I’ve been reading a lot of Marginal Revolution recently. And I want to try a post in their style: shorter more questioning than answering.
I’ve been reading Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. It is really sad, important and readable, which is a rare combination. This quote has really stuck with me. She is talking about how San Francisco and Boston stopped asking for criminal records at the beginning of the application process:
“Some scholars believe, based on the available data, that black males may suffer more discrimination–not less–when specific criminal history information is not available. Because of the association of race and criminality is so pervasive, employers may use less accurate and discriminatory methods to screen out those perceived to be likely criminals. Popular but misguided proxies for criminality–such as race, receipt of public assistance, low educational attainment, and gaps in work history–could be used by employers when no box is available on the application form to identify criminals”
I also heard about this study from The Weeds. It analyzed a school integration program in Palo Alto California. It found that the minority students who were brought into the wealthier school did better in school but they were arrested significantly more for non-violent offenses. Which sounds bad, and it is, but maybe not in the way you thought. The minority students who were going to a school outside their neighborhood were much more likely to be pulled over by the police. This wasn’t because they were doing more engaged in illegal activity than their peers, but was because of racial profiling by police officers. They were pulled over because they weren’t supposed to be in such a nice neighborhood, and were assumed to be causing trouble.
Both of these works point to how deep racism is in America, even when something is done to help discrimination, another arm of racism comes up to pick up the slack.
Explicit racism is going strong as evidenced by Trump. Implicit bias is sticky. I’ve taken the IAT several times while diversifying my media consumption and my score has gone from strong preference for white people to a moderate preference.
Seen from this angle I don’t see any movement for justice and conciliation that is appropriate other than radical reparations. Although the battle should be fought on both fronts, the economic realities rooted in slavery and continued racism have to change for the stereotypes to have a hope of changing.
Thoughts?
I definitely think reparations are appropriate and necessary. What I wonder is whether we’d require some kind of proof of your family history in the US, as I don’t think it could be just based on the color of your skin. I also wonder if it should be a flat payment or if we try to somehow gauge different levels of reparations. As a policy I don’t think it will ever be feasible, but I do believe in it.
I took that IAT and got “no preference,” which I was surprised and pleased by. Compared to living in Syracuse I think I have so many opportunities to interact with people of different races in Greenbelt/DC/Maryland that I would hope it would get rid of some of my bias, but I am sure I still have some. I also think that since the President is white I currently have some implicit bias against white people.
LikeLike
The idea that you would be more biased against white people now seems right and super interesting. I’m going to be thinking more about that. I think it’s great you got no preference (I’ve taken it ~5 times and never gotten that) yet are still on the lookout for whatever might be there.
The proposal in the Atlantic article is to enact https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/40 It gets the ball rolling. I think there is a lot of symbolic power in process. But you are problably right as a practical solution to the wealth gap maybe progressive redistribution policies may be the viable route.
LikeLike