rfordphotos wrote:
Nice post.

My answer to your last question?

Now. No, check that, 50 years ago.

But I cant change that bit of history either.

So, Hunter I am doing the same thing I assume you are doing. I am driving the Police Commission locally half crazy with demands for new body cams, new protocols about using those cams, and insisting that we double then double again the de-escalation training given to all officers. I write to my local and state elected officials, hoping to get funding for better training for cops, better and more community outreach programs, after school programs.

I used to write to my federal reps, but to be honest, they havent given a hoot about California since they got a taste of national power...

I am going to jump in here again. I still claim that there is no evidence of current systematic racial bias in law enforcement based on the whole of the evidence.

Though there are others that I have read and that are worth consideration, this is the best study I can find to generally substantiate my claim.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand … sequence=2

I definitely believe, based on the evidence, that law enforcement has been given tools by legislatures and bureaucrats that are abhorrent to the ideals of our Constitution. The ability to detain a citizen indefinitely and deny them the right of habeus corpus (NDAA) and civil asset forfeiture come to mind. Being able to kill a US citizen without a trial on the order of the President is also a little troubling I would think. So my concern regarding the over reaching of the justice system is for all of us and not just a few.

Anyway, the study cited above, plus some others I have read and a few of the study's citations that I was able to get to, do find that there is racial bias by law enforcement in some states, and there is also evidence of prosecutors in parts of the country who are racially biased in choosing which cases to prosecute as well as judges who sentence more harshly based on race. It is certainly  arguable that these latter two could be considered systematic but it is a stretch. 

Although I have not heard this argument being made often in the media, the single best correlation I have found as a predictor of future criminal behavior is the lack of a father in the home. It bridges across race, gender and socioeconomic status. I was surprised when I saw this pegged in differing studies (not the one I cited). I personally would have thought economic status would have a higher correlation.

To assume that there is "systematic" racial bias in law enforcement generally, based on the anecdotal evidence I have seen posted in this thread so far, is not fair no matter how disgusting to freedom loving people everywhere any individual incident shared here may be. If someone can show me some actual evidence that proves otherwise, I am willing to change my mind  because I think the over representation of the black and Hispanic population snared by our justice system is a significant problem that must be addressed in terms of state policy being as how we have a state. My current opinion is that it is the social and economic policies of the state that creates these issues to the greatest extent, not race or racism. If I am wrong, then I would prefer to know it. 

We have made so much progress in America in the last 200 years towards the ideals the country was founded upon. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be honored by all US citizens one to another. I do agree that we have not realized this ideal to the extent that we are able to but it makes me sad to see so much dissension between friends and neighbors based on the policies of two political parties that do not care about any of us really other than getting us to vote for them. We all know the state is widely corrupt and broken right down to the local levels and yet we still support one side or another of the same coin that is laughing all the way to the bank.

As to my own personal anecdotes, I work with many women who are of a different race than me and about half my neighbors are too. We all get along just fine as we go about our work and lives and I can't remember an incident when race or gender or sexual preference entered into our relationships in a negative way. If we do sometimes harbor negative thoughts regarding one another based on these things, then we keep it to ourselves until we can work it out some quiet evening when there is time to self reflect.

I think there is a little unfair bias in all of us. It's the Shadow that Jung so eloquently described. My hope is that as time passes and we all become more aware of each other and our differences and how they fit together to make a whole world of people, and that we will continue to learn to judge each person as an individual based on their actions, individuals made up of both good and bad. I have found that if I will take the time to see another as a whole person, instead of just part of one, or as a member of some group, then I tend to be much more empathetic and compassionate towards them regardless their faults and frailties. I hope that my friends will give me the same consideration, as I am definitely full of my own.   

Peace.

rfordphotos wrote:
Tony,

As a fat old white man, my knee jerk reaction was always---"why didnt the kid just stop, let the cops arrest him, and deal with it in court?" After all the cops are the good guys right?

Except he grew up in a different reality than I did. In many instances, he was shown that the cops were not the good guys. He saw the unfair profiling. He heard the racial slurs when spoken to. He was brought up on stories of abuse, not support by the police.

He saw that the courts worked "best" if you had the money for a high powered attorney. Justice was a bit fluid.

So- yeah. Running from the cops is a poor choice. Cops ultimately have longer legs. But I dont find it a mystery any more why these kids do what they do.

Until we stop teaching our kids to be bigots though our own actions, this will go on. White people, black people, brown people.... these "communities" need to end bigotry at home. when they do, it will die in public institutions.

Wouldnt you think if African americans were truly fearful of cops they wouldnt conduct themselves in a manner that ensures they will be... continually...dealing with cops on a daily basis? I think "unfair profiling" is simply the realistic patterns that seem to get results due to the majority of whom police have to deal with day after day. I mean the stats on young african american crime seem to call for special attention.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Jury awards $4 to family of black man killed by sheriff’s deputies in Fla.

