My little blog post, about the time my wife and I spent with a woman in the nursing facility who is approaching her hundredth birthday, has generated more than 60 comments, almost none of which, of course, are about the post. I cannot say that I have read the entire thread but I did read a number of comments back and forth about implicit bias, unconscious racism, and such and I thought I would say something about that subject based on my experiences in the University of Massachusetts Afro-American Studies Department.
When I joined the department in 1992 I was the only white
professor (not the first, by the way). After some years two more white men and
an Indian woman joined the department (not Native American, by the way, but
Indian). Now, I could of course be wrong, but I never got the slightest sense
that my black colleagues cared much about whether the white people on the
campus were explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously biased
against them. They cared a very great deal about their quite correct sense that
they and their department were not treated in the same way as white colleagues
or departments dominated by white professors. That made a lot of difference to
them and made them very angry because it stood in the way of their
accomplishing what they were attempting to accomplish. They were also quite
concerned about what has come to be called structural racism.
In the little book I wrote about my experiences in the
department I spent some time developing a hypothetical example to illustrate
the concept of structural racism. (The book by the way, is called Autobiography
of an Ex-White Man, a deliberate homage
to a famous novel by James Weldon Johnson called Autobiography of an Ex-Colored
Man). My imaginary example demonstrated the way in which a real official US Federal Government
policy deliberately designed to discriminate against black homebuyers could
have the effect over several generations of creating and perpetuating an
enormous difference in the accumulated wealth of two families, one white and
one black, whose breadwinners earned identical salaries and hence had identical
incomes. The point of the example was that an originally deliberately
discriminatory policy could get built into the structure of homeownership and
perpetuate inequality long after the discriminatory intention had been reversed
and the policies were now being administered by bureaucrats who were simply in
a colorblind fashion applying rules and regulations. The inequality was perpetuated
despite the lack, conscious or unconscious, of any bias on the part of those
administering the policy. You can look up the book if you are interested to see
how it worked out.
Let me give you another example – a real example that I
encountered during my time as the Graduate Program Director of the doctoral
program that I joined the department to help create. In those days (perhaps
this is still true, I do not know) The Mellon Foundation ran a program of
graduate fellowships for minority graduating seniors. Almost all the recipients
of these fellowships came from elite institutions. We were drawing our doctoral
students not from the Ivy League but from state schools and historically black
schools and I wanted to figure out why none of our students were getting the
Mellon fellowships. I discovered that the Mellon Foundation, for reasons of
bureaucratic convenience, require that applicants for the fellowships take the
graduate record examination in September rather than in December. If the scores
came from the December exam they were simply too late to be factored into the
decisions of the Foundation. Well, at the elite institutions, promising
minority students were spotted in the sophomore or junior year and were guided
by their mentors to take the GRE in September, so they were eligible for the
fellowships, but at state schools and historically black schools promising
black undergraduates were very likely not to be spotted or encouraged until
their senior year. By the time someone got around to recommending that they
apply for the Mellon grant, and suggested that they take the GRE exams to
qualify, they were too late. When I discovered this, I called the Mellon Foundation
and spoke to somebody who was on the staff that administered the fellowships.
It was clear that this had never occurred to them – it was, I am afraid, also
clear that for bureaucratic reasons there was little or no chance that they
would change their rules. These were people, mind you, who were consciously,
deliberately, and energetically seeking promising minority seniors and hoping
to encourage them to go on for doctorates!
A third example. One of our black students in the program
was a woman who had grown up in Connecticut. The town had originally been
racially quite segregated, and the black high school was not only “across the
tracks” but over a hill that divided the town in two. When an effort was made
to integrate this high school system, the black students, who were still living
in what was originally a black ghetto, had to be bussed some considerable
distance around the hill so that they could integrate the all-white high school
on the other side of town. This created a considerable inequality in
opportunity for the two groups of students and many black students chose to go
to the inferior black high school rather than have to take the long bus ride.
It was a topographical accident that the two neighborhoods were separated by
this hill but by the time the white people in town decided to integrate the
school system the disadvantages were, as it were, built into the landscape.
Perhaps it is because of my experience with my colleagues in
the Afro-American Studies Department, but I have never thought that the
conscious or unconscious, acknowledged or unacknowledged sentiments of Whites
concerning Blacks is what really matters. It does however matter a great deal
that structurally built-in disadvantages persist long after the discriminatory
intent that created them has disappeared. It matters, and deliberate
affirmative steps need to be taken to correct that disadvantage.
53 comments:
The point about implicit bias, I think, is that it can affect behavior and contribute to "structural" or other inequality, whether it be in policing, delivery of health services, or etc., as Eric among others pointed out in the previous thread. If it were only a matter of subjective feelings or attitudes with no or few practical implications, there would be less reason to be concerned about it.
