When people ask for examples of institutional racism...

[FrankensteinMMA]

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.

yeah but what if there are biscuits in the end?

whos the first sherdoggie thats gonna read 83pgs. to find out?

 

[nostradumbass]

More bullshit. Because you're assuming that everyone is equally inconvenienced by the restrictions on voting. But that isn't the case. For example, many of the people going to those black churches are elderly black women. Many of them do not drive and they live in rural areas with shitty public transportation. Voting on Sunday when they can get on the church provided van might be the ONLY opportunity they have to vote. Another example, North Carolina doesn't have a voting leave law meaning an employer isn't required to give employees time off to vote. Many people work jobs where taking time off during a Tuesday is simply not possible and their employers are not required to accommodate them. These aren't issues of motivation.

You're kidding, right? You think THAT is an example of racism? Black unemployment is twice as high as white unemployment in NC, so if anything, that is a suppression of white votes.

 

[Fedorable]

Which ID was not allowed anymore?

 

[nixkid]

You're kidding, right? You think THAT is an example of racism? Black unemployment is twice as high as white unemployment in NC, so if anything, that is a suppression of white votes.

No. I don't think that is an example of racism and never said it was. I was responding to your assertion that restrictive voting laws only impact the unmotivated.

 

[wlu29]

If we were talking about Canada, Australia, Europe then it would matter. But we're talking about the U.S. We have rules that say voting should be as easy as possible. Making things more difficult without a very good reason is generally not an acceptable course of action.

Is it easy to get a specific type of ID? Doesn't matter.

What matters in the U.S. is it's difficult for anyone and if so how difficult. That it's easy for 95% of the population doesn't outweigh if it's difficult for 5%. That's how we view these things. Other parts of the world can do it differently.

Someone once presented the simple solution to the problem: If you want them to have a specific ID...just mail it to them every year before election season. They get the ID without having to do anything and then there's no excuse for not having it come voting day.

Talk about forest for the trees

 

[mtron929]

Also, if this is the case that one should refer to when it comes to institutional racism in the US, then it is a weak sauce example. Basically, it kind of sucks but the intention was more of a power play by the Republicans to reduce the Democrat voters and blacks happen be victims in a very subtle manner here. I am not sure if the African-American community themselves would want this to be the go-to-example to demonstrate that America is still a racist country.

 

[nixkid]

Also, if this is the case that one should refer to when it comes to institutional racism in the US, then it is a weak sauce example. Basically, it kind of sucks but the intention was more of a power play by the Republicans to reduce the Democrat voters and blacks happen be victims in a very subtle manner here. I am not sure if the African-American community themselves would want this to be the go-to-example to demonstrate that America is still a racist country.

What exactly do you think Jim Crow era voting laws were about? It was all about political power and propping up the Democratic party. There were literally counties in the South that had black majorities but had all White elected Democratic officials. Had the black majority not been subjected to the restrictive voting laws of the time (none of which explicitly said "Blacks cannot vote because we hate black people") then this wouldn't have been the case.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

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

That's not institutional racism, not even close, IMHO. That's one political party trying to win. They will attempt to suppress other voting blocs as well.

 

[nostradumbass]

No. I don't think that is an example of racism and never said it was. I was responding to your assertion that restrictive voting laws only impact the unmotivated.

And inadvertently, you made a point that indicates white voter suppression.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I already named the drug laws and conviction rates to show at least some bias towards one race over the other.

 

[nixkid]

And inadvertently, you made a point that indicates white voter suppression.

No, I didn't. Plenty of working people in North Carolina vote on election day. Only people in particular types of jobs -- usually low wage, hourly jobs that are more likely to be held by blacks (which doesn't mean that whites aren't affected at all, BTW). If anything, you could say its poor voter suppression.

 

[panamaican]

That's not institutional racism, not even close, IMHO. That's one political party trying to win. They will attempt to suppress other voting blocs as well.

One political party trying to win by legislating changes to voting that would disproportionately affect a group based on race is the textbook definition of institutional racism. Note that they didn't find that anyone in the political party was racist, only that the legislation itself was.

Maybe they'll attempt to suppress other voting blocs too but they haven't so far.

I'm curious...what is your definition of "institutional racism"? I don't need an example but if you have one, I'd appreciate reading it as well.

 

[panamaican]

Talk about forest for the trees

Admittedly, I don't understand the comment.

