< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

“Social justice:” what we are seeing, and what should we do?

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  180
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
15 May 2018 05:15
 
mapadofu - 15 May 2018 03:27 AM

Analytic— you’ve introduced “systematic” into a discussion that had been around “systemic”.

The quoted passage includes “systemic” and the term I mostly hear from activists is “systemic racism”, a usage that comports with the dictionary definition.  In your most recent response you’ve brought in the term “systematic” which of course is something different, but isn’t what I thought we we were talking about.

It’s a typo.  It should read “systemic.”  The words are so similar I transposed one for the other.  The meaning stays the same.

 

[ Edited: 15 May 2018 05:22 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
D4M10N
 
Avatar
 
 
D4M10N
Total Posts:  3
Joined  11-05-2018
 
 
 
15 May 2018 18:19
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 May 2018 05:55 AM

Haidt and Harris think that Yale, Evergreen and Middlebury are the new normal on universities across the country, threatening free speech. Murray, for Sam, is a “canary in the coal mine.” I happen to think these three represent a fringe movement that has eclipsed a tiny minority of campuses, and it’s a long way from sweeping the country.

I rather doubt that the elevation of “social justice” concerns over the values of classical American liberalism is just a fringe movement. We can see a feelings first approach at many of the top universities in the U.S.

Harvard - Elevated religious feelings over free speech by nixing a Satanic parody mass back in 2014
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/august-19th-2016/how-we-stopped-a-black-mass-at-harvard/

Stanford - Elevated feelings over speech earlier this year by removing parodic flyers on the grounds that they “mocked a flyer protecting an identity group,” supposedly.
 
Tweet—> https://twitter.com/ncacensorship/status/959503130437324802

Credit where due: At least one Stanford law prof stood up for a broad interpretation of academic freedom.

Princeton - Doing fine, in general.

Yale - Already discussed upthread. Students feel empowered to shout down and intimidate faculty when new cultural norms are questioned.

MIT - Doing okay, AFAIK.

Caltech - Doing okay, AFAIK.

University of Pennsylvania - Probably okay.

Duke University - Pro-life speech proves upsetting to Duke students, who attempt to shut it down.

Brown University - Students set up a safe space to avoid “feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against…dearly and closely held beliefs.”

Pomona College - Some troubling signs from within the Claremont Colleges consortium; nothing specifically at the Pomona campus.

These are just the first ten elite universities I looked up, and at least half of them are showing signs of social justice shaming used to shut down speech.

Far from “the new normal,” but it’s a bit depressing for someone looking to send his firstborn to college.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  318
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
15 May 2018 19:51
 

Though it took work, the Stanford student was ultimately vindicated, and as mentioned recieved external support.

Re. Yale, it seems that at least one of the students involved received special recognition upon graduating.  Not sure to what degree this episode was a positive factor (obviously it wasn’t disqualifying).

[ Edited: 15 May 2018 20:16 by mapadofu]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2148
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
15 May 2018 23:05
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 15 May 2018 02:43 AM

Please do, especially if you have thoughts on why the Yale students don’t represent a problem.  I disagree, but any occasion to expand on why—as any disagreement offers—would be welcome.  There is definitely much to discuss as to what those students represent.

I don’t know how much of a problem the situation described regarding the Yale students represent.  There have been criticisms and backlash; it may run its course for a while and then mellow out.  There are usually extremes in any ‘movement’ in the beginning.

The Civil Rights Movement brought about changes in rights and laws, but attitudes are slower to change.  And the young are impatient and don’t always know how best to direct their frustration.  In the long run, it is possible that there may actually be some positive results, e.g. covert forms of prejudice and discrimination brought to light.  I don’t think we should underestimate this generation; there are some amazing young people out there.

In regards to what to do about it – more awareness and acknowledgement that the fight against discrimination and racism, in all its forms, is not yet over.  (Voting Trump out probably wouldn’t hurt either.)

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  180
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 May 2018 02:18
 
Jan_CAN - 15 May 2018 11:05 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 15 May 2018 02:43 AM

Please do, especially if you have thoughts on why the Yale students don’t represent a problem.  I disagree, but any occasion to expand on why—as any disagreement offers—would be welcome.  There is definitely much to discuss as to what those students represent.

I don’t know how much of a problem the situation described regarding the Yale students represent.  There have been criticisms and backlash; it may run its course for a while and then mellow out.  There are usually extremes in any ‘movement’ in the beginning.