LFC,
There are four possible combinations that a white person could embody regarding his/her conscious/subconscious racist sentiments toward black:
1. conscious anti-black sentiments and subconscious anti-black sentiments
2. conscious anti-black sentiments and no subconscious anti-black sentiments (unlikely, given the conscious anti-black sentiments)
3. no conscious anti-black sentiments and no subconscious anti-black sentiments
4. no conscious anti-black sentiments and subconscious anti-black sentiments
Neither categories 1, 2, or 3 is a concern of yours, because they will either be overtly racist in categories 1 and 2, or overtly non-racist in category 3.
Your concern is with category 4, that whites who are consciously non-racist will be influence by their subconscious racist sentiments to commit actions which are overtly racist. But, as s. wallerstein has written, it is by their deeds that they will be known. What one’s subconscious sentiments may be is irrelevant. It is behavior which is relevant, particularly given that what one’s subconscious sentiments are, by definition unknowable, unless one undergoes psyco-therapy. Moreover, as Prof. Wolff points out, the main impediment to overcoming racism is the structural racial/racist policies, institutions that even people in category 3 have difficulty overcoming. From a practical standpoint, the subconscious sentiments are not relevant, and, moreover, because subconscious, not subject to remediation.
You may say that my analysis is not sufficiently nuanced, because there is a range of sentiments in each of these categories. But this, too, is irrelevant, because within any given range, either the non-racist or the racist sentiments will be predominate. In which case, the individual’s sentiments either fall into more racist or more non-racist, and therefore, for purposes of the analysis, the individual falls into one of the 4 categories. The subconscious sentiments remain irrelevant.
AA,
I respectfully suggest you are missing the point, which is that if implicit attitudes cause -- or contribute to causing -- actions (which evidence suggests they can), then one wants to bring those implicit attitudes more fully into awareness, so that the behavior will change.
I don't understand your defensiveness about this. Of course it is actions that matter, but if actions have sources that, once brought into awareness, can lead to change in the actions, why not do it. I'm not suggesting you personally need to undergo implicit bias training, which I think frankly in your case wd make no sense at all, but if you don't think cops in big cities, e.g.,need it or cd benefit from it, I disagree.
I'm not in favor of going overboard w this and I agree that it is structures that matter the most, but implicit attitudes can contribute to reinforcing the structures in some cases. Anyway we are not going to agree and neither of is in a position to influence policies on this, so the discussion is sort of pointless.
Correction: neither of us is
To clarify, it wd make no sense in your case bc (1) you may well not have implicit biases and more importantly (2) you don't work as a cop on the beat or in some other kind of job where implicit bias, if you had it, wd affect your daily actions.
And lastly, implicit bias, as I understand it, is not so much about "subconscious anti-black sentiment" as it is about the implicit buying into stereotypes that affect behavior. If you don't posit something like this, it's difficult to explain why black drivers, esp prob black male drivers, get pulled over for minor traffic infractions way more often than whites.
LFC,
No, I believe it is you who are missing the point. You wrote, “The point about implicit bias, I think, is that it can affect behavior and contribute to ‘structural’ or other inequality, whether it be in policing, delivery of health services, or etc” By “implicit bias” you mean subconscious bias. But unless the subconscious bias evidences itself by overt, conscious bias, it is irrelevant. In the case of white police officers who disproportionately arrest black drivers, whatever the cause of their conduct, it is statistically manifesting itself as overt bias. The way to deal with that is to point out the statistical overt bias and persuade the white police officers that they are, in fact, engaging in overt bias, regardless its source. Such individuals fall into category 1 of the 4 categories. Can such people change? Yes, I have read reports of such changes, even among police officers, and even politicians. Before he died, Gov. Wallace apologized to the African-American citizens of Alabama. It was too late for him to influence government policies directly, but I suspect his apology may have influenced others in category 1.
Regarding what influence I may have as an attorney, you are again mistaken. I have represented African-Americans who have been discriminated against in the workplace. By litigating on their behalf, and forcing their employers to recognize their discrimination, including by forcing them to settle the lawsuits in the employee’s favor, they at least gave lip service to recognizing their racist conduct. Whether it changed them permanently, I have no way of knowing. But is suspect the sting of litigation may well have changed their attitudes.
AA
I don't really get #4. Should we be perfectly fine with not caring if we're categorized as #4 or if we're #4 should we truly care? I believe the latter is that of a person who has empathy for others--and maybe apathetic if they don't care. I don't really know. Some may say if you care too much about anything you'll end up crazy. Even Confucius said you can omit the small stuff just as long as you don't omit the large stuff in life. E.g. omit the scratch but not the bad cut. That is, of course, if you call subconscious-racism the small stuff. --In bk. Ten (ch.30) of Augustine's Confessions, Augustine pities himself for having sexual fantasies in sleep he cannot control, although he can control his sexual desires completely when awake. A modern doctor could probably console Augustine by telling him carnal dreams are a function of nature so your private parts don't implode or rupture or get damaged by too much fluid. But something tells me, despite Mother Nature & her pragmatism, Augustine would still nervously fret that he is not a better person than he already was. --But he was supposedly a saint at the time? --Does that mean only saints should feel bad if they are #4 in that scenario or in any parallel situation in that sense? Of course, there is a big difference in #4 & it's parallel example of Augustine. I don't believe Mother Nature ever told any one of us it is okay to be prejudiced against our fellow man because of their skin color, whether consciously or subconsciously for whatever reason.