If I was part of this family, I might find this offensive & insulting.  In his own garage + loud music complaint + black = dead.

What Fun Productions wrote:
Actually, they awarded $.04

Yeah, I saw that -- it was "adjusted".  SMH.

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:
Peace.

You are looking for systematic racism.  You are looking for racism that is on the books.  Part of the rules of the organization.  That would be rare in the US because organizations would get hit hard for having it on the books.  That does not mean there isn't racism within the organization.  The organization may turn a blind eye, or it may work counter the impacts.

There is a segment of the population that is racists.  Those people are spread through out industries and government.  What is the impact of all those individuals?   If the cop isn't racist, just inclined to excessive force, does that justify the violence?

I was watching the wildwood arrest today.  If that cop was pounding on the head of a person of color, it would be racist in perception.  What is it as it is?    Is it that cops aren't really racists, they just pound of the heads of anyone that gives them cause?  If so, different problem.

The mayor of wildwood then told the public that girl isn't a model citizen and he said she was on four years probation.  So what?  Does that justify the beating?  Something the cop didn't know when he beat her. 

Realizing I am opening another can of worms here.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You are looking for systematic racism.  You are looking for racism that is on the books.  Part of the rules of the organization.  That would be rare in the US because organizations would get hit hard for having it on the books.  That does not mean there isn't racism within the organization.  The organization may turn a blind eye, or it may work counter the impacts.

There is a segment of the population that is racists.  Those people are spread through out industries and government.  What is the impact of all those individuals?   If the cop isn't racist, just inclined to excessive force, does that justify the violence?

I was watching the wildwood arrest today.  If that cop was pounding on the head of a person of color, it would be racist in perception.  What is it as it is?    Is it that cops aren't really racists, they just pound of the heads of anyone that gives them cause?  If so, different problem.

The mayor of wildwood then told the public that girl isn't a model citizen and he said she was on four years probation.  So what?  Does that justify the beating?  Something the cop didn't know when he beat her. 

Realizing I am opening another can of worms here.

Hunter, the claim is that there is systematic racism by law enforcement in America and I can not find the evidence to back this up. Since when did you stop believing in the scientific method? As to these other incidences, the individual perpetrators should be charged and prosecuted. As I stated, I am all for judging individuals based on their actions.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

You are looking for systematic racism.  You are looking for racism that is on the books.  Part of the rules of the organization.  That would be rare in the US because organizations would get hit hard for having it on the books.  That does not mean there isn't racism within the organization.  The organization may turn a blind eye, or it may work counter the impacts.

There is a segment of the population that is racists.  Those people are spread through out industries and government.  What is the impact of all those individuals?   If the cop isn't racist, just inclined to excessive force, does that justify the violence?

I was watching the wildwood arrest today.  If that cop was pounding on the head of a person of color, it would be racist in perception.  What is it as it is?    Is it that cops aren't really racists, they just pound of the heads of anyone that gives them cause?  If so, different problem.

The mayor of wildwood then told the public that girl isn't a model citizen and he said she was on four years probation.  So what?  Does that justify the beating?  Something the cop didn't know when he beat her. 

Realizing I am opening another can of worms here.

It's the number one crime that a subject can comment..."contempt of cop".

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:
Hunter, the claim is that there is systematic racism by law enforcement in America and I can not find the evidence to back this up. Since when did you stop believing in the scientific method? As to these other incidences, the individual perpetrators should be charged and prosecuted. As I stated, I am all for judging individuals based on their actions.

Guess I missed something:  Who's claim?   

I am not opposed to scientific methods.  Scientific methods do not mean you are looking in the right place or for the right thing.   Or using the right tests.  Some tests can be beat.

Take pot as an example.  Pot and Heroin were listed as schedule one drugs as an end around antiwar and civil rights protests.  So for decades, the scientific method, perverted an politicized, was all about pot not having any redeeming value.  That certainly appears to be the wrong conclusion.

E Thompson Photography wrote:

It's the number one crime that a subject can comment..."contempt of cop".

article wrote:
Lee Vartan, formerly the second highest-ranking official in the state attorney general’s office and a former federal prosecutor, said Weinman has "a strong case."
"She complied with officers’ requests," said Vartan, now a partner in the West Orange-based law firm Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi. "And in refusing to simply continue with their patrol, officers unnecessarily and dangerously escalated the situation."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/0 … _beac.html

Yes.  All races go to jail based on that unwritten law.  Some more than others?

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:
Hunter, the claim is that there is systematic racism by law enforcement in America and I can not find the evidence to back this up. Since when did you stop believing in the scientific method? As to these other incidences, the individual perpetrators should be charged and prosecuted. As I stated, I am all for judging individuals based on their actions.

Lisa,

To be clear, I am a police supporter. It is an increasingly complex job, and I am glad there are folks who are willing to do it. My buddy's name is on a bridge because he died as police detective mudered on duty. I think the vast majority of cops try to do a good job.

But that doesnt mean I dont think they can do better.

