How Governments and Individuals - Meaning Each of Us - Deny the Persistence of Racism and Abuse

@RHRealityCheck

When you work on human rights issues, you notice a certain pattern in government denial of abuse. First line of defense: it didn’t happen. Or if it happened, they did it to themselves. Or if they didn’t, we certainly had nothing to do with it. Or if we did, we didn’t mean to. It doesn’t matter if the issue is torture, forced evictions, or garden-variety employment discrimination. The response from those in charge is often, if not always, the same.

Though this pattern is annoying, to say the least, I have lately become acutely aware of a much more depressing trend: the denial of abuse among those of us who should know better. Of course, we don’t call it denial. We call it "realism." But the mechanism is the same.

1. “It didn’t happen.”

For decades, commentators and a large proportion of the US public have posited that racism no longer exists. Despite the fact that skin color and ethnicity matters with regard to just about any social indicator you care to look at — health, education, employment, housing, law enforcement — most white people believe the system we live in is racially just.

The writer Touré has described this situation as a “fog of racism:” a situation so subtle, it is blurred. “With this form of racism,” he says, “there is no smoking gun. There is no one calling you a nigger to your face. There's no sign saying you can't enter this building. ... But … it’s there.”  

This is not much different from the many people who are genuinely puzzled at the need for continued attention to women’s issues in the United States now that “the genders are equal.” I hear this argument almost daily, despite ample evidence to the contrary, including the continued pay gap and the vicious attack on reproductive rights for women and not men.   

2. “They did it to themselves.”

Blaming the victim is par for the course in rape cases, a context in which it (rightfully) is denounced by women’s groups as sexist, discriminatory, and just plain wrong. But it is also common for individuals who identify sexual or racial discrimination to be called silly, overly sensitive, or even vindictive. 

When I firmly told off a male colleague at a former employer for caressing my waist, a female colleague immediately and loudly concluded that I “must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.” 

And I can’t count the times I have been told that “black people are racist too,” as a manner to excuse racial discrimination. In sociology and social psychology, this phenomenon is called internalized oppression, that is the manner in which an oppressed group comes to use against itself the methods of the oppressor. More commonly, it is expressed as a desire to maintain the dignity of the group: we may suffer, but we don’t complain or sulk. 

3. “We had nothing to do with it.”

Most people don’t like to think of themselves or the people they know as bigots. This is natural and reasonable. It is hard to remain sane if you believe your actions are consistently insensitive or morally wrong. This, however, is not the same as noticing and addressing injustice — especially injustice that we, ourselves, are benefitting from. 

For example, I cannot in good conscience say that I have nothing to do with racism (or sexism, or hetero-centrism, or…) when I know that I benefit daily from a system that overwhelmingly recognizes my humanity and rights because of my Northern passport, fair skin, perceived heterosexuality, motherhood, and Judeo-Christian background (I could go on). Unlike my Peruvian ex-husband, I don’t have to think about what I wear when I travel in order to avoid additional hassles at airport security. And unlike those of my female friends who are non-gender-conforming and childless, I don’t have to defend my worth as a woman.  

4. “We didn’t mean to.”

When all other justifications have failed, the usual fall-back for governments who violate human rights is lack of intent: we may indeed have tortured a couple of prisoners, but it was unknowingly done and therefore, it is implied, of limited importance. 

This excuse is hardly ever used as a denial strategy for continued and entrenched racial, sexual, and other discrimination in the United States. And not because we recognize our responsibility in the stereotypes we perpetuate. But rather because we don’t. In fact, as shown above, we routinely deny the very existence of discrimination.

I am not advocating a collective guilt complex, or, worse, some sort of warped paternalistic pity-fest in which those of privileged background pound our chests in earnest distress and bemoan the supposedly pathetic lives of those considered beneath us. I am, however, advocating a reckoning that allows us to confront those stereotypes that result in the abuse of human rights. Even, and especially, when this means that some of us must give up our special privileges.

