“The likelihood that you’re going to have a book in kindergarten or third grade called ‘Critical Race Theory’ is extremely remote. That is not what happens.”
My appearance on Point of View with Chris Berg: “What happens is they take the concepts of Critical Race Theory, and they maybe call it something else …. But the concepts are the same, which is that the country, the nation is systemically racist. That race is the center of inequities in our country. And that people who have a certain skin color are either advantaged or disadvantaged because of that and have certain obligations.”
On July 14, 2021, I appeared on Point of View with Chris Berg, a television show in the midwest market, to discuss “What Is Critical Race Theory?”
We had over 12 minutes to discuss the topic, which is like flying first class with plenty of leg room compared to most TV hits which are 3-5 minutes, at best. We discussed not only what Critical Race Theory is, but how it manifests itself in education, particularly K-12.
We also discussed the claim that the U.S. is “systemically racist,” something repeated with near-religious fervor by those pushing CRT variants such as “antiracism” and “equity” training. Needless to say, I disagreed that the U.S. is systemically racist, a position I have stated publicly before
We ended with a discussion of our CriticalRace.org website.
TRANSCRIPT
(Auto-generated, may contain transcription errors. Time stamps are approximate.)
Chris Berg, Host of “Point of View” (00:00):
Professor Jacobson, welcome to the “Point of View.” It’s great to have you with us. This Critical Race Theory conversation is such a hot topic. And I’m going to be blunt with you. I hear a lot about it, but I don’t know anybody who’s really defined it really well. So let’s kind of start with the foundation today. How would you define for our audience Critical Race Theory? What is it?
William A. Jacobson, Cornell Law Professor and President, Legal Insurrection Foundation (00:20):
Well, there’s two aspects of it. One is the academic aspect of it, and it started with Critical Legal Studies and then Critical Race Studies. And it is an academic discipline which sees race and racism as embedded into American society, and that you cannot have non-racial, non racist sort of legal principles, that the idea of colorblindness, the idea of meritocracy, is in itself racist. And you need to look at the systems and the structures that create different impacts for different racial groups. So point number one is that critical race theory is an academic discipline and academic theory and an academic area of study.
But it has become more over the years, and it has essentially migrated more into the popular culture. And it deals with so-called concepts of “anti-racism” and “equity.” But the overlying theme is that race is the center of our society and that the society is systemically racist, and that you need to address our problems that way. How it manifests itself in education is a different story, but that is essentially what Critical Race Theory is. It’s making race the focal point of understanding our system.
Chris Berg (01:39):
You put together a website, CriticalRace.org, again for our audience that is CriticalRace.org. We’ll get to that in a moment, but let’s start with some things you said, because you said a lot there. Do you believe, or do you see areas within the United States of America where the system is racist?
William A. Jacobson (01:56):
Well, I think that you have to be very precise. I don’t think our system is racist. In fact, our system is anti-racist. We have laws that prohibit racism. We have traditions since the civil rights movement of banning racism. So the system is not racist. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t racism. And so these are two very different things.
I think that the concept of the American civil rights movement was that all Americans of every race, particularly in that context, black Americans, need to be able to participate fully in the American system. So they did not necessarily see the system as racist. What they saw was that black Americans were not being allowed to fully participate in it. So I do not believe that our system is racist. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t racism. They’re two very different concepts.
Chris Berg (02:52):
So let’s kind of explain that a little bit because, and I know it’s no longer as prevalent as it used to be, but for example, let’s go with red lining. Or you look at incarceration rates of black Americans versus white Americans? And how would you explain that in the context of a racial system?
William A. Jacobson (03:08):
Well, red lining is illegal. It has been illegal for quite some time, and I don’t know that it’s a continued practice.
Chris Berg (03:20):
Again, I’m not suggesting today, but there’s obviously been historical systems that have been racist within our system. Correct?
William A. Jacobson (03:27):
There have been particular practices that have been racist. But that doesn’t make [today’s system racist], at least since the early 1960s. And you can go back to Jim Crow and earlier, and maybe make a different argument. But at least since we passed federal civil rights legislation, the system has not been racist. Whether we are properly and fully implementing those anti-racist policies is a different question. On the issue of incarceration, I wouldn’t call that systemic racism. There may be particular laws and particular ways of treating offenses, which have a disparate impact. So for example, one thing that’s frequently pointed to is that the levels of imprisonment for crack cocaine were significantly greater or more harsh than for non-crack cocaine. And that could be an issue, and it might be that those need to be normalized and those need to be addressed.
So I distinguish between a particular practice or a particular policy, which may have a disparate impact on different communities. That doesn’t make us systemically racist. And you can understand those issues by changing the drug laws, for example. So I don’t accept that we are systematically racist. And remember that the nature of Critical Race Theory as it is implemented, ]is that racism] is so endemic to our system, that it cannot be erased by changing laws; it cannot be erased through colorblindness; it’s baked into our nation’s being. And that’s something that I don’t accept.
Chris Berg, Host of “Point of View” (05:06):
It seems like the word “meritocracy” has been gone now for quite some time, and I’m not quite sure why. So I hope that we can sort of bring that back into the conversation. Let’s talk about Critical Race Theory inside of a classroom. I know a big conversation right now is kind of at the K-12 level. You’re focused predominantly on universities, but I know you’re looking more into the K-12. So let’s hypothetically say that a Critical Race Theory program was put into an education system in North Dakota or in Minnesota, walk us through what that curriculum looks like. And why is that good or bad for the students?
William A. Jacobson (05:37):
The likelihood that you’re going to have a book in kindergarten or third grade called “Critical Race Theory” is extremely remote. That is not what happens. What happens is they take the concepts of Critical Race Theory, and they maybe call it something else. They may call it “anti-racism,” which is a very popular term. They may call it “equity.” They may call it “socially responsive learning.” But the concepts are the same, which is that the country, the nation is systemically racist. That race is the center of inequities in our country. And that people who have a certain skin color are either advantaged or disadvantaged because of that and have certain obligations.
And so you might hear terms about “white privilege.” You might have charts on the wall of privilege circles. You might have other things like that. But if your kindergarten teacher is talking about systemic racism, if your kindergarten is talking about white kindergarteners having white privilege, if those are the concepts being brought into the classroom, that is how Critical Race Theory manifests itself in everyday education.
Chris Berg (06:55):
…I want to flush out some of these other concepts. that I want to get your take on. I’m sure you’ve heard of where there was some CARES Act money for farmers. And if you’re a minority farmer, your loan plus 20% would be forgiven. But if you’re a white farmer, they weren’t doing that. Secretary Vilsack, the Secretary of Ag says he’s going to continue to fight that and move that forward. Is there any legal standing for them to be able to do that one, and just your take on that?
William A. Jacobson (07:22):
No, but that is a perfect example of so-called “anti racism” in practice. The federal government is discriminating against white farmers in order to remedy what they view as past discrimination. But of course those white farmers didn’t discriminate against anybody. These are things that took place in the past. I don’t see how it’s going to be upheld. It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution. It probably violates federal civil rights law. So you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of race, except in extremely narrow circumstances, which the court found were not applicable, in order to remedy past discrimination. But that’s a perfect example of “anti racism policy” actually being held by a court to be racist.
Chris Berg (08:16):
You hear a lot about equality and equity. What is the distinction between equality and equity in your eyes?