You ask about science. I spent my professional life as an engineer. I always want to see the data.

But I am not sure where on the data tables to look for the social origins of phrases like "guilty of driving while black" a phrase I have heard for years from many people. Lots of phrases like that, molded into everyday speech...

I am not sure where on that data table I will find the data about when the line is crossed from "smart community policing"  to "racial profiling". You know it is...

Reducing bias to numbers is a daunting task. As an engineer, I took tons of statistics classes... If I didnt learn anything else, statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Guess I missed something:  Who's claim?   

I am not opposed to scientific methods.  Scientific methods do not mean you are looking in the right place or for the right thing.   Or using the right tests.  Some tests can be beat.

Take pot as an example.  Pot and Heroin were listed as schedule one drugs as an end around antiwar and civil rights protests.  So for decades, the scientific method, perverted an politicized, was all about pot not having any redeeming value.  That certainly appears to be the wrong conclusion.

As far as I know it is the claim that the football player was protesting for.

I have stated and cited my case. If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of pot we can do that too in a different thread.

rfordphotos wrote:

Lisa,

To be clear, I am a police supporter. It is an increasingly complex job, and I am glad there are folks who are willing to do it. My buddy's name is on a bridge because he died as police detective mudered on duty. I think the vast majority of cops try to do a good job.

But that doesnt mean I dont think they can do better.

You ask about science. I spent my professional life as an engineer. I always want to see the data.

But I am not sure where on the data tables to look for the social origins of phrases like "guilty of driving while black" a phrase I have heard for years from many people. Lots of phrases like that, molded into everyday speech...

I am not sure where on that data table I will find the data about when the line is crossed from "smart community policing"  to "racial profiling". You know it is...

Reducing bias to numbers is a daunting task. As an engineer, I took tons of statistics classes... If I didnt learn anything else, statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say.

I agree with you which is why I have spent hours and hours reading differing studies prior to posting this and citing the specific study that I did.

Of course racism exist in some individuals and always will.

I think I indicated that we can all do better, not just the cops, but if I do have a bias regarding this subject it is against them as they are the actionable agents of the state.

rfordphotos wrote:
Reducing bias to numbers is a daunting task. As an engineer, I took tons of statistics classes... If I didnt learn anything else, statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say.

Absolutely true and they teach that in a basic statistics class.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Absolutely true and they teach that in a basic statistics class.

I better not ever see you cite another stat here buddy....lols.

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:

As far as I know it is the claim that the football player was protesting for.

I have stated and cited my case. If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of pot we can do that too in a different thread.

If the studies show that there is not systematic racism, does that mean there is not racism?  If CK claimed systematic, does that in itself mean the protest is false because he used the wrong term or description or symptom.  You recognize the difference between the anecdotal and the statistical.  It takes a lot of good statistical studies to override a person's personal experience.  The community, any community builds anecdotal  experiences collectively, i.e. evidence, based on their combined experience.  It is possible that anecdotal evidence can have a higher than reasonable impact on people.   That is still going to be the perception that wins. 

You talk about, in your post, that there are departments, prosecutors and judges that have racial biases.  You know they are real.  The question seems to be validity based on studies.  Or how wide spread.  Certainly, we would all expect difference based on region and population factors. 

After decades of pot being good for nothing except getting high, the government has a serious credibility problem now that it has come out that the laws and years of false studies were political and not factual.   I am not discussing pot, and really can't discuss pot.  Pot is just an example.  Pot laws were directed at the hippie movement.  Heroin laws were directed at people of color.  Nixon's intent was to interfere with first amendment rights, not reduce the drug scourge.

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:

I better not ever see you cite another stat here buddy....lols.

"Figures never lie, but liars figure." 
There is always a danger in citing statistics.  We see what we read, but we do not know many of the statistical decisions and variables and how they were resolved.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
If the studies show that there is not systematic racism, does that mean there is not racism?  If CK claimed systematic, does that in itself mean the protest is false because he used the wrong term or description or symptom.  You recognize the difference between the anecdotal and the statistical.  It takes a lot of good statistical studies to override a person's personal experience.  The community, any community builds anecdotal  experiences collectively, i.e. evidence, based on their combined experience.  It is possible that anecdotal evidence can have a higher than reasonable impact on people.   That is still going to be the perception that wins. 

You talk about, in your post, that there are departments, prosecutors and judges that have racial biases.  You know they are real.  The question seems to be validity based on studies.  Or how wide spread.  Certainly, we would all expect difference based on region and population factors. 

After decades of pot being good for nothing except getting high, the government has a serious credibility problem now that it has come out that the laws and years of false studies were political and not factual.   I am not discussing pot, and really can't discuss pot.  Pot is just an example.  Pot laws were directed at the hippie movement.  Heroin laws were directed at people of color.  Nixon's intent was to interfere with first amendment rights, not reduce the drug scourge.

I would never disagree with you about the government targeting particular populations for political motives. I think I have made it pretty clear how I feel about ALL those muthalickas.