And here’s why: I know I am benefiting from many of the stereotypes that prevail in the country I have chosen to live in. I also know I am complicit in the resulting discrimination to the extent that I don’t challenge it.

Crime and Obesity: Let's Get to the Heart of the Problems

@RHRealityCheck

There is something deceptively simple about New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s blanket initiatives. Whether it is giving the police unfettered discretion to stop and frisk anyone they think might look like a potential criminal because “it saves lives,” or banning the sale of large-container sodas because, well, that saves lives too, the initiatives promise easy fixes to complex problems.

They are, however, based on a blindness to prejudice that is compelling precisely because it is wrong.

In short, Mayor Bloomberg’s initiatives purport to be color- and class-blind. If the stop-and-frisk program affects mostly men of color, Bloomberg argues, this is purely coincidental. And if most of New York City’s overweight population lives in the poorest boroughs, that is also just by chance. Maybe, this line of argument implies, it is just that men of color and the resource-poor make appallingly bad decisions about their lives and health.

Incidentally, I am not arguing that our definitions of what should be subject to punitive measures and what constitutes a “normal” weight are perfect or even always good. The point I am making is about policy effectiveness. And in that sense, even a cursory look at correctional and obesity statistics in the United States reveals deep-seated disparities which knee-jerk reactions — in particular those that blatantly ignore color and class —cannot fix.

For example, 87 percent of those stopped and frisked in New York City in 2011 were either black or Latino and mostly male, even though drug possession and use — the ostensible reason for most stops — is equally prevalent among whites. And on health, compare the pricing of a Happy Meal and a pound of organic locally grown apples and you might have an idea of why the poor constitute the majority of the nation’s obese, and why many of them, at the same time, are malnourished.

Here’s a hint: It’s not because we don’t know better. 

Obesity, like being caught in the criminal justice system, is a condition disproportionately suffered by the poor and the relatively powerless. And it is self-perpetuating. Extra padding, much like a criminal record, is easier to acquire than to shed.

To articulate these truths is not to say that overweight individuals and those in conflict with the law are immoral, stupid, or devoid of agency and responsibility. It is not even to say that the decisions that led to the obesity and punishable behavior necessarily all are bad.

It is simply to acknowledge that all of us make decisions within our specific constraints, and that policy initiatives that seek to influence these decisions must look for ways to eliminate the constraints.

In the current case, our approach to crime and weight is better understood as wilfully ignored discrimination. The Supreme Court has pretty much systematically sidestepped and ignored racial profiling in the criminal justice system, resulting in continued discriminatory outcomes. And though discrimination against overweight individuals is prevalent in the workforce — in particular when it comes to obese women — only the state of Michigan and six cities ban this type of discrimination directly. This creates a vicious cycle of discrimination which perpetuates existing class and color disparities — a reality that policy initiatives to end both crime and obesity will have to contend with to be effective.

So why do politicians push for color- and class-blind initiatives? A key reason is that solutions to discrimination are more complex (and thus harder to sell to the public) than those which punish individual choice.

Take public school lunch. Many children depend on public schools almost entirely for their culinary development.  In New York City, for example, 62 percent of all children qualify for free school lunch, and many who don’t qualify still eat both breakfast and lunch at school. As a result, if food at school is overly fatty, salty, or sweet, this is what our children’s palates become accustomed to. The federal government has issued new guidelines to address this issue, but cooking healthier food in school cafeterias requires time, and time requires better benefits and higher salaries for cafeteria workers. Meanwhile, schools blame parents for not contributing, and increased money for school lunches is not high on the political agenda.

My point is: It should be.

Instead of spending money on policing serving sizes for sodas at the gas station, New York City Hall would do well to help instil healthy eating habits in children in the first place. And focusing on effective anti-obesity measures will probably save more lives than any amount of stopping and frisking. After all, heart disease has been the leading cause of death in New York City for at least the past decade.

Either way, there is no excuse for the discrimination that is inherent in current approaches to both crime and weight.