William A. Jacobson (08:23):
Equality is what’s required by law. It is treating each person equally without regard to race. Equity is equal outcomes, but we know people perform differently both individually and as groups. And sometimes there will be unequal outcomes. And that is in their view, not equitable. Well, the only way to make outcomes exactly equal for different groups is to discriminate. So that is what the federal government has tried to do. That’s what is happening now in higher education. So that is the battle, the traditional constitutional concept of equal protection of the laws versus discrimination in order to achieve an equal outcome. And that is really one of the great battles of our time. And that’s what we see playing out in education and elsewhere.
Chris Berg (09:19):
Because now you see the Department of Education is saying, “Hey, if you want to teach Critical Race Theory in schools, we’ll give you some more federal dollars.” And what’s behind all of this? I guess is my question. Like what’s the purpose of having this infiltrate and permeate so many aspects of education?
William A. Jacobson (09:33):
Well, I think there’s two aspects. One, there are people who actually believe this. They believe that equal outcomes is a necessity for society. They believe that our system has racism baked into it, is irredeemably racist. And they feel the need to fight that. So we can have differences of opinion, and we can have differences as to what the law and the constitution allows, without necessarily ascribing nefarious motives to people. I think a lot of the people behind it are actually true believers. They actually believe that.
But I think there’s also developed essentially an industry behind it, an industry of diversity consultants and an industry of administrators in higher education and in school systems. There are a lot of people who have a financial interest in pursuing this, and I think that plays out itself. So I think that there’s a disagreement as to what our society should look like in terms of equality versus equity, but there are also very strong financial interests behind having a version of Critical Race Theory taught in elementary schools and in higher education,
Chris Berg (10:47):
I’m taking a look here at your CriticalRace.org website. I’m going to just click on North Dakota for our audience’s sake, but if people want to go there and for example, they click on there, and it says North Dakota State University, University of North Dakota, what are they going to, what kind of information are they going to get from going to your website?
William A. Jacobson (11:04):
The first thing that people need to understand is that the website is not a list of schools to avoid. It is not a blacklist or anything like that. It is simply gathering public information as to the programs at schools. Some of the schools may not have very much that borders into Critical Race Theory. Some may have none. So it is a resource where we research the school’s website, and we generally do a deep dive on the website.
And that’s what I think is the beauty of our map is. Everything is sourced. Everything is linked, and probably 98% of it is what schools are telling themselves and are telling their students. So it’s an enormous time-saver for people. You could go to a particular university and spend hours going through their website, trying to find it. And a major university actually has a very complex website. There may be schools that have their own websites within a university. So we do a lot of that work for you. And we tell you what they are saying, and you can click on it, and you can look at it. Some schools have mandates of training. Some schools have mandates of coursework, others have voluntary programs. And so it’s a resource for prospective students and parents of prospective students to go to a particular school and find out what is happening at that school.
Chris Berg (12:31):
Great stuff. Professor Jacobson, thank you so much for the time and the insight. Like I said, we’d love to have you back as this conversation is going to continue. So thank you, sir. We appreciate it.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Thank you for being available to show the flag, Professor.
I am so glad Professor Jacobson was able to point out that when the Concepts that define a Theory are being used in a Classroom, then the Theory is being used, even if it remains unnamed or uses a more euphonious synonym to hide behind.
Critical race educators like to point to Giusseppe Borgese’s phrase that “It is necessary; therefore, it is possible” as the excuse for much of what they now want to push in classrooms. They leave off his work was tied to his vision of a World Constitution, but its purpose comes in once you introduce his ideas just like the Concepts of CRT.
This is a good example of how the shift in the classroom looks like from a Facing History and Ourselves lesson.
The US-based Human Rights Education Associates, as part of its Citizenship Education, Globalization, and Democratization push used FHAO to create a curriculum for South Africa called Facing the Past. http://www.hrea.org/pubs/tibbitts-prospects-sep06.pdf Instead of a focus on facts the point is to “infuse the question of values in the learning of content.” Teachers were told they must “‘unlearn’ any ‘official narrative’ of apartheid.” Instead the students and teachers would use “interactive, participatory methods of learning” to explore each other’s perspectives. They would role play and examine “human behavior and universal themes such as identity, group membership, obedience, and taking action.” Through “working with personal experiences and choice in these histories, links were intended to be made to issues and moral dilemmas facing young people today.”
First, have the students explore if “hate is innately a part of human behavior and experience? If so, how can we change that within ourselves?” Note to radicals, this amounts to the child who would never think about bullying others on the playground being asked to wear a T-shirt that says “Violence never works” and then wondering why he gets picked on. This type of emotional curriculum consciously milks stories to produce a sense of grievance, or guilt, depending on where in life one was born. There’s no knowledge being instilled of what actions might make the situation worse for everyone. This is a curriculum that actually cites that “[DM] was particularly moved by the video. He was crying afterwards. He wanted to know what the youth today can do to make up for the wrongs of the past–that their ‘white’ parents had committed and/or benefitted from.”
The above quote came from here http://invisibleserfscollar.com/masking-the-new-integral-human-rights-focus-education-becomes-a-tool-of-the-sought-cohesive-caring-society/ and is especially important now as the American Constitution Society just launched a Truth, Racial Healing, and Reconciliation Initiative. They are involved with the implementation of the new Roadmap to Educating for American Democracy for K-12.
Your right, the book will simple say, “Jack and John went up the hill but Jack was a white raciest so John threw him down, on the ground where Jack received extreme brain injury but John was not charged , because racist, and John lived happily ever after….
Jack, not so much, he’s a drooling disabled person now and survives on the kindness of the American dream in the coins tossed his way on the corner near Walmart
A lot of this is about the Benjamin’s and the Government has the Benjamin’s …
Our Benjamin’s,..but it doesn’t care
Hell, they think they own our children
This will not turn out well for America
“The likelihood that you’re going to have a book in kindergarten or third grade called “Critical Race Theory” is extremely remote.”
Extremely remote. No! No! No! That’s not good enough at all. Zero. Zero is the only acceptable answer. Zero. Not extremely remote. Zero.
Why? What difference does it make what the book is called? As Prof J just got done pointing out, what matters is what they’re teaching, not what they’re calling it. As Juliet might easily have said, that which we call a poison by any other name would kill as dead.
Especially when it comes to concepts. My most recent post documented how the word Liberty has been redefined as mandated altruism. Years ago I documented that the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia had created a Heroes curriculum that redefined Freedom in terms of communitarianism.
Concepts can be an excellent facade to hide a 180 degree shift from a traditional dictionary meaning.
Who the hell uses a word like “communitarianism?” Absurdly complex jargon “can be an excellent facade to hide” a load of bullshit. This post reads like an education textbook.
Remember how we all thought Howard Zinn’s “comic book” story of American history would be too stupid for a normal person to believe? We now have “historians and professor’s ” believe it is true.
I don’t know who thought that. It was obvious that people everywhere were falling for it, and more importantly that teachers would be feeding this poison to children who would have no way of knowing that it wasn’t true history. Well, those children are now grown up, and sincerely believe in Zinn’s history because they’ve never been told otherwise. And they don’t understand why nobody seems to be doing anything about it, so they’ve decided to take matters into their own hands. It seems so obvious to them.
Liberal are of a hive mind. That is why you never find a smoking gun.