As far as the perceptions of particular communities or cultures in regards to almost everything...yeah, I agree we all have our social outlooks based on our individual and cultural experience. I am talking about the hardcore evidence that is needed to base actual policy on.

Read the study Hunter. It will only take a hour and a half or so.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … amp;wpmm=1

Okay, so there are multiple people on this task force.  All or most got caught lying,  They changed stories.  They had suspicious consistencies, and it turns out that they consistently violated the law in multiple ways.  Is this systematic racism?  Probably not, because they probably don't care about the civil rights of anyone.  But what does it say about the department?  Those in charge knew or should have known what was going on. 

If the problem isn't systemic or institutional or prevalent racism, then the problem is institutional or prevalent dishonesty and corruption.  There is never a reason for a cop to lie.  Never. 

I won't quote any studies, as I have been admonished not to.  If you want to look up your own, there seems to be more than anecdotal evidence that blacks were/are stopped for stop and frisk more often than whites.  Blacks are incarcerated longer, etc. etc.

Hunter, I know Radley's work so I have kept up with this story and yes, it is just another example of the over reach of our justice system. As I said, I believe our focus should be on the state's violations of our Constitutional rights as individual citizens, one and all, and not on one particular group or another which inevitably turns into a political argument instead of a matter of justice. If you noticed, Radley focused on the violation of Mr. Betton's rights and not his race.

rfordphotos wrote:
Lisa,

OK, have not read your study, will get to it later.

This news story is an example of why I dont think the recorded data tells the whole story concerning systemic bias. This was covered up from the top down, and to my mind, that is pretty deep into the system. The Chief at the time, Greg Suhr had a history of questionable behavior... IMHO he should have been behind bars not Chief of Police, but that is another story.

Turns out a dozen or so San Francisco police officers were sending each other bunches of really racist, sexist  text messages, evidently while on duty. This was happening in 2011-2012. Very senior San Francisco police officials up to and including the Chief of Police found out about it in 2012  and did.....absolutely.... nothing.

Nothing until the texts were disclosed to the public by a separate FEDERAL investigation into dept corruption in 2015. Nine officers went out in a  quick flurry of "cover my ass" firings by the chief.

Here's the kicker.  A State court stopped the disciplinary action, citing a law saying Police officers had to be brought up on charges within one year of their "offense" or they couldnt be disciplined.

Only a few days ago- 6 or 7 years after the offending texts were sent, did the State court finally decide that the officers COULD face disciplinary actions.

Those 9 officers have been on paid leave pending the courts decision.....

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/art … 955853.php


Tony- stories like this are the very stuff that makes that troubled community we were talking about react differently than you or I might.

I am not making the claim that there is not a serious problem with our justice system and law enforcement. As I said earlier, I believe that the state is reaching into our lives in ways that are very harmful, unjust and that willfully ignore our rights as citizens. My claim is that this over reach is not based on a systematic bias of race or racism and so far I can find no evidence to the contrary.

What Fun Productions wrote:
He choose to protest during the National anthem. That in itself is very polarizing.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color." I do not understand how anyone can say it was not about the flag?

Also, not sure that his protest made on bit of difference in addressing the issues he is protesting...

This is about the third time you shared that quote (and this time with a highlight).  I'm not sure it means what you think it means; perhaps we should both parse that statement again.

You seem to think that this means that he was protesting & disrespecting the flag.  I do not.  Here's my thinking.  Suppose you are a loving parent of an 8 year old boy.  You love him & respect him, and you feel a responsibility to nurture him to adulthood.  Suppose that boy got caught shoplifting candy.  Are you proud of him at that moment?  I would hope not.  Does that mean you love him less or that you give up your responsibility to help him become a better person?  Again, I would hope not.

Kaepernick said he didn't feel right about showing pride in a flag for a country that oppresses ... people of color.  Does that mean he is disrespecting the flag?  I don't think so.  He is exercising he right to call for the country to become a better country, and as I've said, he's pretty much doing so in the most respectful way possible.  He's non-violent & peaceful.

What's the alternative, given how he feels?  Must he stand "with pride" for the flag given that he feels that the country needs to address some core issues?  What kind of person would that make him?  Should he be forced to stand with pride?  What does that say about Freedom of Speech?  Should a parent be required to act with pride when his or her child shoplifts?  That's just not productive.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Jury awards $4 to family of black man killed by sheriff’s deputies in Fla.

If I was part of this family, I might find this offensive & insulting.  In his own garage + loud music complaint + black = dead.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
You forgot to add:  "and intoxicated and had a gun."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/us/g … orida.html

This is the problem when you only see what you want to see.

Pot, Kettle, Black, man.

1)  The article stated that the gun was found on the man in his back pocket after he was shot dead.  To be fair, there was a disputed report that suggested that he was brandishing the gun during the confrontation, but if that were true, how did the gun get into his back pocket?

2)  As far as I know, it's not illegal to be intoxicated in your home (garage).