I have never thought that the conscious or unconscious, acknowledged or unacknowledged sentiments of Whites concerning Blacks is what really matters. It does however matter a great deal that structurally built-in disadvantages persist long after the discriminatory intent that created them has disappeared. It matters, and deliberate affirmative steps need to be taken to correct that disadvantage.
Thank you for writing this, Prof. In the previous thread, I said a lot about the explicit and implicit bigotry ("prejudice" might be the better word) of individuals including Joe Rogan (and myself and my peers). It wasn't my intention to distract from the more important, structural dimension of the problems of inequality. I just think it's good for people to try to work on their attitudes and awareness, even if those things are just about irrelevant from a structural standpoint.
I don't see much that I as an individual can do about structural inequality, apart from thinking and talking about what its causes might be, whether these causes allow of change by way of public policy, and whether any public officials are likelier than any others to promote these changes. It wouldn't shock me to learn that the people most deeply affected by inequality would rather I put more energy into that than into critiquing individuals' attitudes; and I hope it's not the case that my and other people's efforts regarding the latter are actually harmful to the cause, by alienating potential allies.
Somewhat off topic, but here are a few words I love (especially the bolded part) from the short biography prefacing Frederick Lange's History of Materialism. Maybe you'll appreciate:
His [Lange's] heart beat for the lot of the masses, and he felt that the question of labor would be the great problem of the coming time, as it was the question that decided the fall of the ancient world. The core of this problem he believed to be "the struggle against the struggle for existence," which is identified with man's spiritual destiny. And so we can understand the anxiety with which he looked forward to the great revolution which, in common with many thoughtful men, he believed to be impending upon modern society. But all that he could do to warn his fellow-men of the "rocks" that were "ahead," and of the way in which they might be avoided, he did, not discouraged although he were little heeded. In his own words: "Never, indeed, will our efforts be wholly in vain. The truth, though too late, yet comes soon enough; for mankind will not die just yet. Fortunate natures hit the right moment; but never has the thoughtful observer the right to remain silent, merely because he knows that for the present there are but few who listen to him."
Michael Llenos,
Since you have asked for my opinion about people in category #4, here it is: No, it does not matter, and if a person is in that category and agonizes over whether they do or do not have such subconscious thoughts, they are, forgive me, neurotic. What does it matter whether a person who is not overtly racist and does not engage in racist conduct has subconscious racist sentiments? It is their overt behavior that matters, not their subconscious thoughts. There are only two possibilities: either the subconscious sentiments are adversely influencing their overt behavior, or the are not. If they are adversely influencing their overt behavior, then they are actually racist and do not fall into category #4. But if the subconscious sentiments are not adversely affecting their behavior, then they are not racist, since the subconscious sentiments cannot be known, and are therefore irrelevant. When President Carter lamented that he lusted in his heart for attractive women, he was not referring to subconscious sentiments, since he was aware of them. But, presumably, he did not allow his conscious lustful thought to influence his actual behavior, and therefore had nothing to feel guilty about. If an individual believes that in their heart they have racist thoughts, but doe not allow those racist thoughts to influence their overt behavior, then they are not racist. If they do allow their conscious racist thoughts to influence their overt behavior, then they are racist. From what you have written, you do not engage in racist behavior and your conscious thoughts are not racist. I agree with s. wallerstein - it does not matter whether or not you in fact have subconscious racist sentiments. My advice (I am not a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist) is to stop torturing yourself. Kick back and enjoy watching the Super Bowl.
Another,
Thanks for your support. Another and I were raised as Jews.
This is a big difference between Christians and Jews, even though one may be an atheist in spite of one's cultural upbringing.
The Old Testament says not to commit adultery. The New Testament says not to commit adultery in your heart.
Jews don't believe much in thought crimes, in impure thoughts, while Christians finds them to be sinful.
For me, worrying about impure thoughts is just useless self-guilt tripping.
Those who are concerned about racism should vote for anti-racist candidates, donate to good causes and in general support the anti-racist struggle. Whatever their conscious or unconscious thoughts and fantasies are is of little importance in the real world.
...they are, forgive me, neurotic.
Huh. Actually, I've got to admit, that seems fair. (You would've been tearing your hair out in the lecture I once attended on Thomist virtue ethics. "Whoever hates his brother is a murderer.")
On the other hand, I guess it'd be possible (and less neurotic) to make an imperfect analogy between ugliness of body and ugliness of "soul" - understood here as "unconscious moral personality."