The Civil Rights Movement brought about changes in rights and laws, but attitudes are slower to change.  And the young are impatient and don’t always know how best to direct their frustration.  In the long run, it is possible that there may actually be some positive results, e.g. covert forms of prejudice and discrimination brought to light.  I don’t think we should underestimate this generation; there are some amazing young people out there.

In regards to what to do about it – more awareness and acknowledgement that the fight against discrimination and racism, in all its forms, is not yet over.  (Voting Trump out probably wouldn’t hurt either.)

They are two (related) senses in which the Yale students can represent “a problem”: first, that their type is or is not common, and therefore it or is not spreading on campuses, and second, that their type, however much it is spreading, is a problem.  In some respects you seem to be addressing both, and admittedly I’ve not been entirely clear on separating the two senses myself.  But I think there are two related but separable issues here: the degree to which the movement is spreading, and the degree to which the movement is a problem.

The Civil Rights Movement brought about changes in rights and laws, but attitudes are slower to change.

Exactly, and I think there are three generations of liberals in play here.  First, there’s those who brought about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They brought about (most of) the rights the marginalized now enjoy.  Following them there are those who have emphasized attitudes, especially attitudes toward the marginalized.  They have changed people’s attitudes, and now American society is less cruel, less callous, and more sympathetic to those who’ve been disenfranchised in the past.  Following them we have what we are seeing now: this Yale generation and its focus on feelings.  They want to carve out a new set of rights and prohibitions, not to guarantee civil rights or to change attitudes, but instead to protect feelings—in this case, to protect the feelings of marginalized peoples.  In all three generations, the focus has been on marginalized peoples, but what they’ve focused on has been different.

(There is, of course, considerable overlap among these three generations.  The ADA, for instance, came in 1990, and gay marriage in 2015.  In this respect, the attitudes-focus of the second generation made possible more progress on the rights-concerns of the first.  My main point, though, is the concerns of this rising generation are (entirely?) new).

Now, referring the two senses of problem, and assuming my description of the three generations of liberals is accurate, what do you think of this new generation’s focus on feelings, and how much do you see it spreading on campuses (perhaps a side issue)?  Is this a good thing?  A bad thing? Too soon to tell?

For my part, but for formally protecting sexual orientation, I think “the fight against discrimination and racism” has already been won at the institutional level (the first generation), mostly won at the attitudes level (the second generation), and yet to be fought at the feelings level (this generation).  As much as I think their grandparent’s and their parent’s fight is my fight, this new generation’s fight is not my fight. And what’s more, for a variety of reasons I don’t think it’s a fight we either need or should have.  Not only is too little at stake; I don’t even see how it could be won without losing too much.  But I’ll stop there and wait to see if you have anything to add…

 

[ Edited: 16 May 2018 03:39 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  180
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 May 2018 02:26
 
D4M10N - 15 May 2018 06:19 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 14 May 2018 05:55 AM

Haidt and Harris think that Yale, Evergreen and Middlebury are the new normal on universities across the country, threatening free speech. Murray, for Sam, is a “canary in the coal mine.” I happen to think these three represent a fringe movement that has eclipsed a tiny minority of campuses, and it’s a long way from sweeping the country.

I rather doubt that the elevation of “social justice” concerns over the values of classical American liberalism is just a fringe movement. We can see a feelings first approach at many of the top universities in the U.S.

Harvard - Elevated religious feelings over free speech by nixing a Satanic parody mass back in 2014
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/august-19th-2016/how-we-stopped-a-black-mass-at-harvard/

Stanford - Elevated feelings over speech earlier this year by removing parodic flyers on the grounds that they “mocked a flyer protecting an identity group,” supposedly.
 
Tweet—> https://twitter.com/ncacensorship/status/959503130437324802

Credit where due: At least one Stanford law prof stood up for a broad interpretation of academic freedom.

Princeton - Doing fine, in general.

Yale - Already discussed upthread. Students feel empowered to shout down and intimidate faculty when new cultural norms are questioned.

MIT - Doing okay, AFAIK.

Caltech - Doing okay, AFAIK.

University of Pennsylvania - Probably okay.

Duke University - Pro-life speech proves upsetting to Duke students, who attempt to shut it down.

Brown University - Students set up a safe space to avoid “feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against…dearly and closely held beliefs.”

Pomona College - Some troubling signs from within the Claremont Colleges consortium; nothing specifically at the Pomona campus.

These are just the first ten elite universities I looked up, and at least half of them are showing signs of social justice shaming used to shut down speech.