3)  For some, his possession of a gun is him exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.  He possessed the gun in his home -- was it an illegal gun?  Doesn't he have the right to protect himself & his family?

4)  If he was white, do you think he'd still be dead?  If he was white & dead, do you think the jury would reward the family less than a nickel?

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:

I am not making the claim that there is not a serious problem with our justice system and law enforcement. As I said earlier, I believe that the state is reaching into our lives in ways that are very harmful, unjust and that willfully ignore our rights as citizens. My claim is that this over reach is not based on a systematic bias of race or racism and so far I can find no evidence to the contrary.

Lisa, It looks like you have done a good job of researching the subject.
Unfortunately this is a MM forum.  People here love to argue about things   

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

Lisa, It looks like you have done a good job of researching the subject.
Unfortunately this is a MM forum.  People here love to argue about things   

Hey Jerry. It's all good. I learn a lot from the people who post here in the forums. It gets me to read and learn about things I otherwise might not. I hope you have a good weekend.

rfordphotos wrote:
Lisa,

Thanks for the links you provided, and your research.

I think we are disagreeing on the simple definition of "systemic" bias.

I dont believe "systemic" bias means a department has to have specific policies (written or otherwise) using race to define their actions.

I do believe that cases like the one I spoke of in San Francisco represent deep systemic issues. These officers were texting each other messages calling African Americans “monkeys” and encouraging the killing of “half-breeds", and actively supporting "White Power!" saying “cross-burning lowers blood pressure!”  ...and their supervisory chain, from  precinct sgt up to the Chief of Police knew of these text messages, and the attitudes they reflected, and left those officers on the street with ZERO disciplinary action. To my mind, that is evidence of a deep systemic issue.

The organization tolerated outright bigotry, blatant racism in its officers, and did nothing.

When the "management" of a department turns a blind eye to racism, when it fails to root out such obvious racism in its officers, when the "good ole boys" just turn their eyes because "well, that's how its always been"..... that is a a systemic problem.

I believe that attitude can be found in altogether too many police departments.

Hey, you are correct and I stand corrected. It is "systemic" and not systematic as I had been using. The authors of the study I cited actually referenced the term and I misread it.

As far as I can tell this link provides the origins and definition of the term along with the context that the football player was protesting against. I think.

https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

My claim is that there is no good evidence that this is true in our current society.

As to your example, I agree and certainly believe there are pockets of racism in our country that might be considered institutional, and I think there always will be. When we find examples of this we should insist that those state actors who participate in the unequal treatment of others based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation etc. be punished for violating their rights under the Constitution.

In the several examples put forth in this forum in which the guilty state actors were not punished, I think the question we have to ask ourselves as individuals is "Why do we allow it?" Both parties have been supporting law and statute for years that absolve the state of responsibility when they violate the rights of their constituents. Clinton and Obama are as responsible for mass incarceration, civil asset forfeiture and the NDAA  just as much as were Regan and Bush and now Trump. In my opinion, the problem of over reach in our justice system is not a political matter to be resolved by choosing one parties policies over another's, but rather a matter of the tail wagging the dog so to speak.

I personally love the ideals upon which my country was founded and have no interest in throwing the baby out with the bathwater so I hope that people will focus on the all inclusive, natural born rights of each citizen and not just various groups which I think tends to be political and divisive. Injustice is injustice no matter who is the recipient of it.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

This is about the third time you shared that quote (and this time with a highlight).  I'm not sure it means what you think it means; perhaps we should both parse that statement again.

You seem to think that this means that he was protesting & disrespecting the flag.  I do not.  Here's my thinking.  Suppose you are a loving parent of an 8 year old boy.  You love him & respect him, and you feel a responsibility to nurture him to adulthood.  Suppose that boy got caught shoplifting candy.  Are you proud of him at that moment?  I would hope not.  Does that mean you love him less or that you give up your responsibility to help him become a better person?  Again, I would hope not.

Kaepernick said he didn't feel right about showing pride in a flag for a country that oppresses ... people of color.  Does that mean he is disrespecting the flag?  I don't think so.  He is exercising he right to call for the country to become a better country, and as I've said, he's pretty much doing so in the most respectful way possible.  He's non-violent & peaceful.

What's the alternative, given how he feels?  Must he stand "with pride" for the flag given that he feels that the country needs to address some core issues?  .

Yes he should. He should stand in respect to those died for his right to protest. He hurt football and his own cause.

Lisa Paul Everhart wrote:
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand … sequence=2

Okay.  I printed it to a pdf and made a bunch of highlights on my first read through.  There was some interesting stuff that I won't get into yet.

The conclusions, on my first read through, indicate that the study is more of an open question.  It laments several areas where there is just not enough data.

But to the extent that prior record is contaminated by racial discrimination, indirect race effects may be at work. Although this argument is difficult to assess definitively, it remains a productive hypothesis to be explored. Also tentative but plausible is the idea that race interacts with other individual- level variables (e.g., income, family status) to predict processing. What this means for the NDT hypothesis has yet to be fully determined.