Are All Blacks Prejudiced Against All Gays? Beyond the Static View of Race, Sexual Orientation, and Otherness

@RHRealitycheck

President Obama’s support for marriage equality came just one day after North Carolina voters banned same-sex marriage. Twitter storms followed each development, in which tweeters first declared that black people were homophobic as a group, then just as sweepingly that they were not. Somehow, the North Carolina defeat for marriage equality was seen as proof that all blacks hate all gays, whereas President Obama’s support was proof of the opposite.

This overgeneralization is somewhat similar to some of the commentary in the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. We heard that “black violence” was somehow worse and more endemic than violence committed by non-black perpetrators. This idea was also the organizing principle behind the blog-post that got John Derbyshire fired from the National Review for advising his children to avoid contact with black people who are, Derbyshire argued, statistically more likely to be arbitrarily violent, especially toward whites.

It is not hard to see the racist undertones of all of these arguments, down to the very notion that everyone of a certain “race” has personal character traits that are inescapably and intrinsically linked to their skin color. It is also not hard to find information to disprove them: many blacks in North Carolina opposed the constitutional same-sex marriage ban.   And Justice Department statistics show that most violence is carried out within racial homogeneous communities, so that, for example, black-on-white homicides are a rare exception rather than the rule.

There are, of course, good reasons to pool and parse statistical information about any population using group criteria that may illustrate unequal policy outcomes for individuals associated with those groups. In fact, we expect governments to collect and separate statistics with a view to analysing policy effectiveness and equal access to benefits, rights, and care. Generalizations about groups can also be helpful in visualizing the underlying reasons for inequality and devising strategies to overcome it.

However, problems arise when our only understanding and interactions with specific people result in our treating them as part of a group and not as individuals. Whatever else may be true about George Zimmerman’s interaction with Trayvon Martin, it is clear from his phone comments to the police dispatcher that he had preconceived notions about Martin’s "dangerousness" even before he got out of the car — preconceptions that therefore only could be based on Martin’s appearance, including his sex, age, color, and apparel, and most likely the combination of all of them.

The corollary of this notion is that one way to overcome racism and homophobia and other “group-isms” is for people to relate to each other as individuals. While it is true that some people are able to reconcile a generalized negative feeling about certain groups (“all blacks are violent”) while nurturing positive sentiments about individuals from that group (“some of my best friends are black”), it is also true that most people start seeing a group differently when they know and love someone who belongs to it. A generally homophobic parent with a gay child may not feel compelled to campaign for marriage equality any more than they did before their child was “out.” However, most will at least start questioning negative portrayals of “all gays” in the media. This is why Derbyshire’s advice to his children to actively avoid contact with blacks is so insidious: it pushes a false notion of otherness that is purposefully static.

Even more serious problems arise when policies that should be informed by data and statistics instead are influenced by such Derbyshire-style perceptions of static and false otherness. The racial profiling of stop-and-frisk practices is one blatant example. Along those lines, Michelle Alexander has amassed examples of situations where police departments target predominantly black communities for aggressive interventions and arrests for drug-related crimes, even where data shows that in that specific state or city, the main users or sellers of drugs are not black. Many of the arguments voiced against marriage equality are equally based on false ideas that all gay people are promiscuous, sexually predatory, or bad parents.

And perhaps this is where the real issue lies. It is almost instinctual for us to organize information about the world around us based on visual cues and personal experiences. And it is equally human to use these cues and experiences to generate assumptions about what might happen and what we should do about it. It is when we confuse trends or, worse, preconceptions with reality that abuse, inequality, and discrimination can take hold.

More disturbingly, negative generalizations about what everyone in a given group wants, thinks, and does help to justify those who actually do. When we portray all black people as homophobic we exonerate individuals of color who feel prejudiced against gays. They are not responsible for their beliefs—their skin color made them do it.