Far from “the new normal,” but it’s a bit depressing for someone looking to send his firstborn to college.

Ok, well, this is interesting.  It may be more widespread than I thought.  If Haidt is right on the time line in his podcast with Harris, I’ve been out of academia since before this started, so as much experience as I have with their theory, I have no first hand experience with the practice.  I wonder what the universities in my area are like now?  I wonder if this is different on state versus private campuses?  As far as I know, the ones here are not state schools…

[ Edited: 16 May 2018 07:00 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  318
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
16 May 2018 07:40
 

The inclusion of the Catholic story brought to mind the fact that there have been religious people (mostly Christians in the US) who have faught to protect their feelings (religious sensibilities) since “time immemorial”.

Analytic, the Posner article you linked to in another thread indicated that state schools, being govt bodies, tend to me more accountable wrt the first amendment than private ones.

To kick a dead horse, I find substituting “systemic” for “systematic” in the last section of post 13 radically changes its meaning.

Glass half full?  I see D4M’s s list as a pretty mixed bag.  I wonder if I’m coming from a position where from what I’ve read/heard (all second hand for me too — I’m out of touch with the young’ns) I’ve come to perceive a lot of strident outrage and fear around this issue.  But as I look into it I find myself less worried that, for the time being, it represents an extraordinary threat to civil liberties. 

[ Edited: 16 May 2018 08:05 by mapadofu]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  180
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
16 May 2018 09:16
 
mapadofu - 16 May 2018 07:40 AM

The inclusion of the Catholic story brought to mind the fact that there have been religious people (mostly Christians in the US) who have faught to protect their feelings (religious sensibilities) since “time immemorial”.

Analytic, the Posner article you linked to in another thread indicated that state schools, being govt bodies, tend to me more accountable wrt the first amendment than private ones.

To kick a dead horse, I find substituting “systemic” for “systematic” in the last section of post 13 radically changes its meaning.

Glass half full?  I see D4M’s s list as a pretty mixed bag.  I wonder if I’m coming from a position where from what I’ve read/heard (all second hand for me too — I’m out of touch with the young’ns) I’ve come to perceive a lot of strident outrage and fear around this issue.  But as I look into it I find myself less worried that, for the time being, it represents an extraordinary threat to civil liberties. 

That’s an interesting point about state schools.  As state entities, they may legally be in a gray area when it comes to dictating speech and such.  I’d like to know the how the relationship might work.
 
The dead horse kicking back…systemic racism is an inherent property of a social system systematically constructed to discriminate against black people.  I’ll leave it to you to explain the ‘radically different meaning’ in the use of those words.  In any case, I already said it was just a typo.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2148
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
16 May 2018 10:30
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 May 2018 02:18 AM

They are two (related) senses in which the Yale students can represent “a problem”: first, that their type is or is not common, and therefore it or is not spreading on campuses, and second, that their type, however much it is spreading, is a problem.  In some respects you seem to be addressing both, and admittedly I’ve not been entirely clear on separating the two senses myself.  But I think there are two related but separable issues here: the degree to which the movement is spreading, and the degree to which the movement is a problem.

The Civil Rights Movement brought about changes in rights and laws, but attitudes are slower to change.

Exactly, and I think there are three generations of liberals in play here.  First, there’s those who brought about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They brought about (most of) the rights the marginalized now enjoy.  Following them there are those who have emphasized attitudes, especially attitudes toward the marginalized.  They have changed people’s attitudes, and now American society is less cruel, less callous, and more sympathetic to those who’ve been disenfranchised in the past.  Following them we have what we are seeing now: this Yale generation and its focus on feelings.  They want to carve out a new set of rights and prohibitions, not to guarantee civil rights or to change attitudes, but instead to protect feelings—in this case, to protect the feelings of marginalized peoples.  In all three generations, the focus has been on marginalized peoples, but what they’ve focused on has been different.

(There is, of course, considerable overlap among these three generations.  The ADA, for instance, came in 1990, and gay marriage in 2015.  In this respect, the attitudes-focus of the second generation made possible more progress on the rights-concerns of the first.  My main point, though, is the concerns of this rising generation are (entirely?) new).

Now, referring the two senses of problem, and assuming my description of the three generations of liberals is accurate, what do you think of this new generation’s focus on feelings, and how much do you see it spreading on campuses (perhaps a side issue)?  Is this a good thing?  A bad thing? Too soon to tell?