The dissertation's conclusions lists four specific areas in which it suggests a greater amount of research is required.

We believe that to more fully understand racial disparities in crime and justice, at least four areas are in need of further research ....
A lesson learned from our review is that prior theory on criminal offending is usually couched at the level of analysis least likely to yield racial differences-the individual.  Posing the problem in a contextual framework, however, suggests that the relationship between race and criminal offending varies substantially across ecological contexts. With few exceptions, criminologists have only recently realized the extent to which correlations between community contexts and crime are confounded with associations between race and crime....
Second, the role that formal sanctioning plays in producing cumulative across the life course of individuals a new disadvantage requires agenda of research....

These do not copy well from the Harvard study (many of the spaces disappear) and I have to fix them to be readable.  I am going to forgo further quotes at this time.

I will also point out that the Harvard study was done in 1997.  The study entertains that there was influence by the drug wars which seem to point towards racial disparities in incarceration, allowing for the fact that the drug use of both white and black people fell during those years but the arrest rate was significantly higher in the black community than the white community, and that such a disparity could be the result of the allocation of resources.  The date of the paper would indicate that the consequences from the drug war had not been fully considered.

You also link an article:

conclusion of article dated  June 1. 2018 wrote:
Systemic Racism Is All Around Us and Within Us
Feagin's theory, and all of the research he and many other social scientists have conducted over 100 years, illustrates that racism is in fact built into the foundation of U.S. society and that it has over time come to infuse all aspects of it. It is present in our laws, our politics, our economy; in our social institutions; and in how we think and act, whether consciously or subconsciously. It's all around us and inside of us, and for this reason, resistance to racism must also be everywhere if we are to combat it.

Note: In the Harvard dissertation, "systematic" was used more often than "systemic", and systemic was the operative word in the 2018 article.

I appreciate your diligent effort to research this.

Sociology, however, is not an exact science.  As the researchers of the Harvard study indicated, their sources had many of their own problems- inherent biases and failure to control for different variables.  In many instances, the in line conclusions were that adjustment and control for variable would render biases in the criminal justice system as mute.  However, they also point out that the studies they worked from were relative to one state or one city, in many instances, and it is questionable how much of a correlation applies to the country as a whole.  Coupled with their conclusion that more studies are needed in their four specific areas, I would consider that this study is not a broad base vindication of the lack of institutional bias in the criminal justice system.

In contrast with the 2018 report, which concludes racism is endemic.

What Fun Productions wrote:
Yes he should. He should stand in respect to those died for his right to protest. He hurt football and his own cause.

Again, those are opinions & not facts.  Also, many (including me) don't follow your logic -- yes, people died to protect his right to protest, and somehow that means he is not allowed to protest?  Are you suggesting that those heroes died for nothing?  Further, by focusing on his kneeling, you seem to indicate that his kneeling is a 'way bigger problem for this country than race-based oppression.  And finally, he chose a gesture (kneeling) that was basically the most respectful form of protest possible under the circumstances.

Look, I get it.  What he said (and you repeatedly quoted):

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color."

What it appears that you heard:

“I am not going to stand up [for the] flag (followed by nothing important)"

What I think he said & meant (and again, this is just an opinion):

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color."

That's his right to feel that way, and many will say that he is justified to feel that way.  And yes, many fine people died for his right to protest.  Many can opine about whether his protest was effective or whether he hurt the NFL.  He certainly lost his job (pending his collusion case against the NFL).  Still, he felt strongly & apparently continues to feel strongly about these issues, and we see example after example of this kind of issue every week it seems.

So, I think we are at an impasse.  Can we at least agree to disagree?  Or do you feel we need to reiterate our positions again?


To bring it all home -- this thread started when the NFL decided to fine teams if players knelt during the anthem.  They decided this without a vote of the owners and they certainly didn't involved the players.  If you ask me, we haven't heard the last of this issue, and I could contend that the NFL did more damage to themselves than Kaepernick ever did.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Okay.  I printed it to a pdf and made a bunch of highlights on my first read through.  There was some interesting stuff that I won't get into yet.

The conclusions, on my first read through, indicate that the study is more of an open question.  It laments several areas where there is just not enough data.

The dissertation's conclusions lists four specific areas in which it suggests a greater amount of research is required.

These do not copy well from the Harvard study (many of the spaces disappear) and I have to fix them to be readable.  I am going to forgo further quotes at this time.

I will also point out that the Harvard study was done in 1997.  The study entertains that there was influence by the drug wars which seem to point towards racial disparities in incarceration, allowing for the fact that the drug use of both white and black people fell during those years but the arrest rate was significantly higher in the black community than the white community, and that such a disparity could be the result of the allocation of resources.  The date of the paper would indicate that the consequences from the drug war had not been fully considered.

You also link an article:

Note: In the Harvard dissertation, "systematic" was used more often than "systemic", and systemic was the operative word in the 2018 article.