I would not wish to be called homophobic just because quite of lot of individuals who happen to be white make anti-gay remarks. Even less would I want these individuals to be able to brush off their anti-gay sentiments as a natural part of their “whiteness.” Prejudice is prejudice, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes. Respect dictates we treat it as such.

Sensationalizing Drug Use in Pregnant Women: How the Media Perpetuates Racist and Ineffective Policies

@RHRealitycheck

Well before anyone could be certain of how Whitney Houston died, several news outlets rushed to describe her as a “crack cocaine user.” And in all likelihood many will think of the popular singer as succumbing to illegal drugs, even if alcohol eventually is found to be more closely related to her demise.

This is not all that different from how the media deals with infant and child health.

Regardless of the actual causes behind low birth weight, infant mortality, and early childhood health issues, media reports are sure to blame the “crack baby syndrome” or, more recently, women’s abuse of prescription pain killers.

This kneejerk reaction is unhelpful for a number of reasons.

First of all, a pregnant woman’s use of illicit drugs is neither the only nor the most damaging pregnancy phenomenon from the point of view of infant health.

Take, for example, legal drugs, such as alcohol and cigarettes. Peer reviewed research shows that over-consumption of alcohol can cause fetal alcohol syndrome (linked with permanent mental retardation), whereas cocaine seems to act only as one contributing factor in some pregnancies to increase non-permanent risk factors such as low birth weight. Approximately twice as many pregnant women drink alcohol frequently as use illicit drugs frequently during their pregnancies.

Epidemiological research published in the mid 1990s shows that the use of tobacco products in the United States at the time was responsible, each year, for tens of thousands of tobacco-induced miscarriages, infants born with low birth weight, infants who require admission to neonatal intensive care units, as well as an estimated 1900 to 4800 infant deaths. Though smoking has gone down over the past decades, around 17 percent of adult women in the United States still smoke, and generally continue to smoke during their pregnancies.

Even drugs administered to women who are in fertility treatment have been associated with low birth weight and premature birth.

Or let’s set aside drugs altogether. Malnutrition in pregnant women is one of the main causes of low birth weight and infant mortality worldwide. In this sense, it is worth noting that food insecurity and hunger has grown steadily in the United States since the start of the latest financial crisis in 2008. (Food insecurity exists whenever the availability of nutritionally-adequate and safe foods or the ability to acquire foods is limited or uncertain). According to the latest figures, about 17.2 million households in the United States suffered food insecurity in 2010, the highest number ever registered. Yet the government’s food stamp program is increasingly under attack by pundits and politicians.

Secondly, even a superficial read of arrest and prosecution figures for drug use during pregnancy reveal such a severe race and class bias that the very legitimacy of the approach must be questioned.

Since 1985, 80 percent of the more than 200 pregnant women or new mothers in over 20 states who have been arrested and charged with crimes related to substance use during pregnancy were black or Latina. In 2000, research in Pinellas County in Florida found that while white women and women of color used illegal drugs at comparable rates, black women were 10 times more likely than white women to be reported for child abuse related to substance use during pregnancy. That same year, data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse showed that while black women had a higher overall rate of illicit drug use than white women, most women who use illegal drugs during pregnancy were white. Even so, 41 of the 42 women arrested in South Carolina under a mandatory drug testing program were black. (The program was suspended in the mid-1990s because of allegations of racial discrimination).

Meanwhile, research published in 2006 shows that newborns with white mothers are much more at risk of alcohol and tobacco exposure than newborns with black or Latina mothers.

Moreover, in many cases women with private health insurance are not mandatorily tested for illicit drug use during pregnancy. In this sense, poverty itself is what singles a pregnant woman out for persecution. It is no coincidence that the main focus for drug prosecutions for pregnant women in the United States is crack cocaine, a drug almost exclusively used by the resource-poor. As Whitney Houston herself famously said in an interview in 2002: “I make too much money to ever smoke crack.”

The point here is not that pregnant women should use cocaine, or that the government—and society as a whole—does not have a legitimate interest in ensuring infant and child health.