People can dislike or be disgusted by some aspects of their body, even though no one "chooses" their body for the most part; and although it's obvious that a lot of their self-dislike would be socially conditioned, it seems psychologically plausible to me that some small portion of their self-dislike could in principle be theirs originally, and not the product of social learning. E.g., I might quite dislike my toenail fungus! By analogy, I might aspire to have a certain quality of character, regardless of whether it's on display to anyone besides myself; and this might reflect an original, autonomous ethical evaluation on my part. (It's possible to suppose that none of our judgments are in any way independent of social conditioning, but ordinarily that doesn't seem true to us, I think.) Thus, if I want to esteem myself as the sort of person who loves his family, then I'll be troubled by and motivated to discount the Freudian who tells me that I unconsciously despise my father.
That's arguably no less neurotic than the Catholic conscience that condemns itself for "adultery" when ogling a lingerie poster in the mall. But you might find it less weird and alien, possibly. And it's philosophically interesting nonetheless to see people (e.g. Abelard) try to argue for the ethics that emphasizes intention above all else, including deeds.
Police pull over black motorists at a higher rate than whites *not* because *all* police officers are racists, but rather because, given the society in which they've been raised and its history, they have internalized stereotypes about the greater dangerousness or threateningness of blacks.
If you want police officers to stop engaging in overtly 'racist' behavior, you don't put them in a room and say "stop being racist!" Rather, you explain that they have bought into stereotypes suggesting that black motorists are more likely to be threats or criminals. Sometimes they may not consciously realize this. And that's not necessarily because the officers are racists, nor is it because they have "impure thoughts"; rather, it's more likely because they've (mostly) been raised in a society still dealing with the vestiges of a racist past and persistent inequalities.
So instead of approaching this as strictly a matter of individual attitudes and individual actions, one needs to recognize that the social context matters. But the main point is that if you take AA's approach, which is to say that anyone who engages in any overt discriminatory behavior is a racist, you're unlikely to get them to stop the discriminatory behavior. And you will end up lumping everyone who engages in discriminatory behavior, irrespective of its nature or source, into the same box, and that's not helpful from a practical standpoint. Because there's a difference between a police officer who's trying to do his job fairly -- but not always succeeding -- and a Dylan Roof, for instance, who walked into an African American church and murdered nine people.
Of course there are police officers who are simply racists -- the one (whose name is escaping me) convicted for the murder of George Floyd may well be -- but there are others who aren't racists but whose behavior nonetheless reflects racialist stereotypes that they (and others) have breathed in, so to speak, from the atmosphere of the society in which they live.
This, by the way, is why many black parents give their children, esp their sons, "the talk." No white parents, I think, have to do that.
I think my position is basically common sense inference based on reading or listening to the headlines of recent years. I have other things to do today so I think this may be my last comment on this topic.
LFC,
The most effective and efficient way to stop police officers who believe they are not racist, but who nevertheless pull over black drivers just because they have bought into the stereotype the most crimes are committed by Blacks is to sue the police officer, and the police department, for stopping black drivers without probable cause. That will not only penalize the officer and his employer for buying into the racist stereotype, but may also have the effect of changing their attitude. Even if it doesn’t change their attitude, it will most certainly change their behavior, because otherwise it will cost them money. And this is far more important than trying to figure out if they are “really” racist, or have subconscious racist sentiments.
Post-script:
Unfortunately, my second effort at chess diplomacy has failed.
This morning I played a Russian woman who included her photograph with her chess moniker.
I sent her the following message: “Since you are an attractive Russian woman, can you try to persuade President Putin not to invade Ukraine and risk setting off WWIII.”
She responded:
Putin: 💪💪💪
I proceeded to checkmate her (but it took 71 moves)
Another,
Congratulations on your chess victory!!
While we agree about how to deal with so-called unconscious racism, we differ radically on U.S. foreign policy.
I've listened to several Chilean commentators on the Ukraine situation, a few days ago to Raul Sohr on CNN-Chile, hardly a pro-Russian channel and just a few minutes ago to Ruperto Concha in Radio Bio Bio, who tends to be very critical of U.S. foreign policy. However, both agree that Putin is not going to invade Ukraine, that taking over Ukraine is a headache that Putin neither needs or wants. If he doesn't act soon, as everyone points out, the milder weather will set in, the snow will melt and he won't be able to move his tanks and jeeps through the mud. So I'm willing to bet that there will be no military invasion of Ukraine.
s. wallerstein,
I hope that you and the Chilean commentators are correct. But if they are correct, Putin is using a lot of military personnel and armaments to give us the impression that he intends to invade. It seems like a large waste of money if that is not his intention. But time will tell, and I hope you are right.
Another,
Both Putin and Biden are bluffing, they play poker, not chess.
They'll reach an agreement, although they may not tell us all the details. Maybe Macron will broker the deal.
Putin does not want Ukraine to enter the U.S. sphere of influence, that is, to join NATO.
He wants a weak and neutral Ukraine. Biden can yield on that, as long as he doesn't lose face. Putin knows that.
I am lousy at poker.
I'm not great at it myself, but I'm worse at chess.
However, my oldest friend is a habitual longtime poker player and so I get the idea of what it's about and about what kind of person is good at it.