I appreciate your diligent effort to research this.

Sociology, however, is not an exact science.  As the researchers of the Harvard study indicated, their sources had many of their own problems- inherent biases and failure to control for different variables.  In many instances, the in line conclusions were that adjustment and control for variable would render biases in the criminal justice system as mute.  However, they also point out that the studies they worked from were relative to one state or one city, in many instances, and it is questionable how much of a correlation applies to the country as a whole.  Coupled with their conclusion that more studies are needed in their four specific areas, I would consider that this study is not a broad base vindication of the lack of institutional bias in the criminal justice system.

In contrast with the 2018 report, which concludes racism is endemic.

First let me commend you for actually taking the time to read a 60 page study Hunter. No matter your opinion of it, I feel I have at least accomplished a little something here.

In response to your comments, the 2018 "report" I linked is just an article defining "systemic". It is not a study. As was pointed out to me, and to the best I can tell, systemic is the catch word currently being used in this context so I believe that they are interchangeable for this conversation. I think it is important we are all on the same page as the football players protest so everyone understands just where they, and now admittedly you, are coming from. Very often, I think, people hop onto bandwagons without knowing where they are headed. I will link it here again for reference.

https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565

I am well aware that sociology is not an exact science and as you discovered, the study pointed out that further research was needed so I read several other data driven papers published after, some very current, and the Washington Post's investigation into the matter.

******This is just another example from a May 2018 Harvard paper that I cited to Zack earlier in the thread that tends to show there has been no evidence produced since '97 that would refute the conclusions reached by the primary study I cited.

"The time has come for a national reckoning on race and policing in America. But, the issues are thorny and the conclusions one can draw about racial bias are fraught with difficulty. The most granular data suggest that there is no bias in police shootings (Fryer (forthcoming)), but these data are far from a representative sample of police departments and do not contain any experimental variation. We cannot rest. We need more and better data. With the advances in natural language processing and the increased willingness of police departments to share sensitive data, we can make progress. For those of us who desire a more perfect union, police use of force has become our Gettysburg. Of course, black lives matter as much as any other lives. Yet, we do this principle a disservice if we do not adhere to strict standards of evidence and take at face value descriptive statistics that are consistent with our preconceived ideas. ‘Stay Woke’ – but critically so."

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer … ce_aer.pdf

I also read other studies related to crime statistics and looked at the statistics provided by the Justice Department over the last 10 years or so. I would encourage you to do the same. You can find most of them via this link I think.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf

Having looked at everything I could find that was data driven and that seemed reputable (300 plus pages last week), I still believe this to be the best single citation based on the overall data I have seen. None of the research that I read published after the Harvard Study denies their conclusions in a meaningful way.

The authors of the study did point out the shortcomings with their data which is what intellectually honest people do, and still came to the conclusion that they did.

"Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages
of criminal justice processing-such as juvenile justice-there is little
evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias."

Based on your particular positions on this subject, I am not surprised that your conclusion is different than theirs. 

I am happy to look at any real data driven evidence you might care to cite, because as I said before, if I am wrong about this, I want to know.

Lisa Everhart wrote:
First let me commend you for actually taking the time to read a 60 page study Hunter. No matter your opinion of it, I feel I have at least accomplished a little something here.

In response to your comments, the 2018 "report" I linked is just an article defining "systemic". It is not a study. As was pointed out to me, and to the best I can tell, systemic is the catch word currently being used in this context so I believe that they are interchangeable for this conversation. I think it is important we are all on the same page as was the football players protest.

As you discovered, the study pointed out that further research was needed so I read several other papers published after, some very current, and the Washington Post's investigation into the matter. I also read other studies related to crime statistics and looked at the statistics provided by the Justice Department over the last 10 years or so. I would encourage you to do the same. Having looked at everything I could find that was data driven and that seemed reputable (500  plus pages last week), I still believe this to be the best single citation based on the overall data I have seen. None of the research that I read published after the Harvard Study refutes their conclusion in a meaningful way.

The authors of the study did point out the shortcomings with their data which is what intellectually honest people do, and still came to the conclusion that they did.

"Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages
of criminal justice processing-such as juvenile justice-there is little
evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias."

Based on your particular positions on this subject, I am not surprised that your conclusion is different than theirs. 

I am happy to look at any real data driven evidence you might care to cite, because as I said before, if I am wrong about this, I want to know.

Thank you Lisa.

I notice your quote from the study is the first sentence of the thesis.  The remainder of the paragraph is noted below:

"Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages of criminal justice processing-such  as juvenile justice-there is little evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias.  Discrimination appears to be indirect, stemming from the amplification of initial disadvantagesover time, along with the social construction of "moral panics" and associated political responses. The "drug war" of the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated the disproportionate representation of blacks in state and federal prisons. Race and ethnic disparities in violent offending and victimization are pronounced and long-standing. Blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, suffer much higher rates of robbery and homicide victimization than do whites.  Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black males and females. These differences result in part from social forces that ecologically concentrate race with poverty and other social dislocations. Useful research would emphasize multilevel (contextual) designs, the idea of "cumulative disadvantage"over the life course, the need for multiracial conceptualizations, and comparative, cross-national designs."