The point is that the prosecution of drug use in pregnant women does nothing to fulfill a legitimate policy goal and in fact seems to be racially motivated—at least in the implementation—rather than spurred by a concern for children.

In fact, if the objective is to improve infant and child health, efforts to overcome poor nutrition, alcohol addiction, lack of adequate health care, physical abuse, and/or homelessness would make for much better investments. Sadly, such policies don’t make for as sensational news.

Race, Class and Justice in the U.S. Legal System: Still A Long Way From the Promised Land

@RHRealityCheck

I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

This week, a Belgian tourist said he believed he had been cut some slack by the New York City police mainly because he was white. (The tourist had been detained for what turned out to be a fictitious crime but was released before this was fully settled). Indeed, even a perfunctory look at US criminal justice figures reveals that something is not quite right.

For starters, perceptions play a large role in who gets suspected of crime and arrested in the first place. A 2009 study using FBI figures found that while whites and blacks engage in drug-related offenses at similar rates, blacks were three to six times more likely to be arrested on drug-related charges between 1980 and 2007.

For women victims of violence, police perceptions are equally detrimental to justice efforts. Research shows that the proportion of fake rape complaints is similar to the proportion of other fake crime complaints: three to eight percent of total complaints filed. But police officers are much more likely to mistrust an alleged rape victim than they are to mistrust other victims, particularly if the woman is a sex worker, an injection drug user, or was intoxicated during or before the assault.

And it is not just the police that base their work on perceptions. Personal experience from any frequent traveller will confirm that racial profiling in airport security is real. When I travelled with my Peruvian (now ex) husband, we were often appalled at the difference in treatment. One time, as a customs officer was just about to look through my husband’s bags for the third time that trip, he realized I was there too. “Oh, he is with you,” the officer said, waiving my husband on as if his being accompanied by a white European woman were an ironclad guarantee that he (and I) were innocent of whatever they thought he might have done.

Another issue is who dispenses justice. Studies from the United States have confirmed that racial minorities are significantly underrepresented at all levels of the legal profession, including as prosecutors and judges. There is also evidence to suggest that prosecutors in some cases use their peremptory challenges to preserve all-white juries in cases involving African American or Hispanic defendants.

Of course, race should not matter in jury composition: whites, blacks, Hispanics, and anyone else are equally each other’s peers and suggesting otherwise might be seen as playing into the racist undertones of the US criminal justice experience. However, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a certain racial imbalance in sentencing and judgement is foreseeable given the tremendous racial imbalance of the justice system in the first place, especially since human beings are biologically programmed to trust those who look most like ourselves (and mistrust those who don’t).

But sentencing might be racially-biased for another reason too. Whereas police sometimes employ too much discretion in deciding what cases are investigated and pursued, judges and juries at times find their hands tied with regard to how to mete out punishment. Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws related to powder or crack-cocaine offenses, for example, have been identified as a key culprit in soaring incarceration rates for African American men and women alike.

And it is indeed with regard to who goes to jail that the United States really stands out. The incarceration rate in the United States is not only four times larger than the global average. In addition, the prison population is highly skewed towards Hispanic and black men. Even in white-majority cities, black and Hispanic men are much more likely to be held accountable for crime than whites.

Perhaps none of this is new or surprising. What is interesting, though, is that the same Belgian tourist could have made analogous assumptions had he been arrested and detained in most countries in Western Europe. In fact, the prison population is rarely representative of the population as a whole. In the United Kingdom—the country with the highest incarceration rate in Western Europe—individuals who used to be in the armed forces are overrepresented in prisons. In France, non-governmental organizations suggest that at least half of those incarcerated near urban centers are Muslim, though only seven to eight percent of the French population adhere to that faith.

Of course black, Hispanic, and Muslim men who have served in the armed forces aren’t inherently more criminal than the rest of the population. I think the real question is whether the problem is discretion in dispensing justice—too much in some respects and too little in others. And I think it is time for change.