If you want to sell idiocy, you first make it sound sophisticated by couching everything in pseudo-intellectual language to frame “new” concepts. Then you branch out by eliciting useful idiot malcontents, “rebels looking for a cause”, to spread the word.
It’s taken three+ generations for Howard Zinn to stage his second version of an American civil war around race. But it boils down to something very simple. Which is more likely to trigger a civil war? White people shouting “N******s are destroying our country!”? Or white people recruiting and re-educating black idiots shouting “White people are genetically evil and must die!”? We whites took out the KKK generations ago so that option has already failed. That leaves the obvious alternative.
More and more black Americans are seeing this for what it is but are being stifled by their own useful idiots. Why would blacks buy into this? They see what is going on in their own urban neighborhoods. They are the ones dialing 911 for help. They are the ones who are getting no help to fight off the thugs (other than more abortion clinics). That is why Trump went around their establishment=appointed “leaders” and campaigned directly in the neighborhoods where the people are. It worked. If Republicans actually cared about people, they would get off of their asses and campaign in the cities. Instead, they concede cities to the Democrats which is why they have almost all of the biggest states.
I believe another 3 years of Trump campaigning in the inner cities and fly-over areas to reassure most Americans that someone is actually listening will turn the tide. It worked in 2020 and with the idiocy now being out in the open for all to see, it will work even better NOW. Just wait until the polls (which we won’t see) begin to burst with Trump support. Having the black population itself lead the charge against CRT will be the same as angry parents now increasingly confronting school committees and administrations all over the country,
We can win this but we need somebody to actually campaign where the voters are. We need Trump!!! We need to let him finish what he started. We are so close yet we can’t even get most “conservative” websites to report on what he is doing. He is getting almost no help except from Levin, Bongino, Conservative Treehouse, and maybe a couple of others. Could we please get Trump back into conversation here? It’s like fighting the Revolutionary War without Washington or the Civil War without Lincoln because they make too many people feel uncomfortable.
If there is one big reason why we keep losing, it is that we don’t have the spine to back winners. We keep believing the RINOs at the one-yard line who somehow manage to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Every single time. This is probably our last chance. Let’s not blow it again.
Or, too many conservatives fighting this culture war ‘conservatively’ like there are rules of engagement that must be followed by us. Only us. The Left has only one rule, attack nonstop.
Phil,
My personal preference would be that DJT not run for President. Why? Too much overhanging resistance on the part of establishment r, soft r suburban voters and others in our big tent conservative movement.
Not to mention the unprecedented level of hate from d/progressive and the gleeful disdain of the major media. It’s too much to overcome IMO.
Instead why not DeSantis? He is largely MAGA without the flaws of DJT as a messenger. The media has relentlessly attacked him but hasn’t landed a blow. He has directly relevant executive experience as a large State Governor.
That doesn’t mean sideline DJT, far from it. Let him be the MAGA motivational speaker. Lots of rallies and events to keep the base focused and energetic. He can use his role as a kingmaker to endorse or withhold endorsement for r party primary elections.
Keeping the elite/establishment r politicians and their array of organizations feet to the fire is probably more important a task than a second term. He is the only figure who can do that at the moment.
As much as I would relish another election night of d/progressive tears and fury over the election of DJT it isn’t worth the substantial headwinds his candidacy would face.
We avoid that by choosing DeSantis and letting DJT be DJT in rallies across the Nation endorsing and supporting MAGA candidates in the general and primaries alike. IOW, 99% of what you liked about DJT without the baggage.
You need to do some serious thinking about “the baggage” that Trump can overcome that DeSantis doesn’t. Most of that baggage is a Uniparty that is so entrenched in everything that the just make things up. That not being enough, they openly explain how they will steal the election (remember HIlary?), steal the election and then the Republicans again “move on” without a whimper while silencing those of us who keep fighting.
DeSantis does not have the gravitas to fight “the baggage” nor the organization and resources. He isn’t Trump. There is only one Trump and we will soon prove that the election was stolen in spite of the GOP blocking the investigations. DeSantis will be easy for the Dems to steal the next election from not because he isn’t a great choice, but because he cannot create a scenario where the election won’t be stolen from him.
Maybe Trump can accomplish that before 2024. Maybe that is why he doesn’t just announce that he is running. But DeSantis clearly knows which side his bread is buttered and will NOT run against Trump (unlike Cruz, Pompeo (General Milley’s close buddy), and others). Cruz looked unstoppable too in 2020 (my candidate) but he quickly collapsed and next thing you know, he is in CA being introduced to the dirty money by Hugh Hewitt at the California Club. He had no money and little backing. Without Trump, DeSantis would be in the same situation and forced to make the same choice.
Better to go with Trump and let him finish the job to pave the way for DeSantis in 2028 when he will be 48 years old and carrying Trump’s momentum into an electoral process that has been cleaned up. You should be demanding that all of the “conservatives” find their gonads and stop “moving on” from Trump. THE 2020 ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN!!! Have the courage to say it and help fix it.
Phil,
DeSantis is a large State Gov, who has been successful in implementing MAGA agenda in FL and beating back the media mongrels trying to take him down.
DJT has a role to play; kicking the establishment r in the teeth and using his popularity to keep the MAGA fires burning hot. He is uniquely suited to this. No other figure can sway the primary process by endorsement or withholding of endorsement like DJT.
A second DJT Admin will face the same issues. Resentment and resistance from within the executive branch.
IMO DJT as a MAGA surrogate and kingmaker on the outside with DeSantis as POTUS allows a tag team approach to tearing out the ‘resistance’.
DeSantis can concentrate on governing and reform of the institutions. DJT can effectively champion those reforms while unrestrained by holding office.
This combination can successfully continue the the shift to MAGA and main Street policies away from establishment, globalist and Wall Street priorities.
If either are the nominee I will certainly support him. Hopefully you will as well.
I think it would 1.) be a mistake to presume that DeSantis won’t face the same obstructionism as was faced by Trump; and 2.) be a mistake to not run the absolutely strongest candidate (likely DJT).
DeSantis could run as DJT’s VP. DJT has proven his ability to stand up to the worst that was thrown at him. Although he is a shitstorm magnet, DeSantis has yet to demonstrate that he can handle the same magnitude of storm. And being in the VP seat will give him four years of OJT, a perfect set up for eight more years of MAGA after Trump’s second term.
I agree re: DJT vs RDS.
Critical Race Theory is a new variant on the old Marxist Critical Theory. It’s a Marxist approach to overthrow a power structure that is opposed to Marxist principles,
Marxists engaged in an insurrection don’t care about the legal distinction between equality and equity. They are insurrectionists — they do whatever they please, as evidenced by the “equity” they force on us, in schools, corporations, and even the government. Legal concepts exist in a world where people pay $250 to $500 per hour to attorneys — a very small world Even in that world, the outcomes don’t follow legal theory. I know, because I’ve been in many civil lawsuits. For the general public, who can’t pay $250 to $500 per hour, legal theory is out of their reach.
I have two children who’ve gone through K-12 recently. Critical Theory, aka Critical Race Theory is taught in easy to understand concepts to them, because their teachers were indoctrinated in it, in college. These teachers are very impressionable, having absorbed all of Marxism in colleges. American children, today, are primarily educated in Marxism. The three R’s are secondary, because most teachers are passionate about their ideology.