 

[mtron929]

One political party trying to win by legislating changes to voting that would disproportionately affect a group based on race is the textbook definition of institutional racism. Note that they didn't find that anyone in the political party was racist, only that the legislation itself was.

Maybe they'll attempt to suppress other voting blocs too but they haven't so far.

I'm curious...what is your definition of "institutional racism"? I don't need an example but if you have one, I'd appreciate reading it as well.

I guess one example is where race is used as not as secondary factor but as a primary factor/reason for discrimination. For example, if blacks were denied admissions to schools despite having similar scores/credentials compared to other races, I would call this an example of institutional racism.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

One political party trying to win by legislating changes to voting that would disproportionately affect a group based on race is the textbook definition of institutional racism. Note that they didn't find that anyone in the political party was racist, only that the legislation itself was.

Maybe they'll attempt to suppress other voting blocs too but they haven't so far.

I'm curious...what is your definition of "institutional racism"? I don't need an example but if you have one, I'd appreciate reading it as well.

Racism implies a motive. Your suggestion is that their vote is being suppressed because they are black, and i'm saying they are being suppressed because of how the "black voting bloc" typically votes.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

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

And if this was truly the case and not some stupid shit being spewed, this would be actual news and they would have been sued to fuck and back.

I don't think you understand racism vs statistics.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

And if this was truly the case and not some stupid shit being spewed, this would be actual news and they would have been sued to fuck and back.

I don't think you understand racism vs statistics.

They were.

One police station was in Florida the other was Ohio or Idaho if I'm not mistaken.

If I remember correctly they were being investigated by the FBI and both were found guilty in their actions.

 

[panamaican]

I get the concept and agree with the implications that follows. But in order to consistently reference and base positions on it, saying its still a major problem today, well you need to be able to provide more than the occasional example IMO.

And examples that "disproportionally effect" are hard to establish. This one seems direct and clear cut given the race based research they conducted. But generally speaking those type of examples are really tough to argue and isn't going to move the needle very much.

You don't need more than occasional examples since the historical record is replete with examples.

This wasn't an example of "discriminatory effect", it was based on "discriminatory intent". We don't have actual discriminatory effect because the law was overturned shortly after being enacted. If it had gone unchallenged then 25 years from now, the "effect" would have been consistent lower black voter turnout but that wouldn't have shown up until after decades of disenfranchisement.

And the point of this clear cut example is to help illustrate how the process works and then people can understand how it would have worked in an era where such intent was acceptable. The effects of a law passed with "discriminatory intent" wouldn't show up in force until decades later, like now or in the 80's and 90's. But because the legislators themselves are often long gone from office, those effects are often disregarded as the result of the population's choices, when the effects are actually the result of the legislative intent.

So, for those who cannot envision how there could still be institutional racism today, this should help them understand that the laws that underlay the argument for institutional racism are not laws drafted and enacted within the last 30 years. They're laws enacted 50+ years ago with "discriminatory intent" but were never challenged at the time of enactment. The effects have gone on for decades while the intent itself (and the legislators) disappeared into history.

 

[panamaican]

I guess one example is where race is used as not as secondary factor but as a primary factor/reason for discrimination. For example, if blacks were denied admissions to schools despite having similar scores/credentials compared to other races, I would call this an example of institutional racism.

But that's only one form of institutional racism, the most obvious form, where race is written into the law.

The more subtle form is the most pernicious. It's where the law doesn't mention language but was enacted to achieve the same purpose.

To use your example: The subtle way to achieve your above outcome would be to find which state zip codes are predominantly black. Then write education funding laws that reduce funding to those areas by some percentage, maybe by creating a new distribution formula. On the surface, a math formula couldn't be racist. But if it was created so that those areas ended up with less money then the effect would show up in the academic outcomes of those zip codes over time.

My way would take longer than yours but fewer people would challenge it. 5 years from now, everyone would say "You can't treat blacks that way." Almost no one would say "You can't use math that way." Your law would get overturned, my law would keep going.

 

[panamaican]

Racism implies a motive. Your suggestion is that their vote is being suppressed because they are black, and i'm saying they are being suppressed because of how the "black voting bloc" typically votes.

A distinction without a difference. Discriminating against people because of how they vote is still discriminating against them. If the motive is to break the black voting bloc...it's because they're black and vote a certain way. Their race is part of the motive.