The second sentence appears to confirm there is racism, regardless if it systematic. As I pointed out, the study concludes more knowledge is needed. 

As was the case the first time you posted that systematic racism doesn't exist, I am troubled by that narrow interpretation.  Systemic is different than systematic, enough that they are not listed as synonyms.   Systematic, as the sentence you quoted indicates, implies overt action.  As such, there should be little overt systematic racism in America because it is against the law and the civil penalties can be serve.  My position remains that there is endemic racism and that people bring that racism to work with them, and institutionalize the racism through their actions, which may or may not be overt for the individual, without consideration of the institution.  This link https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 which you quoted concurs.  I understand that the "thoughtco" link is not a study.  It is just an article.  Brief and simplistic.  However, it's author is not simply a journalist.  She has a phD in Sociology.  Her bio:  https://drnickilisacole.wordpress.com/about-nicki/

If you are happy with your conclusion, I am okay with that.  I will cease to discuss the point. 

On a basic we agree.  The government is not a benevolent player.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Thank you Lisa.

I notice your quote from the study is the first sentence of the thesis.  The remainder of the paragraph is noted below:

"Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages of criminal justice processing-such  as juvenile justice-there is little evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias.  Discrimination appears to be indirect, stemming from the amplification of initial disadvantagesover time, along with the social construction of "moral panics" and associated political responses. The "drug war" of the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated the disproportionate representation of blacks in state and federal prisons. Race and ethnic disparities in violent offending and victimization are pronounced and long-standing. Blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, suffer much higher rates of robbery and homicide victimization than do whites.  Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black males and females. These differences result in part from social forces that ecologically concentrate race with poverty and other social dislocations. Useful research would emphasize multilevel (contextual) designs, the idea of "cumulative disadvantage"over the life course, the need for multiracial conceptualizations, and comparative, cross-national designs."

The second sentence appears to confirm there is racism, regardless if it systematic. As I pointed out, the study concludes more knowledge is needed. 

As was the case the first time you posted that systematic racism doesn't exist, I am troubled by that narrow interpretation.  Systemic is different than systematic, enough that they are not listed as synonyms.   Systematic, as the sentence you quoted indicates, implies overt action.  As such, there should be little overt systematic racism in America because it is against the law and the civil penalties can be serve.  My position remains that there is endemic racism and that people bring that racism to work with them, and institutionalize the racism through their actions, which may or may not be overt for the individual, without consideration of the institution.  This link https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 which you quoted concurs.  I understand that the "thoughtco" link is not a study.  It is just an article.  Brief and simplistic.  However, it's author is not simply a journalist.  She has a phD in Sociology.  Her bio:  https://drnickilisacole.wordpress.com/about-nicki/

If you are happy with your conclusion, I am okay with that.  I will cease to discuss the point. 

On a basic we agree.  The government is not a benevolent player.

Your additional quotation from the study's conclusion.

"Discrimination appears to be indirect, stemming from the amplification of initial disadvantages over time, along with the social construction of "moral panics" and associated political responses."

Yes, I agree and have been saying this repeatedly throughout this thread. This is a secondary reason I cited this particular study. Politicians and their policies create the conditions for racial disparities, not race or racism.

You already know what I think about Fegan's theory, his suppositions, much like Darwin's, are ones that if repeated often enough, people seem to take at face value even though there is no hard evidence to back them up. Hehe.

I am happy we do agree on at least one thing though for which there is evidence a plenty. Have a great Sunday. I am off to clinicals.

Select Models wrote:
Interesting... so six pages of ridiculous hyperbole and mental masterbation has solved pretty much NADA!  Can you say 'colossus circle-jerk and monsterous waste of time'?... ... congratulations boys and girls...

So funnies.

Select Models wrote:
Interesting... so six pages of ridiculous hyperbole and mental masterbation has solved pretty much NADA!  Can you say 'colossus circle-jerk and monsterous waste of time'?... ... congratulations boys and girls...

It must be the very first time that a thread in the MM forums failed to find a solution for a significant issue. 

Select Models wrote:
Interesting... so six pages of ridiculous hyperbole and mental masterbation has solved pretty much NADA!  Can you say 'colossus circle-jerk and monsterous waste of time'?... ... congratulations boys and girls...

And right back at ya Select Models---your contribution is up to your usual standards.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

It must be the very first time that a thread in the MM forums failed to find a solution for a significant issue. 

It almost IS!  Quite a huge number of world issues and problems have been discussed and solved right here in on the MM Forums.  Stick around... you'll see what I mean...    World leaders legislate governmental changes for the better... dictators formulate more favorable policies for their countrymen.  I'm just so glad to be a part of it and a formitable contributor...