@ ruralguy … 1,000 Up Votes.
You don’t let your opponents determine who your candidate is!! The left came out vehemently against Trump because Trump saw their plans and went to stop them. He knew about their illegal activities and went to clean them up.
You always go with your strongest candidate and Trump delivered in spades. Now the Marxists have stood up and made themselves known, eradicate them. We know how polluted our government agencies are. Close them, reshape them. Prosecute every person who failed to do their sworn duty. Prosecute the entire FBI leadership.
Constitutional amendments to keep the left from achieving their goals. Eliminate the ability of activist judges to affect national policy. Make it easier to eliminate activist judges from the bench. Make a new code of conduct for federal workers so they can’t abuse us and then retire on a 6 digit salary while wrapping themselves in the constitution.
Get a stomach for opposition.
William A. Jacobson: So for example, one thing that’s frequently pointed to is that the levels of imprisonment for crack cocaine were significantly greater or more harsh than for non-crack cocaine. And that could be an issue, and it might be that those need to be normalized and those need to be addressed.
That is exactly what is meant by systemic racism, in this case, a seemingly neutral law that has grossly disparate racial impact. The disparity is built into the system, and it has resulted in decades-long criminal penalties for Blacks, and often probation and drug treatment for Whites, and has had a devastating effect on Black families and communities.
William A. Jacobson: So I distinguish between a particular practice or a particular policy, which may have a disparate impact on different communities.
And that is exactly what is meant by White privilege, which includes not only the waving of the hands to minimize the disparate effects of such laws, but the process by which the draconian disparities were originally enacted.
William A. Jacobson: Equity is equal outcomes, but we know people perform differently both individually and as groups.
Preach it, Reverend! The Black man spends twenty years in prison, while the White man, convicted of the equivalent crime, after completing rehab, pulls himself up by his bootstraps. Meritocracy!
William A. Jacobson: They believe that our system has racism baked into it, is irredeemably racist.
Misrepresentation. Systemic racism certainly has been a problem, as you so adroitly point out, but the very nature of critical race theory is to identify systemic problems so that they can be resolved.
It’s not a “seemingly” neutral law, it is a neutral law. It’s not as if there were some law of nature that forced black criminals to choose one crime and white criminals to choose the other. Every single black criminal who chooses to commit the first crime rather than the second (or even not to commit any crime at all!) is deliberately choosing to risk the harsher penalty. It’s their choice, not the legal system’s.
Nor is it as if the laws were made that way because at the time black criminals tended to choose the first crime and white criminals the second. Even if that were the case the disparate outcome today would still not be racist, since there is no reason why today’s criminals should replicate the decisions of the criminals decades ago. But in fact the laws weren’t racist even then, because the reason they were made that way had nothing to do with a desire to punish black criminals worse than white ones. On the contrary, it was because black communities needed stronger protection than white ones did, and campaigned and begged for these laws.
Milhouse: It’s not a “seemingly” neutral law, it is a neutral law. It’s not as if there were some law of nature that forced black criminals to choose one crime and white criminals to choose the other.
The law was specifically crafted in response to the crack epidemic. However, Whites were also using cocaine, just in powder form. Consider the opioid crisis today. It’s mostly Whites involved, and it is often treated as a medical problem. So, yes, it was systemic racism that led to the disparities.
Exactly. It was not racist, it was a rational response to a major crisis that existed at the time.
Which was not a major problem. There was no powder cocaine “epidemic”. (I hate that misuse of the term “epidemic”, but it was the term used at the time, and it’s the term you just used, so I’m repeating it under protest. Drug use is not contagious, so it cannot ever be an epidemic.) Therefore there was no need for such harsh penalties against it. It had nothing whatsoever to do with race. Exactly to the contrary, the extreme crackdown on crack was at the urging of the black community. Congress was trying to help blacks, and refusing to do so would have been seen as racist. In my opinion it was wrong, and caused more problems than solved (which is not difficult since it didn’t solve any), but that’s my opinion about all drug laws. Congress’s intentions were good.
1. That crisis is happening today, not back then. Attitudes have changed today, so the response is different. Had it been happening then, you might very easily have seen the same response. 2. To a large extent the crisis today is “medical”. It’s not at all taking the form that the crack crisis did then. There are a lot of people harming themselves, but there is not the accompanying crime wave that was the main problem then. There are no gang wars over opioids, no shootouts, not many robberies to fund people’s habits, etc. The crisis is different, and so it deserves a different response, even if someone still thinks the original response was the correct one.
Milhouse: Exactly. It was not racist, it was a rational response to a major crisis that existed at the time.
It’s systemic racism because it created an unwarranted racial disparity. Nor was the response rational.
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/rates_drug_use_sale_1080_737_80.jpg
Milhouse: There was no powder cocaine “epidemic”.
Blacks and Whites use cocaine at about the same rate. White middle class kids just don’t nearly as often go to jail. Not only do they have the resources for court, but the law is biased in their favor.
S***head, the penalties for meth are the same for crack. And meth heads are largely white.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/three-people-get-prison-time-for-meth-related-charges/ar-BB1d9xFi
There’s nothing racist about the fact that the penalties for crack cocaine are different for powdered coke. In fact, it’s the opposite.
You remind me of this (expletive deleted).
https://www.westernjournal.com/minneapolis-city-councilwoman-expecting-police-protection-privilege/
“Minneapolis City Councilwoman: Expecting Police Protection Is a ‘Privilege'”
This Detroit mom wasn’t coming from a place of privilege when she shot back at the home invaders. She wasn’t coming from a place of privilege when she gave props to the Detroit PD when they responded to her 911 call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxeF2gu04qs&t=44s
“Detroit Mom Thwarts Home Invasion”
It’s funny. I’m a life member of the NRA. I’m told by leftists that I’m some fragile white guy who’s afraid of BIPOC people with guns. Huh? I don’t want to give too much identifying information away but I probably put more guns in black and brown hands, and trained those hands to shoot, than the Black Panthers and La Raza combined. When I was in the Navy, which isn’t an infantry force, so that was something of an accomplishment.
Next, you’re going to tell me the 2nd Amendment is racist. That seems to be the next upcoming angle of attack. And, not, it isn’t.
https://www.amazon.com/Negroes-Guns-Robert-F-Williams/dp/1773230522
“Negroes with Guns”
I see through your bulls***. I want EVERYBODY who is trustworthy to be well armed. I need all the friends I can get.
Arminius: the penalties for meth are the same for crack.
Before reform under Obama, simple possession, the federal minimum was for 5 grams of crack cocaine. The federal minimum for methamphetamine is for 50 grams, ten times as much.
Arminius: There’s nothing racist about the fact that the penalties for crack cocaine are different for powdered coke.
The result was a huge disparity in sentencing for Blacks and Whites for similar crimes. That’s called systemic racism.
No one is interested in anecdotal stories. To make your claim you have compare sentencing guidelines
“There’s nothing racist about the fact that the penalties for crack cocaine are different for powdered coke. In fact, it’s the opposite.” how so? ITs seems clear that when comparing equivalent crimes there should be equivalent sentencing
Admitting that that’s true, if there hadn’t been a crackdown on crack, the failure to mount such a response to crack would today be cited as a sure sign of racism, because the (racist) system allowed crack to destroy the black community.
