When people ask for examples of institutional racism...

[panamaican]

It's something that comes up semi-regularly - people wondering if institutionalized racism is a real thing. They recognize that they're not racist and their friends aren't racist so how could an entire institution be racist?

In short: North Carolina enacted a host of voting changes that were designed specifically to suppress the black vote. They were just overturned this past week.

In long: Following the reduction in federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act, the legislators in North Carolina requested a complex breakdown of voter habits. They wanted to view habits based on age, race, party, economics, etc. Then they voted into effect 5 changes that specifically impacted the way black people in the state voted. They didn't vote in any changes that affected other voting blocs, whether by economics or age or even by party.

Yet -

Our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group.

Now while the new laws have been overturned, their existence speaks to the larger point about institutional racism. The NC legislature passed laws that specifically targeted and harmed the ability of blacks in the state to exercise their right to vote. Nothing says the those people were racist but the intent and effect of their legislative choices was crafted with a discriminatory goal in mind.

That the 21st century finds states still trying to pass discriminatory laws should make us think more deeply about the laws that were passed when outright discrimination and racism were acceptable. Those laws, absent facially discriminatory language, were passed with the same discriminatory goal - to restrict the economic or political gains of the black population. And given the climate of the times, those laws were also less likely to face legal challenge. That means those laws could still be on the books today.

This case should serve as a guide post for how institutional racism is crafted and how it can continue to exist long after outright racism has seen a steep decline.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84702
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._down_north_carolina_voting_restrictions.html

If anyone wants to read the 83 page opinion: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

 

[Lord_Impaler]

The slate article is kind of woefully nonspecific. They don't show us any of the data, or even tell us the specifics of each of the five changes to the law.

 

[panamaican]

The slate article is kind of woefully nonspecific. They don't show us any of the data, or even tell us the specifics of each of the five changes to the law.

Lucky for you, I included the actual court opinion for people who want more detail.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Without specifics this really doesn't mean anything.

 

[panamaican]

Without specifics this really doesn't mean anything.

I figured that would concern some people so...

Lucky for you, I included the actual court opinion for people who want more detail.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Lucky for you, I included the actual court opinion for people who want more detail.

So it's either no detail or 83 pages... got it, I'm out

 

[panamaican]

So it's either no detail or 83 pages... got it, I'm out

Listen, the exact changes don't really matter unless your goal is to challenge whether or not the court reached the wrong legal conclusion.

If that's the direction that you're heading then you're better off going straight to the legal opinion itself instead of 2nd and 3rd hand sources. Why argue over Slate's paraphrasing of a judicial opinion when you can challenge the opinion itself?

So it's 83 pages. If you're in this forum and, in this thread, I'm assuming you're intellectually curious enough to want more detail and not less.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Everything is racist!!!!

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Listen, the exact changes don't really matter unless your goal is to challenge whether or not the court reached the wrong legal conclusion.

If that's the direction that you're heading then you're better off going straight to the legal opinion itself instead of 2nd and 3rd hand sources. Why argue over Slate's paraphrasing of a judicial opinion when you can challenge the opinion itself?

So it's 83 pages. If you're in this forum and, in this thread, I'm assuming you're intellectually curious enough to want more detail and not less.

Dude, no one is going to read 83 pages to respond to a sherdog post, you must know this.

Just find a different article that actually contains information.

Your currently linked article just basically assumes people are going to take their word for it.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

It's something that comes up semi-regularly - people wondering if institutionalized racism is a real thing. They recognize that they're not racist and their friends aren't racist so how could an entire institution be racist?

In short: North Carolina enacted a host of voting changes that were designed specifically to suppress the black vote. They were just overturned this past week.

In long: Following the reduction in federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act, the legislators in North Carolina requested a complex breakdown of voter habits. They wanted to view habits based on age, race, party, economics, etc. Then they voted into effect 5 changes that specifically impacted the way black people in the state voted. They didn't vote in any changes that affected other voting blocs, whether by economics or age or even by party.

Yet -



Now while the new laws have been overturned, their existence speaks to the larger point about institutional racism. The NC legislature passed laws that specifically targeted and harmed the ability of blacks in the state to exercise their right to vote. Nothing says the those people were racist but the intent and effect of their legislative choices was crafted with a discriminatory goal in mind.