One thing I've found interesting to do when encountering folks who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery is to show them the Cornerstone Speech and the secession resolutions of several Confederate states. Some tap dance around and refuse to get it.
Then there are those who "aren't racist" and continually quote MLK's only speech ever which consisted of just one sentence which, they seem to believe, ended racism forever. Justice Roberts likely considers himself to not be a racist but his relevant decisions are usually constructively racist (Rehnquist made his bones actually engaging in race based voter suppression). Sub-conscious racism too often manifests as constructive racism. In fact, constructive racism doesn't require one to be racist at all, merely ignorant (any vote for any Republican since the 1960s is constructively racist).
Then there is the stupid. I used to live in a coastal city in Southern California. Most of the city was mostly industrial/commercial but had a small residential area. A friend was on the local school board. We were talking one day and he mentioned funding issues. I wondered how that could be given what I assumed was a huge tax base. He told me that seventy years earlier when the city was formed that all that land was agricultural and being farmed by a few Japanese families and the founding fathers didn't want those kids in their school so they drew them out of the district. (The Native Americans had been mostly killed off and there weren't yet that many blacks -- enough for a lynching or so but still - so Mexicans and Asians were all they had to hate.)
Relevant to stupid and perhaps of interest to AA - A few decades ago I was detained by store (national chain) security for shop lifting due to a screw up by a clerk (I sued, they settled). The two guys who detained me were young, thuggish, and dumb as a box of rocks. They were also on track to become members of a local police department.
Twenty five y/o with at least a BA/BS should be a minimum with POST being post grad level. LFC mentioned police culture which is important and is set from the top. The Minneapolis PD union is headed by a Trumped-up white supremacist.
" Kick back and enjoy watching the Super Bowl."
Loved the Super Bowl. Out skiing on a perfect day. Suddenly noticed how few folks were on the slopes. Then I remembered that it was that day.
AA
You wrote: " If an individual believes that in their heart they have racist thoughts, but doe not allow those racist thoughts to influence their overt behavior, (1) then they are not racist. If they do allow their conscious racist thoughts to influence their overt behavior, (2) then they are racist."
#(1) conclusion amendment. In fact, they are covertly racist & not overtly racist. Meaning, they fall under the general genus/category of racist.
&
#(2) conclusion amendment. They are both covertly racist and overtly racist. So they fall under the category/genus racist too.
--Conclusion #2 is ethically worse than conclusion #1. But that doesn't mitigate the impact of conclusion #1. And saying the commonplace 'nobody's perfect' does not mitigate conclusion #1. Both are culpable and negligent in ethical law. Not man-made law, but in universal karma-law. --Our technological know-how is getting to a point that soon we'll be able to easily read all thoughts. --Nobody can read mental thoughts now, so I agree that U.S. law does not take this as a factor in the present. Soon they will, though, and U.S. law concerning the interogation of suspects using computer technology will have to be brought up to date with the science of mental ethics.
with regard to structural racism it is not about "consciousness", "subconscious", "unconscious" or similar auxiliary constructions from the kitchen of Sigmund Freud.
It is about "not perceiving" and "not knowing" and about those processes in societies that take place without people being directly involved. People play a role only insofar as they transport structural racism through the time and then execute it as agents of institutions.
Michael LLenos,
Your proposal that IA read the thoughts of suspects is Orwellian.
It means the end of great art. If Dostoyevsky did not think the thoughts of an axe murderer, Raskolnikov, he could not have written Crime and Punishment. There are many more examples.
I reserve the right to think the most perverse thoughts and fantasies every day, those of Marquis de Sade and those of Stalin. All power to the perversity of the imagination!!!
re aaall: "Justice Roberts likely considers himself to not be a racist but his relevant decisions are usually constructively racist" I would be interested hearing more about the idea of "Constructively racist" -- In the most recent Merrill v Milligan decision he dissented, saying the election should follow the decision of the lower court, right? And then indicated the issue will be renewed next term. I looked up "Constructive Racism", and that seemed to indicate Constructive Racists legislation intends bring about racially disparate results -- I would say that Roberts' dissent on the contrary holds legislation to be invalid if it has such disparate results.
As s.w. may know, one of the slogans written on the walls in Paris in May '68 was "l'imagination au pouvoir." ;)
P.s. I hope M Llenos was joking about computers reading thoughts. If he wasn't joking, he should have been.
LFC,
Yes, of course I was paraphrasing the May 68 slogan.
There's a Bob Dylan quote for every occasion, and here it's of a piece with s. wallerstein's view: "And if my thought-dreams could be seen/ They'd probably put my head in a guillotine/ But it's alright, Ma,/ it's life and life only."
Brain reading technology is only scratching the surface right now, but give it time to mature.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/24/mind-reading-tech-private-companies-access-brains
John Rapko,
Great song!!! Thanks.
With regards to what I said above about "impure" thoughts and the imagination, I just reread Nobel prize winning Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa's book, the Goat Feast.
