greater poverty. 

This makes it easy for you to claim, "ah, but why are they poor? Systemic racism, no? So I have gained my point!" However, this would likely result in equivocation unless you made the form of racism you are referring to explicit, since different expressions of racial discrimination are conducive to different angles of attack with regards to fixing the problem. If the police were not institutionally racist, but society still had disparities in terms of committing crimes, then these inequalities would be reflected in the rate of arrest by police. "Fixing the police" to make them appear less racist would then be a form of missing the point, since the disparity would be exogenous (not determined by the cops themselves, but by the economic system they work within).

Basically, you set up a false binary. You also appear to forget that classifications can include elements other than themselves - for instance, the classifications for race may include criminality.

It is entirely possible that the greater criminality of blacks could a reaction to the society being racist against them.  There are five options.

1. The police are systematically racist. (systematic)

2. The police are systematically against some other property that black people have in greater amounts due to racism. (systematic racism)

3. Black people are actually more criminal as a consequence of racism against them. (systematic racism)

4. Black people are inherently more criminal on average. (aka racism is true).

5. Black people are inherently prone to have some attribute (other than being criminal) the police are systematically against. (aka racism is true).

There really aren't many options.  Either racism is true or systematic racism is responsible for the disparities.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Very much not.  Groups can have emergent properties, which is they can possess even if the individuals do not inherently possess them separately.  Classifications do not, so if black people are more criminal as a classification this simply means the individual members of the group are (on average) more criminal than other classifications. 

No, it's antics and semantics because in the context in which I used the word "groups", it is synonymous with "classifications". Since there's nothing inherently criminal about black people, I was not using the word "group" the way you describe it.

It is entirely possible that the greater criminality of blacks could a reaction to the society being racist against them.  There are five options.

I've covered this point. The five options you give are interesting to explore, but "systemic racism" is too vague and thus leads to tragic oversimplifcations. Which system? What system is referred to? And is that system racist in-and-of itself (endogenous), or is it merely reflecting pre-existing (exogenous) inequalities?

mchasewalker writes:

I’m sure there are, but we can be more specific if you are. Typically, logic, by examination, avoids sweeping generalities and deals with the process of ratiocination.

GoblinCookie writes:

Ah, but logically there should not be any differences in a racially equal society. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

"Racially equal" in what sense? In the sense that the cops are not treating people differently based on race? Because as I explained above, if racial disparities are exogenous with regards to the cops themselves, then they will still be reflected in the arrest rate.

The question asked was about the judicial system. The same logic applies. 

One needs to determine  where  the disparity comes from in specific terms in order to address it properly, which is Dr Bo's point. Trying to brand everything as "systemic racism" is logical bastardisation; oversimplification of complex social factors that feed into a certain result.

Yes, there  should  be no differences in a racially equal society, assuming groups commit crime at the same rate.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

You are conflating racially unequal with racist. In a "gender equal" society, just as many men would be in prison as women. Because we don't live in that society, we cannot reasonably conclude that the reason for the disproportionate number of men in prison has to do with sexism (against men).

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Racially unequal vs racist is very much distinction without a difference.

Nobody is claiming that men and women are the same sans inequalities between them.  It is generally accepted by all sides that men and women are inherently different and so some differences can be expected to exist even if the two are treated equally.

In the case of racism the anti-racist position is that the races are actually the same or near-enough.  As no significant differences can exist in the performance of the different races in an anti-racist society, either positive or negative, any such differences proves systematic racism.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

Nobody is claiming that men and women are the same sans inequalities between them.

Then you are not at all familiar with feminist theories that operate with the same foundations as CRT. Some feminists and theories argue that differences are all socially constructed, that is, advantages men have today is due to misogyny or "the patriarchy."

Racially unequal vs racist is very much distinction without a difference.

No. One refers to statistical differences and the other refers to prejudice and discrimination. If you want to claim that *every* statistical difference between blacks and whites has to do with racism, you have the burden of proof. You (or CRT) doesn't get to claim this without justification and evidence. For example, "blacks" have a statistically significant leaner body mass than "whites." This is a racial inequality that is not "racist." Like with biological differences with sexes, these differences lead to differences in behaviors and ultimately culture. *This is not a claim of "betterness" in any way, just a demonstration of differences or "inequalities."*

any such differences proves systematic racism.

No. Any such difference proves differences.