That the 21st century finds states still trying to pass discriminatory laws should make us think more deeply about the laws that were passed when outright discrimination and racism were acceptable. Those laws, absent facially discriminatory language, were passed with the same discriminatory goal - to restrict the economic or political gains of the black population. And given the climate of the times, those laws were also less likely to face legal challenge. That means those laws could still be on the books today.

This case should serve as a guide post for how institutional racism is crafted and how it can continue to exist long after outright racism has seen a steep decline.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84702
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._down_north_carolina_voting_restrictions.html

If anyone wants to read the 83 page opinion: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

So yes, when you are asked about institutional racism you have zero fucking proof. Got it.

When I think about institutional racism I think about black only scholarships.
I think about Bill Clinton telling banks to loan to minorities at sub prime with shit credit.
I think about Harvard giving bonus points to the SAT scores of blacks and taking away points from asians.

I think about the real-----verifiable facts.
You like to FEEL about shit with no proof.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

There were two stories here this year alone thst depicted two police forces employing racism as their go to policy.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Also wouldn't the conviction rates of drug abusers also be systemic racism.

 

[Hans Gruber]

It's something that comes up semi-regularly - people wondering if institutionalized racism is a real thing. They recognize that they're not racist and their friends aren't racist so how could an entire institution be racist?

In short: North Carolina enacted a host of voting changes that were designed specifically to suppress the black vote. They were just overturned this past week.

In long: Following the reduction in federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act, the legislators in North Carolina requested a complex breakdown of voter habits. They wanted to view habits based on age, race, party, economics, etc. Then they voted into effect 5 changes that specifically impacted the way black people in the state voted. They didn't vote in any changes that affected other voting blocs, whether by economics or age or even by party.

Yet -



Now while the new laws have been overturned, their existence speaks to the larger point about institutional racism. The NC legislature passed laws that specifically targeted and harmed the ability of blacks in the state to exercise their right to vote. Nothing says the those people were racist but the intent and effect of their legislative choices was crafted with a discriminatory goal in mind.

That the 21st century finds states still trying to pass discriminatory laws should make us think more deeply about the laws that were passed when outright discrimination and racism were acceptable. Those laws, absent facially discriminatory language, were passed with the same discriminatory goal - to restrict the economic or political gains of the black population. And given the climate of the times, those laws were also less likely to face legal challenge. That means those laws could still be on the books today.

This case should serve as a guide post for how institutional racism is crafted and how it can continue to exist long after outright racism has seen a steep decline.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=84702
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._down_north_carolina_voting_restrictions.html

If anyone wants to read the 83 page opinion: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

I don't want anyone's vote suppressed but requiring an ID like a driver's license or state ID is not racism.

Without proper identification the chances of voter fraud increase.

Voting should be protected as a sacred right for all. Why are we willing to encourage voter fraud by not requiring ID?

Dead people vote. Voters are bused in. Votes need to be protected

I'm sorry...but if requiring an ID deters people form voting then they don't care enough about voting

 

[spin]

So far I've read elimated alternate ids, a week of early voting, elimating same day registration, out of precinct voting, and under 18 preregistration.


'If it ain't broke, dont fix it'

None of these was a problem that needed fixing. So what's the basis?

It's completely suspect.

 

[IndyCovaHart]

I don't even see how requiring an ID is racist in the first place.

 

[spin]

I don't even see how requiring an ID is racist in the first place.

Good thing that's not the issue.

They eliminated alternate to dmv issued ids, which were previously allowed.

Thus far I haven't gotten to the reasoning, the problem it was fixing

 

[RIPWarrior]

Correct me if I'm wrong but those black people can still vote right? Why are they voting so differently to begin with and are there other races that are also voting like the way black are people in the state?

 

[TheFirstEMP]

And apparently it only exists in white countries. What a coincidence!

 

[Kneepocalypse]

I don't want anyone's vote suppressed but requiring an ID like a driver's license or state ID is not racism.

Without proper identification the chances of voter fraud increase.

That's true but researching voting behavior based on race and then using that information to add voting criteria that is specifically meant to reduce one race's voting presence? That sounds like a different story.

 

[Hans Gruber]

That's true but researching voting behavior based on race and then using that information to add voting criteria that is specifically meant to reduce one race's voting presence? That sounds like a different story.

So what? Should we start selling guns to people and not ask for ID because black people are less likely to go get identification?

Asking for an ID when selling a gun is racist now too?

If an individual doesn't care enough about voting to get a simple ID then that is on that particular individual.