It's basically narrated from three perspectives, that of Urania, now 49, sexually abused by Dominican dictator, Rafael Trujillo when she was 14, who fled the to U.S. and now 35 years later returns to the Dominican Republic for the first time to face her past; that of the conspirators waiting in a car to assassinate Trujillo; and that of Trujillo himself during his last day alive, a man without scruples, incredibly machista, a rapist and abuser of women, a torturer, a murderer, a tyrannt, corrupt, cynical, greedy and power-hungry without any guiding ideal besides his own selfish desires.
By the time, Urania ends her narration of what Trujillo did to her 35 years before, I was in tears, but Vargas Llosa is as attentive to every detail of Trujillo's thought-processes as he is to those of Urania or of the conspirators. At no moment does he moralize about Trujillo or call him an "evil" person. He lets Trujillo speak for himself and lets the reader judge.
To do that Vargas Llosa had to spend hours and hours in Trujillo's head, imagining how he got he dressed in the morning, how he eats his breakfast and how he views a woman before abusing her. Did that ability of Vargas Llosa to put himself in Trujillo's head somehow corrupt him? No, it makes him a great novelist and a human being with a broad sense of humanity.
DP, Roberts in Merrill makes two points: The lower court was correct in applying Gingles and hence the stay should be denied and Gingles is likely doomed when the SC takes up Merrill in the next term. Granting a stay was clearly lawless and impolitic relevant to the coming midterms.
Roberts has been at this since the 1980s and is comfortable with playing a long game. He is also concerned with his court not being viewed too soon (and more then it already is) as the second coming of the Taney/Gilded Age Courts. He correctly sees roiling the waters more then the coming abortion decisions are likely to do as possibly/likely counterproductive.
An eternal truth is that it is usually the case that plutocrats don't figure out until it's too late that kleptocrats don't see them as allies but as prey. Robert's is on team plutocrat. Recall the ending of the beer garden scene in Cabaret.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6lpT6e8nAA
The racism in "constructive racism" in the US s usually a mix of the intended and unintended.
aaall:
Always amazing to watch that. I admit I want to believe Roberts is motivated by basic constitutional principles, including the federalist system, but also imposing the fourteenth amendment on states where doing so is something that the "middle" either can accept or will accept in the near future. Brown is the model. I think he is heavily invested in keeping identity out of the legal system -- for example, keeping law color blind. It seems to me too that these are the only principles that have a chance of holding the country together. I presume you think no method could be presented to test for gerrymandering that Roberts would ever find "judicable". I can only hope that enough people will start to see that what we have can't help but lead to civil war so Roberts can get his middle, and then we could see what he's made of.
Roberts's jurisprudence on race is quite bad. See e.g. Shelby County v. Holder and Parents Involved v. Seattle School Dist No. 1.
"I think he is heavily invested in keeping identity out of the legal system -- for example, keeping law color blind."
"Keeping" ????? !!!!! Really? Of which legal system do you speak? The possibility of that in North America ended back in the seventeenth century.
Roberts is a dedicated Conservative cadre, just smarter then most.
BTW, this might be of interest to those who read Graeber and Wengrow:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z.epdf?sharing_token=ztRqrlv54oXtb0l0HeHhTdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OkweMbawmVFM1UCLmLxuyBpGKtFJa1_BxzJ7UFQSQZ6IMIvVOmlNdweksOJ_Tb7J-sLpaVxBYZk2m5IVcrrvrKYaetU9hkTYt-0W5PDEiIG_94ATdcRPQe4Qw91j-DZdsjqdbU3L8NSsDPF3S_z9jKVXjuMSZ0G0CziR_WBbY9UzILL9B476kKhZOF8dP6Z78%3D&tracking_referrer=www.latimes.com
LFC,
It is perhaps not surprising that I disagree with your assessment that Roberts’ decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), is “quite bad” and, by implication, marks him as a racist. Your statement is a gross oversimplification of the complex constitutional and social issues which the Seattle School case presented to the Court. The case involved both the Seattle School District and a school district in Louisville, Kentucky. Both districts were assigning students to different public schools based exclusively on their skin color. One of the central issues in the case was whether the segregated communities which already existed had become segregated by virtue of de jure government action (i.e., had at some point in prior history had the schools become segregated by virtue of intentional governmental policies which required the segregation), was it de facto (i.e., occurring by virtue of individual decisions regarding where to live, rather than by government fiat). The plurality decision in holding that the school districts’ policies of assigning students to different schools based exclusively on their skin color in the absence of de jure segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because there had not been de jure segregation was written by J. Roberts, in which he famously wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Had the segregation been the result of de jure segregation, there is no question that Roberts would have held that the use of skin color to reverse the results of de jure segregation would not have been unconstitutional.