You’ve managed to miss the entire point. The issue is not cracking down on crack but doing the same to all other equivalents.
Who says the crimes are equivalent? Drug laws are pretty arbitrary in the first place, but they are what they are, and these two laws are definitely not equivalent, precisely because the penalties are so different. That makes them very different crimes, and when you choose to commit a more severe crime, i.e. one that carries a harsher penalty, you should not be surprised when, having been caught and convicted, you receive that harsher penalty. That’s not racist.
Milhouse: Drug laws are pretty arbitrary in the first place
Good point. And the arbitrariness cuts against Blacks (for some reason).
No, it doesn’t. It cuts against those who choose not only to break the law in general, but to break one specific law rather than another. That blacks predominate among those is completely irrelevant. It is not racist, because it’s their choice, not the law’s.
And that would be true even if the laws had originally been made that way for racist reasons, which they weren’t. Even if they had been, that was 30 years ago and the black people who choose to sell crack today made their own choices; they were not compelled by the choices of different black criminals 30 years ago.
Milhouse: It cuts against those who choose not only to break the law in general, but to break one specific law rather than another.
It’s called addiction.
Milhouse: It is not racist, because it’s their choice, not the law’s.
The result was a huge disparity in sentencing for Blacks and Whites for similar crimes. That’s called systemic racism.
This may be apocryphal, but a friend said he’d witnessed these affairs.
Somebody In Jackson whose job it was to keep up with goats and chickens and eggs and various species of milk and legumes was in the stacks reading one day and he noticed some numbers that distressed him.
Egg production in one of the elegant Delta counties, one whose shores were lapped upon by the messy muddy waters of the Mississippi, showed a rather precipitous decline in that production, with a concomitant decline in tax revenues. Gosh, maybe the banks are discriminating by foreclosing on chicken ranch mortgages. I hope no discrimination is going on. I got to find out.
So off to visit ran he and a bunch of accountants and Mississippi State biologists, and their investigations produced nothing to explain the decline, till somebody in one of the county’s seats suggested they go over to beat 4 and investigate activities of the Chicken Men there.
“Chicken Men? What the hell are the Chicken Men? I never heard of Chicken Men. “
“Well, go see for yourself, your Laboriousness. Just head west toward the sound of the squawking. See that cloud of feathers yonder? That’s what Jeb Stuart would have done.”
“Ok, we will, but I need a bit of information. First, why the designation “Chicken Men?”
“Well, your laboriousness, there aren’t many women thereabouts, never were, so those chaps have taken to having intercourse with chickens.”
“WHAT? What do you mean?”
“To be blunt, Sir, they fuck chickens.”
With knowledge this interspecies abomination in grip, the Jackson chaps didn’t need a visit. They had discovered unequivocally the source of the decline of the egg production. No moral issues were advanced here, not about the sex act itself, not about possible forcible rape or unplanned parenthood, the state’s compelling interest was lost $$$$$ in revenue.
They returned to Jackson, reported to and sought the assistance of the governor who called a special session of the legislature, and made a law:
TO WIT & PRESENTS: $200 fine for anybody discovered having carnal knowledge of a chicken.
Well, the law failed to alleviate the primal mover that had configured the custom in the first instance , the absence of women in Beat 4.
No matter, anybody but the folks in Jackson could have recognized the abysmal ass loophole. The law was silent ducks in treating others forms of poultry.
Most of the white Chicken Men jumped over that low hurdle chicken wire, and and took up satisfying their primal urges with American Perkins and Call ducks. Others with Emden geese, an occasional mallard, and that old, universal fallback position, guinea fowl. (I hear their tail feathers scratch.)
But most black Chicken Men, I don’t know, maybe they didn’t learn to read in Head Start, or maybe they were just too in love, so they just kept on admiring chickens, hens, mostly, but I heard some admired roosters a good deal.
And fines were assessed. “All you got to do, “ the judge would admonish, “ all you got to do is jump that fence, free yourself from the confines of that barbed chicken wire. $200 dollars.” Bang.
I didn’t think about it at the time it happened, at least through the 1980s, it just didn’t occur to me the right way to evaluate those events. Now I know.
SYSTEMIC RACISM. That the system had indeed succeeded in producing another form of virulent racism against Mississippi’s black Chicken Men is the only possible explanation.
Claiming that criminal acts and sentencing outcomes are due to systemic racism is an ideological explanation, not a rational and scientific explanation. Where is the science to back this up? Throwing out statements like “the Black man spends twenty years in prison, while the White man, convicted of the equivalent crime, . pulls himself up” is just ideological, with no basis in fact. What are the sufficient conditions that lead to criminal behavior? We know from scientific studies that there is a link between emotional control and cognitive intelligence. That’s a strong sufficient condition in explaining much crime and criminal sentencing outcomes.
ruralguy: Claiming that criminal acts and sentencing outcomes are due to systemic racism is an ideological explanation, not a rational and scientific explanation.
We didn’t provide evidence, because the disparity was granted in the original post.
A disparity is possibly caused by multiple conditions. This is known in science as multiple sufficient conditions. To show that A caused B, you have to show there were no other sufficient conditions. C, D, … Your logic is deeply flawed if you claim racism can causes a disparity of sentencing or even improper sentencing, then assume this is the prime and only condition that causes a disparity in sentencing or reason for the penalties. That’s ideology, not science.
“Racism” is a term coin by Lennon, or early 19th socialists to convey a negative connotation. That’s also ideology. To convey the concept in a scientific language, you would say “Judges are using improper statistical inferences when sentencing blacks during sentencing.” You then need to show why the statistical inference is improper and why the you believe they are using a statistical inference. Ideology is an abnormal interpretation of reality. You can clear it up by using scientific reasoning.
ruralguy: To show that A caused B, you have to show there were no other sufficient conditions.
In this case, the evidence is sufficient to prove that there is a racial disparity due to an arbitrary difference in the law. The racism doesn’t have to be conscious, though the history of the panic over the “crack epidemic” had a racist subtext. Compare to the reaction to the opioid crisis.
ruralguy: “Racism” is a term coin by Lennon, or early 19th socialists to convey a negative connotation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw
The term “racism” dates to the 20th century (by Pratt, 1902).
ruralguy: To convey the concept in a scientific language, you would say “Judges are using improper statistical inferences when sentencing blacks during sentencing.”
Well, no. The sentencing disparities were written into law with mandatory minimums. Did you not read the comment to which you responded?
Well your logic doesn’t really work. The issue is the outcomes. As stated an arbitrary drug laws outcome results in outcomes which are starkly different for blacks and whites. Where crack is a serious issue within the black community it’s treated in a severe manner whereas opioid addiction which is more prevalent in the white community is treated as a medical condition. The end result is a a disparity in outcomes which is clearly skewed again blacks and for whites. That’s the whole point of systemic racism, the purpose of CRT is in part to identify this outcomes and the disparity so that society can resolve them. In this instance there appears to be two options. Treat opioid addiction as a criminal matter equivalent to crack or treat crack as equivalent to opioid addiction. Which would you prefer more whites in prison or less blacks in prison?
Who?!
If you mean early 19th century, (a) you’re wrong, (b) you’re a century too early for Lenin and a century and a half too early for Lennon. And in fact all three answers are wrong; none of them had anything to do with coining the term.