For my part, but for formally protecting sexual orientation, I think “the fight against discrimination and racism” has already been won at the institutional level (the first generation), mostly won at the attitudes level (the second generation), and yet to be fought at the feelings level (this generation).  As much as I think their grandparent’s and their parent’s fight is my fight, this new generation’s fight is not my fight. And what’s more, for a variety of reasons I don’t think it’s a fight we either need or should have.  Not only is too little at stake; I don’t even see how it could be won without losing too much.  But I’ll stop there and wait to see if you have anything to add…

I don’t quite understand the separation of the issues regarding spreading and the degree of problem.  I would think the degree to which the movement is a problem is dependent on how much it is spreading.  Otherwise it would just be a local problem specific to individual institutions.

I agree in regards to the need to formally protect rights regarding sexual orientation (and identity).  I do not agree that ‘the fight against discrimination and racism’ has already been won/mostly won at the institutional and attitudes level.  Not until there is fair and equal treatment by police departments, the justice system, poverty addressed, etc.  In my view, the ‘feelings level’ fight is a direct result of frustration that the other two levels have not been won.  Yes, “American society is less cruel, less callous, and more sympathetic to those who’ve been disenfranchised in the past”.  However, just as those in the 60’s were not satisfied with their lot just because it used to be much worse (slavery), today’s generation are not going to be happy until all is equal. 

Yes, their approach or manifestation has been about feelings; however, I think it is not separate and different to what has gone before, but more of a continuation.  Some of the methods have been misguided and counterproductive, but the underlying issue is that of a reaction to subtle and insidious forms of racism/discrimination.  It may be that, if these issues are acknowledged and dealt with properly, that a more balanced approach will win out.  One in which it is everyone’s fight.

As mentioned before, my perspective as a non-American may be different and reflects some ‘gut instincts’ that I understand could be easily dismissed.  Perhaps I should have left this discussion to others, but sometimes other perspectives are useful.

 

 
 
D4M10N
 
Avatar
 
 
D4M10N
Total Posts:  3
Joined  11-05-2018
 
 
 
16 May 2018 13:00
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 May 2018 09:16 AM

That’s an interesting point about state schools.  As state entities, they may legally be in a gray area when it comes to dictating speech and such.  I’d like to know the how the relationship might work.

State schools are in a bit of a sticky wicket. Even when basically everyone concurs that student speech is well beyond the pale, such schools have to bear in mind the applicability of First Amendment protections.Here is a relatively recent example from my own back yard.

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  180
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
17 May 2018 05:40
 

I don’t quite understand the separation of the issues regarding spreading and the degree of problem.  I would think the degree to which the movement is a problem is dependent on how much it is spreading.  Otherwise it would just be a local problem specific to individual institutions.

All I mean is that whether the movement is spreading and whether the movement is a problem are separable, though related, issues.  Some posters addressed the spreading; you seemed to address both the spreading and whether that is problem at the same time.  I was just worried that lack of clarity on my part in the beginning might lead to confusion.  In the essay, I only referred to the Yale students as “the problem,” leaving it vague about the distinction between the movement spreading and the spreading being a problem.  The separation in my last post was intended to reflect the two directions the conversation was taking.

I agree in regards to the need to formally protect rights regarding sexual orientation (and identity).  I do not agree that ‘the fight against discrimination and racism’ has already been won/mostly won at the institutional and attitudes level.  Not until there is fair and equal treatment by police departments, the justice system, poverty addressed, etc.

What evidence is there that police departments per se are a problem?  There are some departments that have had problems, even a couple that are a problem, but as far as I can there is no evidence that this is a nationwide, systemic problem, certainly nothing like what existed when blacks were treated unequally under the law because of socially accepted norms against them.  What we seem to have now are some bad actors, and those in urban areas with disproportionate representation of black crime, where racial tensions will naturally be high.  In any case, all institutional, legal, and cultural support for these bad actors is gone, meaning there is no platform—absolutely no platform—for them to get away with what they are doing, once doing it is known.  In this sense, the battle has been won at the institutional and attitude level.  No one in power permits this, and public opinion is universally united against it.

As for poverty, the poverty in black communities was no doubt ultimately caused by institutional, legal, and cultural racism, but proximally, in the here an now, it’s not a race problem but a class problem.  The obstacles facing blacks in these communities is no longer white racism; it’s the lack of opportunity that comes with being poor, the lack of options that affect anyone being poor.  This is a different kind of problem calling for a different kind of solution than changing whites’ attitudes about blacks, or giving blacks more civil rights, or even changing “racist” institutions aligned against them.  Institutional measures must surely be taken, but those measures aren’t dismantling institutional racism.  Rather it’s dismantling the institutional causes of poverty and the barriers to escaping it.