There justices joined Roberts: JJ. Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Four justices dissented: JJ. Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. J. Kennedy broke the tie by concurring in part with the plurality. In his concurring opinion J. Kennedy (the author of the S. Ct. opinion sustaining same sex marriage as protected by the Constitution) wrote:
“Why may the authorities not recognize the problem in candid fashion and solve it altogether through resort to direct assignments based on student racial classifications? So, the argument proceeds, if race is the problem, then perhaps race is the solution>
“The argument ignores the dangers presented by individual classifications, dangers that are not as pressing when the same ends are achieved by more indirect means. When the government classifies an individual by race, it must first define what it means to be of a race. Who exactly is white and who is nonwhite? To be forced to live under a state-mandated racial label is inconsistent with the dignity of individuals in our society. And it is a label that an individual is powerless to change. Governmental classifications that command people to march in different directions based on racial typologies can cause a new divisiveness. The practice can lead to corrosive discourse, where race serves not as an element of our diverse heritage but instead as a bargaining chip in the political process. On the other hand race-conscious measures that do not rely on differential treatment based on individual classifications present these problems to a lesser degree.
(Continued)
“The idea that if race is the problem, race is the instrument with which to solve it cannot be accepted as an analytical leap forward. And if this is a frustrating duality of the Equal Protection Clause it simply reflects the duality of our history and our attempts to promote freedom in a world that sometimes seems set against it. Under our Constitution the individual, child or adult, can find his own identity, can define her own persona, without state intervention that classifies on the basis of his race or the color of her skin.”
These words, written in support of J. Roberts’ plurality opinion, are not the words of a racist, and do not support a racist decision. One can disagree with the plurality’s opinion, and find the dissents’ opinions more agreeable, but to imply that the decision marks J. Roberts as “quite bad,” and therefore presumably a racist, is unfair and an oversimplification of the decision.
Or we could view Parents as an strategic step towards a larger goal. I don't see Shelby County being defended. The only relevance racism has for Roberts is that he is a conservative and a Republican and his party's decision to go where the votes were was made when he was in grade school. As I pointed out above he is a dedicated cadre and has an agenda that goes back to before his days in the Reagan Administration. If ending the New Deal and the administrative state requires consolidating the racist vote... Watch what the gang of six does with Nondelegation and fancy words.
You bid:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
I'll raise you:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Still apt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ25-U3jNWM
BTW, Krugman has noted that the Canadian "truckers'" protests that are so beloved by those who were appalled at 2020's BLM protests have destroyed more wealth in a few days then all the looting and burning peripheral to the latter.
AA
I don't have time right at this minute to engage at great length on this, but the words "quite bad" do not equal "racist." What aaall says about Roberts is, I think, pretty much right.
In the Parents Involved v. Seattle case, Roberts and Breyer disagreed about the meaning and implications of Brown and the cases flowing from it. I think Roberts was wrong and Breyer was right.
In other words, I am using the word "bad" here to mean "an opinion that I think misunderstands what a highly significant body of SCOTUS precedent is all about" -- that's basically what Breyer said in his dissent. BTW, Stevens joined Breyer's dissent in full but also wrote separately to say that he didn't think *any* of the Justices who were on the Court when he joined it in 1975 would have agreed w Roberts' opinion. (I doubt that's true of Rehnquist, but it shows how strongly Stevens thought that Roberts was wrong.)
aaall,
No, you have not raised me, you have only offered a specious argument in response. The question raised by LFC’s comment was whether J. Roberts’ plurality opinion in Parents v. Seattle School District demonstrated that he was “quite bad” on issues of race, i.e., that he is a racist. LFC’s rejoinder that “quite bad” does not equate to “racist” is splitting hairs; it certainly is not an assertion that the writer is not racist.
Anatole France’s poignant observation, quoted by J. Stevens in his dissent, that the law has an adverse impact on the poor – as much as I admire J. Stevens – had nothing to do with the plurality opinion. Yes, the law tends to have an adverse effect on the poor and disadvantaged, but that was J. Roberts’ (and J. Kennedy’s) point – they were not dealing with the law in Seattle, Washington, nor the law in Louisville, Kentucky. The Blacks in both communities were not subject to de jure segregation – segregation enforced by law. They were dealing with de facto segregation, segregation which had evolved by virtue of the decisions of both Blacks and Whites regarding where they decided to live. Those decisions were, no doubt, influenced by social institutions, but they were not the result of laws – there were no Jim Crow laws in Seattle or Louisville. If the Black were forced to live where they did by virtue of segregation laws or ordinances which required that they live there, then Roberts and Kennedy would have had not problem sustaining the manner in which the Seattle and Louisville school districts assigned students to schools based on their race. If the law imposes conditions based on race, then the law can alleviate those conditions based on race. But that was not the case in either Seattle or Louisville. In the face of de facto segregation, the plurality and J. Kennedy held that it is unconstitutional to tell Whites and Blacks what school they must attend based on their skin color. Such a decision does not make J. Roberts or J. Kennedy a racist.
Granted, where Blacks lived in Seattle and Louisville was most certainly influenced by their socio-economic circumstances, but those circumstances were not the result of extant laws. The fact that Blacks were discriminated against in the workplace, for example, and paid lower wages than Whites was not the result of laws which required that they be paid less. There was a law in effect which in fact made such disparate treatment unlawful – Title VII. And while the socio-economic status of Blacks in Louisville may have been a vestige of Jim Crow laws which once existed in Kentucky, those laws were no longer on the books, so there was no longer de jure segregation. And, from J. Roberts’ and J. Kennedy’s perspective, to discriminate against Whites by telling them where they could go to school, in the absence of de jure segregation, was simply continuing a vicious cycle of discriminating based on skin color in order to alleviate de facto segregation.
Similarly, Nina Simone’s splendid rendition of Mississippi God Damn has nothing to do with J. Roberts’ decision in Seattle School District. The song is being performed in 1965, when de jure segregation was still in effect in Mississippi and across the South. De jure segregation is irrelevant to the Seattle School District decision.
My only point is that J. Roberts’ opinion in Seattle School District does not demonstrate that he is “quite bad” regarding issues of race, and certainly not that he is racist. One can disagree with the decision, but it is an exaggeration to claim that it demonstrates that he is “quite bad” on issues of race, and certainly not that he is racist.
If you don't like the words "quite bad" w.r.t. that opinion, fine. (Presumably you agree that Shelby County was bad.)
A while back I read a piece about Breyer that explained the difference between his reading of Brown and Roberts's reading of Brown in this way: Roberts thinks Brown was about ending *discrimination* whereas Breyer thinks Brown was about ending *subordination* (i.e. a racial caste system). Breyer is right. BTW Breyer felt so strongly about this case that he read a sharper, more pointed 20 minute version of his dissent from the bench. According to one account by a journalist who was in the Court that morning, Breyer's oral dissent was so strongly put that Alito at one point roused himself from what seemed to be a semi-slumber and stared at Breyer (presumably not a friendly stare).
P.s. we all know how Roberts is going to go on the upcoming affirmative action in higher ed cases (Chapel Hill and Harvard), and when that happens AA will be here to tell us that that decision was not "bad". Can't wait (or actually, I think I can wait).
LFC,
One can extrapolate from a Supreme Court decision any number of interpretations, just as from a novel or poem. But law tends to be more literal, than metaphorical. Strictly speaking, the decision in Brown vs. Bd. of Education of Topeka was about segregation in public schools based on race and overturned the holding in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by providing equality, although separate. In Brown, the S. Ct. held that education in separate schools was not equal. This was the primary holding of Brown, and therefore as between J. Roberts and J. Breyer, J. Roberts literal interpretation is, from a legal perspective, more correct. J. Breyer’s less literal interpretation that the decision was about racial subordination is not wrong, but it is not the primary lesson of Brown.
I agree that Shelby County was wrongly decided. I have no idea how J. Roberts will rule in the Harvard/Chapel Hill affirmative action appeal, but however he rules, even if I do not agree, I am quite sure that it will be a well-reasoned legal opinion, and I would be reluctant to draw any conclusions about his sentiments regarding race from it.
So-called de facto segregation is really about economic class because almost always there are
African-American children from professional families who study in white suburban schools.
Is racism a factor in the fact that African-Americans earn lower wages than Whites? For sure. But the middle class and upper middle class suburban schools also exclude children from lower class and working class white families, who somehow get left out from these discussions.
Unless you believe that the U.S. is a perfect meritocracy (I sure don't), those lower class and working class white families don't have the same opportunities to "get ahead" as whites from middle and upper middle class backgrounds do.
s.w.
Yes, and SCOTUS is to blame for some of this too. See for ex its terrible decision back in the 70s, San Antonio Sch Dist v. Rodriguez, which basically upheld property taxation as the main method of funding public education. Among other things one effect of this was to cement a sort of unholy alliance between local school boards and local zoning boards, but that's a topic best left for another time.
P.s. In certain places the old pattern of largely white suburban schools is changing a little under the pressure of demographic change. That is, a suburban county that was 90 percent white in the 60s and 70s might be more ethnically and even racially mixed today. So the schools in that county are going to be correspondingly somewhat more diverse, though of course socioeconomic segregation continues and houses in the more affluent and whiter parts of that (hypothetical but not unrealistic) county are going to be more expensive.
LFC,
I agree Rodriguez was an atrocious decision. It was J. Powell's doing, who was far worse than J. Roberts.
Well we agree on one thing at any rate, on Rodriguez.
Whether Powell was far worse than Roberts is something I will, to borrow a page from the language of judicial opinions, reserve judgment on.
AA, the arc is what matters. That and understanding that some folks just want to see the world burn. NS is as relevant today as in the 1960s.
aaall,
Sorry, but what does "NS" stand for? I Googled it and came up with well over 100 possibilities. And I do not see it referred to in any of the comments above.
Nina Simone.
BTW, this is where a significant part of the "intellectual" Right is today:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3860301
This is where a demographically dispositive segment of their voter base is:
https://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/1493006473940635648
We are well into the territory where Roberts has to attempt to thread needles with hawsers.
Post a Comment