Yes, bad memory on my part. I meant Trotsky who popularized the word “racism,” in 1933, in an essay. Socialists in the 19th century did use variants of the word, in the French language.
Zach,
For arguments sake, let’s accept your theory that disparities between groups are based upon bias and discriminatory intent and are not the result of other factors.
Females attend and graduate University at higher levels than males. Black females over black males by well over 3x.
Is the under representation of black males due to racial bias or gender bias or perhaps it’s not any bias at all, rather the result of a series of individual choices and preferences that people make in their own lives?
Females dominate in elementary school teaching positions. Is the under representation of males a result of gender bias? Perhaps it’s just individuals making their own decisions.
Minorities are over represented in local and State government employment. Racial bias? Maybe just individuals making making decisions for themselves.
Everything isn’t tinged with bias. When your only tool is the ‘hammer of bias correction’ everything looks like a biased nail.
CommoChief: For arguments sake, let’s accept your theory that disparities between groups are based upon bias and discriminatory intent and are not the result of other factors.
That’s not the argument. Not at all. (By the way, this is typical of culture whinging on the political right. They misrepresent, then declare there’s a war on Christmas.)
Even if there hadn’t been a single bigoted person left in America, the disparities in cocaine sentencing disproportionately devastated Black families. Meanwhile, Whites who aren’t prejudiced at all exert their privilege by not seeing the problem.
https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/62/37/Quotation-Stephen-Colbert-Now-I-don-t-see-color-People-tell-me-I-62-37-95.jpg
Ok, so everything isn’t the result of bias, particularly the examples I listed since you didn’t choose to address them; employment in general, government employment in particular and educational attainment.
Glad you have signed off on that.
Now besides the stupid war on drugs sentencing guidelines, which have been modified, what other areas demonstrate bias?
Good point CommoChief. If their only tool is a hammer, everything is a nail. Zachriel and Mark311 latched on the notion that structural racism can cause sentencing disparities or statutory sentence guidance for two different laws, so they assume it must be the cause of these. That’s common in many people. If they see X happens, they jump to the first explanation that pops into their minds.
Ideology is hard to shake, because it’s a narrative in one’s mind that interprets reality. It;s part emotion, so you can’t convince them to use precise terms and proper logic. Emotions often dominate narratives.
CommoChief: Ok, so everything isn’t the result of bias
Not all disparities are the result of individual biases. Some are due to intrinsic cultural and social differences. Some are the result of systemic biases.
CommoChief: Glad you have signed off on that.
Whaddabout?!
We didn’t address your examples because they weren’t directly pertinent to ruralguy’s argument which we were addressing, nor did you grant the point about the disparate effect of mandatory drug sentencing laws.
CommoChief: Now besides the stupid war on drugs sentencing guidelines, which have been modified, what other areas demonstrate bias?
Isn’t the evidence of devastating Black communities enough? So now America not only has the vestiges of racial disparities due to the Jim Crow period, but has the secondary vestiges of racial disparities due to the war on drugs.
But, as you have ask, first past the post elections dilute minority votes, while gerrymandering exacerbates the problem. It’s only natural that those with power tend to pass laws which help them maintain that power. As Whites have historically exerted the most power, they tend to pass laws which help them maintain that power, even when they claim (as with drug laws) that those laws are race neutral. For instance, in Georgia, the legislature tried to end early voting on Sunday, which is popular with Black churches as part of the “Souls to the Polls” voting recruitment. Why would they do that? Take a guess.
ruralguy: the notion that structural racism can cause sentencing disparities
Actually, we provided evidence to support our claim, which you ignored. Even Jacobson indicated it could be a problem, but simply defined the problem away, even though it clearly fits the definition of structural racism.
Zach,
If you were not addressing me then why did you:
A. Reply to me
B. Selectively quote from my post?
Let’s just move on to your inclusive list of bias.
Gerrymandering? Ok lets get rid of all minority majority CD, which actually dilute the political power of minorities by concentration into a single or very few CD.
Instead lets allow five total lines for CD boundaries that are not also geographical, like a river, political like State or County borders. That would eliminate shenanigans.
The GA didn’t try to eliminate Sunday voting. It was one of many draft proposals. As the r hold a majority in GA legislature they could have passed it, they chose not to do so.
Umm ‘just say no’ is trite but true. Using drugs is a choice, a bad one. Prison sucks, no matter the length of sentence.
Individuals make choices. They must assume responsibility for the consequences. Unless you advocate removing their agency. The d/progressive did support the removal of agency from blacks for a long time, maybe you are reading John C Calhoun’s notes?
CommoChief: If you were not addressing me
We did address you, and pointed out that you had misunderstood the argument when you granted arguendo “disparities between groups are based upon bias and discriminatory intent,” which misrepresents the argument. Systemic racism doesn’t necessarily depend on individual racism.
CommoChief: The GA didn’t try to eliminate Sunday voting.
Yes, they did. But the backlash was furious, so they backpedaled. Why did they even propose it? What purpose would it serve?
(It’s the Gingerich strategy that has led to the extreme partisanship we see today. The strategy is not to find accommodation or compromise. According to the strategy, if a bill receives 60% or 70% of the vote, it means it didn’t go far enough. Rather, push the bill to the most extreme position that can still get 51%.)
CommoChief: Prison sucks, no matter the length of sentence.
But someone with 400 grams of powder cocaine, probably White, got a lighter sentence than someone with 5 grams of crack cocaine, probably Black. The result was decades-long sentences for Blacks while Whites were often sent to rehab.
Zach,
You are not very good at this. At least this version of the Zach collective isn’t.
These constant evasions and employment of basic rhetorical devices to obscure and deflect are as boring as they are repetitive.
So here’s what I’m going to do. I will refrain from commenting or responding to your antics until after Labor Day. Now if that doesn’t warm the cockles of your cold commie heart I don’t know what would.
So you have until then to improve. Let’s face it, you have had your ass kicked for the past couple of days. Everyone is wiping the floor with your tired, repetitive tropes.
It’s like all the other Zachs left their kid brother at home this weekend. Clearly the current incarnation of Zach isn’t up to the job.
So you have until after Labor Day to research and hone your skills. The warmed over Soviet era racial propaganda points need to be retired. They are as stale as they are untrue.
Study hard and enjoy the rest of your Summer Comrade.
CommoChief,
Your latest comment doesn’t appear to have any relevant content.
Twaddle.
First-past-the-post elections don’t dilute minority votes. On the contrary, they help a united minority to win on those occasions when the majority splits its vote. If a minority splits its vote then of course it won’t win, but it shouldn’t have won anyway, so no harm done. The reason we should adopt preferential voting is precisely so that, after all preferences are determined, the majority will always win, as it should. And of course this has nothing to do with race. Electoral majorities and minorities are defined by people’s interests and opinions, not their race.
Gerrymandering does not hurt black or hispanic voters; on the contrary, gerrymandering is the only reason there are so many of their number in Congress. That is because the VRA was (and in many cases still is) interpreted to require districts to be gerrymandered so as to guarantee them local majorities. This is especially so when courts override the legislature and do their own gerrymandering; they always do so in favor of racial minorities.
When gerrymandering is done by the state legislature, as it is supposed to be, race doesn’t come into it. The legislature draws the boundaries to protect incumbents, and to help the majority party, whichever it happens to be in that state at that time. For the whole time that the Democrats dominated the South they gerrymandered their districts to preserve that control and nobody said a word. Then when they finally lost control of state legislatures and Republicans took their turn at drawing boundaries they suddenly kicked up a ruckus. They went to court, they fled the state, they threatened violence, everything to stop the Republicans from doing what they had done for a century or more. None of that had anything to do with race. When parties draw boundaries they care only about how a specific block votes, not about who lives there or what color they are.
And here we have the core of your fallacy. Whites are not a bloc.
It is only natural that those with power pass laws to help them maintain that power. But this has nothing to do with race. “Whites” have not historically exerted power. It has historically been true that the people who exerted power happened to be white. That did not give them any reason to pass laws that would help other people exert power just because they also happened to be white. On the contrary, when (mostly white) Democrats have power they make laws, not to help whites maintain power but to help Democrats maintain power, and that includes black Democrats. And when (mostly white) Republicans have power they make laws to help Republicans maintain power. Since it’s a fact that most black people vote Democrat, laws made to help Democrats will maximize the black vote and laws made to help Republicans will minimize it. Where there is a black block or neighborhood that votes Republican the reverse will be true. Neither side cares at all about race, only about voting behavior. And neither side is trying to help opponents who happen to look like them.
@commochief
You haven’t really addressed or understood the points raised by Zachriel,
“But someone with 400 grams of powder cocaine, probably White, got a lighter sentence than someone with 5 grams of crack cocaine, probably Black. The result was decades-long sentences for Blacks while Whites were often sent to rehab.”
Unanswered
“Yes, they did. But the backlash was furious, so they backpedaled. Why did they even propose it? What purpose would it serve?”
Unanswered
“Actually, we provided evidence to support our claim, which you ignored. Even Jacobson indicated it could be a problem, but simply defined the problem away, even though it clearly fits the definition of structural racism.”
Unanswered
Im not clear what exactly Zachriel has evaded either?
Mark,
The z collective, as usual, didn’t address my questions. Instead the z collective raised other issues not in question in an attempt to shift the debate to topics of the z collective choosing.
This version of the z collective is broken. I have granted the z collective time to improve before I reevaluate whether the z collective is worth engaging. That’s assuming the z collective hasn’t been banned or run off before then.
Frankly this version doesn’t measure up. It’s like debating a child with special needs. There’s always a predictable, rote response devoid of original thought.
The z collective as a whole seems to have stumbled upon a trove of Soviet era propaganda and absorbed it as if it were holy writ. As if they are the first young students to flirt with Marx.
They advance this as if we are impressed that a few sophomores have discovered the Grail of Marx and we are to bow before this revealed wisdom. It is mind numbingly boring and pedantic.
Until the z collective improves and advances beyond sophomoric arguments based on Soviet era propaganda pamphlets they can bugger off.
@Commochief
With respect Zachriel did answer your questions and pointed out where you have misunderstood. You even seem to acknowledge implicitly that drugs sentencing is poor and have had an impact on blacks that is disproportionate.
With respect to the one question Zachriel didn’t answer ; the difference between black women and black mens attainment in college degrees I’m not clear your stats are correct? Do you have source? Looking at the Brookings institute the difference is 5-7% which actually is pretty similar to white women vs white men.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/12/04/black-women-are-earning-more-college-degrees-but-that-alone-wont-close-race-gaps/
@Milhouse,
I think you are correct about first past the post however with respect to gerrymandering I’m not clear that’s the case. The assumption used to be that blacks and whites votes in different directions. That’s no longer the case so by having 50% black represent as opposed to say 30% in a district the black vote is only valuable to a smaller number of districts.
Mark,
What the collective Zach does is state it’s interpretation or opinion about a fact as a replacement for the fact.
The GA legislature is r controlled. They can pass whatever they choose. The Gov is r. He can sign whatever he chooses. The legislature did not pass any legislation that eliminated Sunday voting.
To state that a draft bill is equivalent to legislation is incorrect. It’s useful to do so in order to advance an argument but that doesn’t make it true.
You are sort of correct on the numbers. I used the same data set and misapplied white female for black female.
In reality the difference is about 50% between black males at 17% and black females at 25%. Females graduate at a rate nearly 1.5 times that of males.
The z collective ignores points made which they cannot refute or reframe. Instead they insert recycled communist race tropes as the only font of wisdom. It’s tiresome and frankly not worth my while.
I am tired of the z collective taking liberties with my comments. It’s as if I or anyone else who debates with them are cast as the straight man in a vaudeville comedy act.
I have worked hard to try to be conscious of my sarcastic tendencies and sought to minimize what others have called my acerbic wit. No longer.
Thank you for pointing out my error. Always happy to correct myself, unlike the z collective.
Milhouse: First-past-the-post elections don’t dilute minority votes.
Of course it does. Groups, such as Blacks or Indians, that may have specific concerns are less likely to have those concerns addressed.
Milhouse: Electoral majorities and minorities are defined by people’s interests and opinions, not their race.
Yes, but sometimes (often) minority groups have specific concerns distinct from that of the general population.
Milhouse: Gerrymandering does not hurt black or hispanic voters; on the contrary, gerrymandering is the only reason there are so many of their number in Congress.
It’s called “packing and cracking.”
Milhouse: For the whole time that the Democrats dominated the South they gerrymandered their districts to preserve that control and nobody said a word.
Of course they did.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png/1024px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png
Milhouse: When parties draw boundaries they care only about how a specific block votes, not about who lives there or what color they are.
The effect is to marginalize Black voters.
Milhouse: It is only natural that those with power pass laws to help them maintain that power.
That’s right.
Milhouse: “Whites” have not historically exerted power.
Haha!
Milhouse: And when (mostly white) Republicans have power they make laws to help Republicans maintain power.
That’s right.
It’s an aspect of democracy, especially first past the post election, especially when exacerbated by gerrymandering, that the powerful will build the system in such as a way as to maintain their power. That’s why the U.S. has a Bill of Rights, to provide some protection to minorities. Even with the Bill of Rights, slavery persisted for more than four score and seven years, Jim Crow persisting for a similar period.
—
“Democracy is the worst form of government expect all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
CommoChief: didn’t address my questions.
To show systemic racism exists, it is only necessary to show one instance. Jacobson introduced racial disparities in drug sentencing and attempted to define the problem away. You want to discuss other possible instances of systemic racism, but you have yet to grapple with the one that was already introduced in the original post. We’d be happy to answer your questions in more detail once you grapple with the original topic, but not if you are using them “in an attempt to shift the debate.”
CommoChief: The GA legislature is r controlled. They can pass whatever they choose.
They had to keep the overt racial aspects on the down-low.
CommoChief: The legislature did not pass any legislation that eliminated Sunday voting.
Why did they even propose it? What purpose would it serve? (It was removed from the final legislation because of the national uproar.)
Zwe,
I’m pretty sure there is a war on Christmas.
No. The disparity is in your mind and only there.
The same way lilly white women in lilly white cities in Washington state ascribe racism and white supremacy to everything they see. You disagree with me, I don’t like your answer, ergo YOU are racist. I might have to convolute the logic to make it fit, but that is the end state of the argument. Every. Single. Time.
Andy: The disparity is in your mind and only there.
The disparity is written into the law.