As far as I know, the problem in the criminal justice system is longer sentences for blacks than whites for comparable crimes.  Also, as far as I know, this sentencing occurs irrespective of the race of the judges and prosecutors.  As such, racism per se doesn’t seem to be the problem—at least racism of whites against blacks.  Rather something else is causing unfair sentencing of black criminals.  If I had to guess, I would say it’s attitudes judges and prosecutors have over the frequency of blacks in the criminal justice system.  Simply put—and this is not to say it’s fair or right or acceptable—prosecutors and judges think blacks need to be punished more severely because they see black crime as the more severe problem, meaning blacks appear in their courtrooms far disproportionate to their representation in the general population.  If true, this would explain why they are sentenced more harshly.  In this case, attitudes do need to change in order to insure fairness, but these attitudes are not simply because of race.  They are the result of race and crime together—a problem so taboo in this country that even suggesting this in public is enough to get one called a racist.

Yes, their approach or manifestation has been about feelings; however, I think it is not separate and different to what has gone before, but more of a continuation.

I’m not trying to separate them in a sense that would take them out of a continuity, at least not completely out.  As I said in my last response, all three generations of liberals are concerned with the well-being of marginalized groups; they are just concerned in a different ways.  So yes, there is real continuity there, but I think there is real difference too.  The rights this generation seems to wants to carve out seem new, like rights that protect a ‘right not feel’ a certain way, not civil rights about social status, or attitudes towards minorities.  Instead, they see “subtle and insidious” forms of racism in things like “white privilege,” itself an insidious and subtle form of racism against whites.  In any case, I think their own vilification of liberals like Christakus and Weinstein shows that they themselves don’t see more traditional liberals as allies in a continuous fight but as enemies against their own cause.  I see no other way explain their reactions.  Do you?

As mentioned before, my perspective as a non-American may be different and reflects some ‘gut instincts’ that I understand could be easily dismissed.  Perhaps I should have left this discussion to others, but sometimes other perspectives are useful.

Useful indeed.  I think that your position as an outsider, as it were, makes your point of view valuable, if not uniquely valuable.  Unlike those of us in the thick of it, you may be able to be more objective, if objectivity is valuable in cases like this.

 

[ Edited: 17 May 2018 06:27 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  180
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
17 May 2018 05:50
 
D4M10N - 16 May 2018 01:00 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 16 May 2018 09:16 AM

That’s an interesting point about state schools.  As state entities, they may legally be in a gray area when it comes to dictating speech and such.  I’d like to know the how the relationship might work.

State schools are in a bit of a sticky wicket. Even when basically everyone concurs that student speech is well beyond the pale, such schools have to bear in mind the applicability of First Amendment protections.Here is a relatively recent example from my own back yard.

Ok, well that answers it.  Thanks.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  318
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
17 May 2018 09:44
 

Was the stop and frisk policy a, dare I say it, systemic problem within the NYC police department?

What are you trying to convey with the “per se” in your question “what evidence is there that police departments /per se/ are a problem?”

A bigger question, what sources have you used to inform your assessment of how widespread racism (admittedly a contentious term) is in the criminal justice system?


I don’t quite buy that there is zero institutional, legal or social support for the actions that are often cited by civil rights advocates as being examples of racism.  One of the issues raised is that there are inadequate administrative or legal consequences when police officers inappropriately use deadly force.  In terms of social support, there is the whole “blue lives matter” idea that has come around these issues.

Btw the Eric Garner case is on the tip of my mind having recently listened to this interview https://youtu.be/zQkMigEvhLI

[ Edited: 17 May 2018 09:58 by mapadofu]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6458
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
17 May 2018 09:52
 

AP:

And what’s more, for a variety of reasons I don’t think it’s a fight we either need or should have.  Not only is too little at stake; I don’t even see how it could be won without losing too much.

This seems very well put. The cure’s shouldn’t be worse than the disease.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2148
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
17 May 2018 10:23
 

First of all, it could be considered presumptuous for me to comment on an issue concerning American black people; just giving one opinion (such as it is) by trying to put myself in their position.