Zwe,
In Mississippi, the “I” speed limit is 70. It’s posted. The reduced limits in heavy traffic areas are posted.
The following numbers are for purposes of illustration.
The fine for going +10 is $100. The fine is not posted, but even if it were, I assure you there are those of us who would assume that risk. We are not Germans.
The fine for going +40 is $1000. It’s not billboarded, but it’s not hidden, in the sense that it’s discoverable, either by reading more about laws governing rules of the road, or by talking to violators who complain about draconian fines. Slow down, the friends advise.
Those individuals marked in some way who drive @110 mi/hr are subject to the $1000 fine.
If Zwe discovers that judges are levying $1000 fines upon some significant fraction of minority drivers, and , at the same time, are forgiving the tickets, dismissing the charges for 110 mi/h whites, then Zwe has a case.
All folks of any set have to do to avoid fines is to observe the speed limit as posted.
Zwe, Make your systemic case.
thetaqjr: Make your systemic case.
That wouldn’t be systemic racism, but overt racism.
An example of systemic racism is how jury pools are put together. If a locality uses drivers license lists, and because urban Blacks are less likely to have drivers licenses, it results in racial disparities in the jury pool.
You are so right about the global nature. When I was writing my book Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon I found the illustrative literacy frameworks showing the classroom implementation of the Common Core English Language Arts framework on a New Zealand website.
Also notice how often Carol Dweck’s work on Growth Mindsets is used in NZ classrooms and training. Plus, the purported communitarianism of the Maori gets used to hype Culturally Responsive Teaching needing to reflect the indigenous people’s preference for the collective over the individual.
To flip this ridiculous semantic argument from the left on its face that “CRT is not being forced into schools”….
It would be akin to saying “Racism does not exist in the KKK because the KKK members don’t call themselves racists”.
Whether it’s CRT, Howard Zinn’s history books, etc, all should be removed from public school curriculums.
CRT means Black people are relentless victims of relentless white racism & this will never change b/c there is no remedy.
Johnny Weissmuller: CRT means Black people are relentless victims of relentless white racism & this will never change b/c there is no remedy.
That’s exactly contrary to critical race theory, which posits that systemic racism can occur in the absence of individual racism, and that identifying systemic racism is important to addressing the problem.
The argument fir systemic racism quickly loses validity when anything people don’t like is anointed as racist. Math is now. Success is racist, Being punctual is racist.
America has culture built on its founding documents, shaped by its laws and experiences of its peoples. If you want to succeed in America you join that society and embrace its methods and standards. Setting yourselves apart and holding your own subculture, spurning the standards set by the mainstream and then embracing criminal behavior and glorifying it is means to guarantee a lack of success in the mainstream society. At that point we claim everything is racist and society’s fault.
Reparations are due!!
The slogan “fight the power” probably did great damage to the black community. They should have been indoctrinated with “embrace the power and learn how to wield it.”
We don’t need race “theories” anywhere in public school systems. Just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it should not be forced on our youth year after year after year in the Goebells propaganda way.
Zachriel: “Not all disparities are the result of individual biases. Some are due to intrinsic cultural and social differences. Some are the result of systemic biases.”
This statement allows for no possible cause of disparities other than cultural, social, and biases. Can disparities not be the result of situations that are not identical? Do all judges run their courtrooms the same, and sentence the same? Do all lawyers provide equally effective counsel? Do all individuals make the same choices regarding their own actions, and their responses to the actions of others?
It appears that you are viewing the world as a place where everything that happens to an individual is the result of outside influence, and undue influence at that.
“Do all judges run their courtrooms the same, and sentence the same? Do all lawyers provide equally effective counsel?” Of course not but there are numerous reasons why those decisions are influenced by the outside. In the case of judges for example its the sentencing guidelines, and legal framework that would be that largest direct influences that come to mind. In the case of a lawyer the quality of there counsel is might be a product of a number of external factors. People might be individuals but we are all very much influenced by our environment.
Thanks for acknowledging my point. For you, it’s about “external factors” and “environment”; individual actions and motivations are meaningless.
That’s not what I said at all, I said external factors are dominant compared with individualistic ones
Joey Williams: This statement allows for no possible cause of disparities other than cultural, social, and biases.
Well, the word “some” allows for other possibilities. Individual temperament is also a factor. You can probably list others. However, humans are social and cultural animals, so social and cultural influences are important.
In this discussion about systemic racism, cultural influences are certainly relevant. Poor urban Blacks play more basketball than football. The disparity may have a lot to do with history and the local environment, but wouldn’t be considered systemic racism.
What dirtbags will never do is look into why there are differences between what white and black defendants get different sentences when convicted. For one reason, black defendants tend to have more extensive criminal histories. If it’s your third felony you’re going away for a longer period of time than if it’s your first.
This reminds me of the, “Women make 70 cents for every dollar men make” canard. When you actually examine the situation, no they don’t. It’s also not true that the legal system (note: I don’t say justice system) treats blacks differently than whites.
Women tend to make different choices than men. A mechanical engineer is going to make more money than a preschool teacher. More men are mechanical engineers than women. More women are preschool teachers than men. Culture and personal choices explain the differences between prison sentences as well.
Arminius: For one reason, black defendants tend to have more extensive criminal histories.
Most studies control for these factors. In terms of Jacobson’s example of cocaine sentencing, the disparity is written into the law, so has nothing to do with the person’s previous criminal history.
Again, one of the claims is that system racism can be traced to the criminalisation of blacks either as a product of the laws or in terms of redlining issues. The former relates to a disparity between sentencing and drugs wit respect to the kind of drugs groups use and in terms of the latter environmental impacts on the black community by historic segregation.
There are numerous examples of blacks being discriminating against within the criminal justice system.
I can picture people in the peanut gallery fixating on the “third felony” line. As if that’s proof America is systemically racist. BORING! Already debunked a thousand times over. Actual Africans aren’t lining up to come to America because it’s racist. When they move here they don’t get the first felony, let alone the third.
There are pockets of white culture that are just as crime prone as pockets of black culture. They all end up getting treated the same.
Except that when you look at the data you can see differences in outcomes when comparing black immigrants and indigenous blacks. The point being that historic factors like redlining have created social environs that breed crime. Yet another example of systemic racism.
https://theweek.com/articles/452321/appalachia-big-white-ghetto
Dr. King speaks on white privilege:
Excuse me, I seem to have trouble reading. I didn’t see the term “white privilege” anywhere in that quote.
Since white moderates are white, and CRT/leftists/wokes tell us that all whites are privileged, that would mean that white moderates are privileged. But Dr. King wasn’t addressing privilege; he was addressing the well-intended who think of themselves as “anti-racist” but in reality are still stumbling-blocks to progress.
Joey Williams: Excuse me, I seem to have trouble reading. I didn’t see the term “white privilege” anywhere in that quote.
No, it describes white privilege.
Joey Williams: But Dr. King wasn’t addressing privilege; he was addressing the well-intended who think of themselves as “anti-racist” but in reality are still stumbling-blocks to progress.
The privilege comes from being unhurried about reform because he is White, and “paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.” {emphasis added}
He didn’t need too, its plainly alluded to within the quote. Specifically white moderates who prefer order over justice or that blacks should wait for equality
Motte – Bailey
https://law.georgia.gov/press-releases/2021-07-20/carr-us-department-education-backs-critical-race-theory