What evidence is there that police departments per se are a problem?  There are some departments that have had problems, even a couple that are a problem, but as far as I can there is no evidence that this is a nationwide, systemic problem, certainly nothing like what existed when blacks were treated unequally under the law because of socially accepted norms against them.  What we seem to have now are some bad actors, and those in urban areas with disproportionate representation of black crime, where racial tensions will naturally be high.  In any case, all institutional, legal, and cultural support for these bad actors is gone, meaning there is no platform—absolutely no platform—for them to get away with what they are doing, once doing it is known.  In this sense, the battle has been won at the institutional and attitude level.  No one in power permits this, and public opinion is universally united against it.

I think many people would probably agree that there have been some incidences of unjustified police shootings, beatings, etc. (“bad actors”).  When these are not dealt with properly by police departments and the courts, trust is lost (video evidence perhaps starting with Rodney King).  So, with other shootings which are less clear, there is no way for the black community to know if the police are acting in good faith and assumptions will be made.  I would disagree that all support for these “bad actors” is gone when justice is not forthcoming.  I also disagree that no one in power permits this; in many cases, incidences would likely have been ‘swept under the rug’ if there wasn’t video and/or public outrage by the black community.  Also, although the majority of public opinion is against this, I wouldn’t say it is universal.

As for poverty, the poverty in black communities was no doubt ultimately caused by institutional, legal, and cultural racism, but proximally, in the here an now, it’s not a race problem but a class problem.  The obstacles facing blacks in these communities is no longer white racism; it’s the lack of opportunity that comes with being poor, the lack of options that affect anyone being poor.  This is a different kind of problem calling for a different kind of solution than changing whites’ attitudes about blacks, or giving blacks more civil rights, or even changing “racist” institutions aligned against them.  Institutional measures must surely be taken, but those measures aren’t dismantling institutional racism.  Rather it’s dismantling the institutional causes of poverty and the barriers to escaping it.

Of course poverty does not affect only one group of people and many obstacles are shared by all who are poor.  However, when one group of people are disproportionately poor, it does reflect a race problem.  It is direct evidence that the prejudices of the past have not been adequately dealt with.  The problems are complex and the solutions will also have to be so.

—As far as I know, the problem in the criminal justice system is longer sentences for blacks than whites for comparable crimes.  Also, as far as I know, this sentencing occurs irrespective of the race of the judges and prosecutors.  As such, racism per se doesn’t seem to be the problem—at least racism of whites against blacks.  Rather something else is causing unfair sentencing of black criminals.  If I had to guess, I would say it’s attitudes judges and prosecutors have over the frequency of blacks in the criminal justice system.  Simply put—and this is not to say it’s fair or right or acceptable—prosecutors and judges think blacks need to be punished more severely because they see black crime as the more severe problem, meaning blacks appear in their courtrooms far disproportionate to their representation in the general population.  If true, this would explain why they are sentenced more harshly.  In this case, attitudes do need to change in order to insure fairness, but these attitudes are not simply because of race.  They are the result of race and crime together—a problem so taboo in this country that even suggesting this in public is enough to get one called a racist.

Regardless of the race of those dispensing justice, if each case is not judged on its own individual merit, than prejudice/racism is a factor.  That is, judging and sentencing an individual, because of any presumption to do with their race (whether it be a presumed inferiority of their race or because black crime is a more severe problem) is a racist system.  Also, it is easy to conclude that one major reason for higher black crime would be higher incidence of black poverty.  A system that has them ‘coming and going’.

... The rights this generation seems to wants to carve out seem new, like rights that protect a ‘right not feel’ a certain way, not civil rights about social status, or attitudes towards minorities.  Instead, they see “subtle and insidious” forms of racism in things like “white privilege,” itself an insidious and subtle form of racism against whites.  In any case, I think their own vilification of liberals like Christakus and Weinstein shows that they themselves don’t see more traditional liberals as allies in a continuous fight but as enemies against their own cause.  I see no other way explain their reactions.  Do you?

I think we have a (insurmountably?) different view regarding this.  Although it is coming across as just about feelings only, I think it is trivializing the causes – that black people do still face subtle and insidious forms of racism – to take a stance ‘against’ them totally.  Of course, strong arguments should be made specifically against any ‘bad’ methods that will stifle dialogue and/or give preferential treatment to anyone.  It seems to me that there is increased divisiveness being caused, on all sides, because people are getting behind or using labels unfairly or that over-generalize.

Useful indeed.  I think that your position as an outsider, as it were, makes your point of view valuable, if not uniquely valuable.  Unlike those of us in the thick of it, you may be able to be more objective, if objectivity is valuable in cases like this.

Thank you.

[ Edited: 17 May 2018 10:50 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >