Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » race, justice, and survey methodology (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: race, justice, and survey methodology
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting discussion of a number of studies racism and justice, I'll provide the summary for each section, go to the site for details.

quote:
Summary: There is good data that police stop blacks more often, both on the road and in neighborhoods. Studies conflict over whether the extra stops are justifiable; likely this varies by jurisdiction. Extra neighborhood stops are most likely neighborhood-related effects rather than race-related per se, but the neighborhood effects do disproportionately target black people.

Summary: Arrests for violent crimes are probably not racially biased.

Summary: Blacks appear to be arrested for drug use at a rate four times that of whites. Adjusting for known confounds reduces their rate to twice that of whites. However, other theorized confounders could mean that the real relative risk is anywhere between two and parity. Never trust the media to give you any number more complicated than today’s date.

Summary: New York City data suggests no bias of officers towards shooting black suspects compared with their representation among dangerous police encounters, and if anything the reverse effect. Data from Memphis in 1970 suggests a strong bias towards shooting black suspects, probably because they shoot fleeing suspects in addition to potentially dangerous suspects, but this practice has since stopped. Older national data skews more toward the New York City side with little evidence of racial bias, but I don’t know of any recent studies which have compared the race of shooting victims to the race of dangerous attackers on a national level. There is no support for the contention that white officers are more likely than officers of other races to shoot black suspects.

Summary: Prosecution and conviction rates favor blacks over whites, significance unclear.

Summary: Most recent studies suggest a racial sentencing disparity of about 15%, contradicting previous studies that showed lower or no disparity. Changes in sentencing guidelines are one possible explanation; poorly understood methodological differences are a second. Capital punishment still sucks.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A most interesting read - thank you LR!
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where does this leave us in terms of the topic of racism in America? It's been my contention in other threads that incidents in police interactions with citizens have more to do with how police departments are run than with the race of the people involved in the incident. I've seen tons of reports of no-knock raids on people of various races, as well as extreme unwarranted force used on people of various races; and I could toss in the prevalent practice of shooting dogs on private property. Upon inspection it seems to me that the thin blue line is more of an impediment in law enforcement being respected than any other factor.

That being said racism in America may be a real issue in how people are treated in non-police situations, or maybe even involving police but in 'unofficial' interaction like passing remarks and so forth. There is also the issue of hiring practices, pay, and so forth.

The article does leave room for doubt in the drug department, and regardless I'm confident that there is real racism in America in respect to the War on Drugs.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love this:

quote:
Once you do a multiple regression controlling for other factors, like previous record, income, area stopped, et cetera, half of that difference goes away, leaving an unexplained relative risk of 1.5x.
Effectively "Once you discount easily identifiable systemic racism, half the difference goes away"

Black people are disproportionately stuck in high crime areas? Let's factor that out. Black people are disproportionately low income? Let's factor that out. Black people are disproportionately likely to have prior arrests on their record? Let's factor that out.

Evidence of a lack of systemic inequity would lie in none of those factors making a difference.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm glad to see that he does finally get there in the end:
quote:
It would be nice to say that this shows the criminal justice system is not disproportionately harming blacks, but unfortunately it doesn’t come anywhere close to showing anything of the sort. There are still many ways it can indirectly harm blacks without being explicitly racist. Anatole France famously said that “the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich as well as poor people from begging for bread and sleeping under bridges”, and in the same way that the laws France cites, be they enforced ever so fairly, would still disproportionately target poor people, so other laws can, even when fairly enforced, target black people. The classic example of this is crack cocaine – a predominantly black drug – carrying a higher sentence than other whiter drugs. Even if the police are scrupulously fair in giving the same sentence to black and white cokeheads, the law will still have a disproportionate effect.

There are also entire classes of laws that are much easier on rich people than poor people – for example, any you can get out of by having a good lawyer – and entire classes of police work that are harsher on poor neighborhoods than rich neighborhoods. If the average black is poorer than the average white, then these laws would have disproportionate racial effects.

For more information on this, I would recommend Tonry and Melewski’s Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. They begin by saying everything above is true – the system mostly avoids direct racist bias against black people – and go on to say argue quite consistently that we still have a system where (their words) “recent punishment policies have replaced the urban ghetto, Jim Crow laws, and slavery as a mechanism for maintaining white dominance over blacks in the United States”. If you want something that makes the strongest case for the justice system harming blacks, written by real criminologists who know what they’re talking about, there’s your best bet.

But it's a bit frustrating that he devoted such a small fraction of the article to the actual problems and a huge portion to justifying the biases that the problems give rise to, effectively creating more material by which to support the idea that blacks must simply be more naturally inclined to crime instead of making it clear that the situation is a self feeding cycle resulting from inequity.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

he wasn't justifying biases. If police patrol in high crime areas, and poor neighborhoods have higher crime, and more blacks live in poor neighborhoods - it is not systemic racism.

African Americans aren't 'more inclined to crime' - African Americans are on average poorer, and the poor are more likely to commit crimes. It is an SES problem not a race problem. When you try to address SES problems through a lens of race, you don't accomplish anything.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If police patrol in high crime areas, and poor neighborhoods have higher crime, and more blacks live in poor neighborhoods - it is not systemic racism.
Except for the racism that caused black neighborhoods to tend to be poor, you mean.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It wasn't racism that causes black neighborhoods to tend to be poor. It is predominantly network effects - poor people know poor people and thus their opportunities in life are poor.

If you mean it was racism that resulted in blacks being enslaved in the first place, and thus being poor when enslavement ended - sure but that isn't really relevant to the discussion or problem.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
African Americans aren't 'more inclined to crime' - African Americans are on average poorer, and the poor are more likely to commit crimes. It is an SES problem not a race problem. When you try to address SES problems through a lens of race, you don't accomplish anything.

So you think black people are just naturally poorer than white people then? You're asserting the the wealth disparity along racial lines is a natural state and doesn't represent an inequity unto itself?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
It wasn't racism that causes black neighborhoods to tend to be poor. It is predominantly network effects - poor people know poor people and thus their opportunities in life are poor.


Look up redlining, urban flight and similar practices that create such neighborhoods before making such a demonstrably false assertion.

But that's not even getting to the larger point that such disproportion is racism unto itself. That's how racism work- an inequity that exists along racial lines perpetuates itself. I think you're trying to say that it's not the result of active bigotry in the present; which is completely irrelevant. Bigotry isn't the problem here, racism - oppressive biases and inequities that exist along racial lines - is.

And you pretty much pointed to exactly why simply addressing poverty isn't enough. Systems that attack poverty will most help those with families and networks that connect to wealth and experience, but they won't magically create them for groups that lack access to them along racial lines.

You have to actually address the causes of the disproportion - the inequity - themselves, otherwise you'll just exaggerate the inequity.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, you're making a good argument for dealing with poverty in America, not for dealing with racism in America.

Let's pretend that the black population began as around level zero when they were emancipated, and from then on there was zero bigotry or active racism against them. This wasn't actually true, but pretend for a moment. By the operation of a capitalist system those at the bottom will tend to stay there, and those near the top tend to stay there. Even with no other influence whatsoever merely beginning at the bottom collectively would explain why blacks would be disproportionately poor now. This is exactly why, I think, some people advocated reparations, and although this isn't a palatable solution it does speak to the truth that the real issue from them was starting at zero in a capitalist system, thus making them "free" but at a significant disadvantage for a very very long time to come.

Since then laws have been passed that make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer, and so by happenstance those who began poor as a group are disproportionately affected by such inequitable laws. You can call this systemic racism if you want (e.g. results that are uneven on racial lines) but since the issue is rich vs. poor if you solve the issue of poverty you simultaneously solve the issue of 'racism' in this sense.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

the initial poverty of african americans is from being brought over as slaves. There was racism, but it had very little impact on african americans remaining poor. Most whites from the same time period who were poor, have remained poor.

In regards to redlining - basically redlining is 'if we give a loan and have to foreclose - how easy will it be for us to resell the property'. If you can't resell a property for a profit if someone defaults on the loan, then it doesn't make sense to make the loan.

Research has shown that while the government made redlining maps, it didn't use them as a basis for making loans, nor did others use these maps.

quote:
HOLC did not practice redlining through its own lending program. Nothing in HOLC’s policies put areas with older homes or racial and ethnic minorities at a disadvantage. HOLC staff did not have access to the residential security maps because the maps were made after HOLC made most of its loans, but HOLC did make loans in all areas, particularly those later colored red and yellow.
Previous research about HOLC’s lending has drawn from loan summaries that the agency created after making loans. These summaries, apparently created only for cities that HOLC resurveyed, reported the number of loans in each of the four different graded areas. Jackson reported that 60 percent of HOLC loans made between 1935 and 1936 in Essex County, New Jersey (Newark), and 68 percent of loans in Shelby County, Tennessee (Memphis), were made to third- and fourth-grade areas.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=cplan_papers

Economic decisions often look racist, because race often falls along economic lines.

When a middle class family is denied a loan in a redlined area - it is because the bank would be unlikely to recover the loan amount if the family defaulted because selling the property in that area would be difficult.

I can understand the naive view that loans should be based purely on the merits of the individual seeking the loan. I can understand that it feels unfair that factors not under the control of the individual should play a major role in the actual risk of the loan - namely recovery ability if the loan is defaulted upon. It is, however, not racism for a business that makes loans based on risk - to take that source of risk into account.

quote:
And you pretty much pointed to exactly why simply addressing poverty isn't enough. Systems that attack poverty will most help those with families and networks that connect to wealth and experience, but they won't magically create them for groups that lack access to them along racial lines.
I've posted previously that I would like there to be forced integration based on economic disparity as a way to address part of this networking issue. I'd also discontinue tax exemption, and federal loans to schools and colleges with severe SES imbalances.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hadn't addressed the 'urban flight' issue, there were a number of factors and racism likely had little or no role.

1) Stagnant/declining urban jobs increased suburban - a lot of employers had moved out of the city due to increased tax rates, those who could afford to follow the jobs did

2) increasing property taxation - the declining city revenues caused increased property taxes to offset them. Taxes in the subburbs were significantly lower.

3) school system quality, the suburban schools were of far better quality than the urban schools and thus those who could afford to move to allow their children better schools did.

Also it is clear that it was 'wealth flight' not 'white flight'.

Those three factors were found to be the dominant factor in urban to suburban migration - racism played little or no role.

Note that segregation naturally occurs without racism as observed by Schelling.

http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it was just wealth flight and not white flight, why did the suburbs end up all white?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have found one good argument for racism having a significant impact.

The segregation of African Americans to non combat positions during WWII - resulted in few opportunities for advancement or recognition and high risk of having demerits on ones record when returning from duty. This in turn resulted in less access to mortgages. Similarly the small number of preexisting colleges that accepted blacks meant that fewer got a college education (and again demerits and officer status were considerations).

Since military service and earning officer rank and the subsequent mortgage loans (and tax deductibility of mortgage payments) and college were a major source of middle class advancement. I would agree that african americans were hurt economically by the militarys racist practices.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are also entire classes of laws that are much easier on rich people than poor people – for example, any you can get out of by having a good lawyer – and entire classes of police work that are harsher on poor neighborhoods than rich neighborhoods. If the average black is poorer than the average white, then these laws would have disproportionate racial effects
Which is precisely why brainwashing poor blacks into thinking that their bugbear is racism, rather than classism, criples them as well as unjustly painting targets on their white neighbors.

At this point in history, addressing classism in Americaa would benefit disavantaged blacks more than any race based program. Focusing on race today is as misguided as it was to focus on poverty during the 1960s at a time when blacks could not vote or sit on juries in many jurisdictions.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
If it was just wealth flight and not white flight, why did the suburbs end up all white?

Short answer:Affirmative ethnic cleansing. Because a significant number minorities, being brainwashed into seeing whites as the cause of their woes, targeted white neighbors for violence. The effect was ethnic cleansing of whites from the4 inner cities. Police protection is scarce because of capital flight, and the plight of inner city and prison whites gets little attention (save in American History X) because conservatives dont care about the poor and the left preaches that ethic cleansing against whites isnt technically "racism" because of "white pr5ivilege." racial profiling against whites is systematically used for investigating food stamp recipients; there is often a presumption of fraud if a white married couple applies for food stamps.

Nothing of what I said denies that blacks are victims of systematic racism. In fact, the processes I just described, the ethic cleansing of whites from the inner cities, hurt blacks as a group more than whites, resulting in a climate where even liberal honkies who claim not to be racist will look at the percentage of African anericans and hispanics as a measure of how unsafe a school is for their children. These racist stats are all conveniently online, displayed seamlessly alongside indicators of school quality...

[ September 03, 2015, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because a significant number minorities, being brainwashed into seeing whites as the cause of their woes, targeted white neighbors for violence.
I can't find any evidence to suggest that this was the case, Pete. Where do you see that white flight was a reaction to increasing black-on-white violence?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stats on rape and assault in the inner cities, black filmakers like Spike Lee (w3ho grew up in a cushy ass white neighborhood) preacdhing that blacks should resist whites moving into "our" neighborhoods, the fact that white flight because of violence has been documented i n South Africa, the fact tha. Nelson Mandela in his unfortunatr declining years proclaimed that a woman who moves because she is sick of being raped ia not a "true African," because the racial targeted rape and battery that is documented by crime stats in the inner cities is the traditional tool of ethnic cleansers in Europe, the Balkans, Syria, post~Bush Iraq ... Just look at the Gypsies dying to get out of Kosovo right now and ask them why they are fleeing (if you might be bothered to read some non US news sources that would help greatly.) so unless you figure that American whites are more fond of being selected for rape and battery than, say, Kosovar Gypsies or South African whites or Coptic Egyptians or Croatian Serbs or Muslim Bosnians, it seems reasonable to infer that they act for the same motivations as everyone else, and when targeted for their race, tend to move away from situations where their families are violated because of their skin color.

But setting aside the obvious facts, if inner city whites were leaving for the reasons I said, would you concede that ethic cleansing of whites is racist? Because if not you are kind of dodging the point and engaging in a Clintonism (that depends on what "is" is)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomD,

quote:
Where do you see that white flight was a reaction to increasing black-on-white violence?
Here is an annecdote about this,

quote:
The violent threats made against white families during and following the 68’ riots caused another percentage of whites to flee. Stokely Carmichael, aka Kwame Touré, a leader in the Black Panther party who promoted the concept of Black Power commented on Baltimore radio during the riots. My husband, who was a young father at the time, heard him say that blacks needed to stop burning down their own neighborhoods and start going up to places like McClean Blvd and cause destruction in white neighborhoods. My husband’s young family actually lived right off of McClean Blvd. Many men of the neighborhood, including my husband, went to Towson to buy guns out of fear and the need to protect their families. Luckily, none of those guns were put to use.

My father heard Carmichael’s threat, too. We did not live far from McClean Blvd, either. In spite of a daytime curfew on the whole city, my father started pulling out the camping equipment so our large family of young children could evacuate the city if needed.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/18/a-childs-memory-of-white-flight-from-baltimore/
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1) Stagnant/declining urban jobs increased suburban - a lot of employers had moved out of the city due to increased tax rates, those who could afford to follow the jobs did

2) increasing property taxation - the declining city revenues caused increased property taxes to offset them. Taxes in the subburbs were significantly lower.

3) school system quality, the suburban schools were of far better quality than the urban schools and thus those who could afford to move to allow their children better schools did.

Also it is clear that it was 'wealth flight' not 'white flight'.

Those three factors were found to be the dominant factor in urban to suburban migration - racism played little or no role.

Funny how "those who could afford to" mostly happened to be white. Unless your answer to why that was is that black people are just inherently poor, you just explained the form that rasim took in this case, not its absence. The disparity of wealth that allowed more whites to move and left more blacks stuck behind and starved for the resources the migrated out with the wealthy/white population is clear racism in action.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Because a significant number minorities, being brainwashed into seeing whites as the cause of their woes, targeted white neighbors for violence.
I can't find any evidence to suggest that this was the case, Pete. Where do you see that white flight was a reaction to increasing black-on-white violence?
I think that's a bad question. The right question in here is "Why was there black-on-white violence?"

Was actions by black people that preserved their status quo position of dominance? Or was it a reaction/revolution against ongoing oppressive systems?

Was it prejudicial? Yes. But it was bottom up,. not top down. Evaporation, not precipitation, to use the metaphor in the other thread. A reaction to racism, not racism. That doesn't make it a good reaction- in fact it absolutely contributed to overall racism, but trying to call it "racism" confuses the top and bottom in the situation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...and when targeted for their race, tend to move away from situations where their families are violated because of their skin color.
What makes you think that whites are targetted more often in poor, ethnic, high-crime neighborhoods than anyone else?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In regards to redlining - basically redlining is 'if we give a loan and have to foreclose - how easy will it be for us to resell the property'. If you can't resell a property for a profit if someone defaults on the loan, then it doesn't make sense to make the loan.

Research has shown that while the government made redlining maps, it didn't use them as a basis for making loans, nor did others use these maps.

You missed the bigger picture. It isn't "they made loans in these areas and didn't in those"

It was "only black people could get loans in these (bad) areas and only white people could in those (good) ones" along with "White people had to put classes in there deeds prohibiting sale of the property to blacks/other minorities"

quote:
Economic decisions often look racist, because race often falls along economic lines.
And hence are implicitly racist because of that disparity.

quote:
When a middle class family is denied a loan in a redlined area - it is because the bank would be unlikely to recover the loan amount if the family defaulted because selling the property in that area would be difficult.

I can understand the naive view that loans should be based purely on the merits of the individual seeking the loan. I can understand that it feels unfair that factors not under the control of the individual should play a major role in the actual risk of the loan - namely recovery ability if the loan is defaulted upon. It is, however, not racism for a business that makes loans based on risk - to take that source of risk into account.

Except, of course, when the race of the applicant is one of those "risk" factors, especially when used as criteria for quality of the loan and the location of the property that can be bought.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The percentage of African Americans (AA) who were veterans and received loans was about half that of Caucasians who were veterans and received loans.

The pool of low risk Caucasians was much larger a percentage of the Caucasian veterans ( more officers, more medals and recognitions, had fewer demerits etc.).

So the suggestion that race played a large role in the loans is questionable.

quote:
And hence are implicitly racist because of that disparity.
No, you don't get to redefine racism to mean whatever you want it to mean. Racism is only things that are based on belief of inherent inferiority of the individual or class of individuals based on race.

Discriminating against the poor isn't racism, it is classist.

Similarly the law regarding crack cocaine wasn't racist, even thought it disproportionately incarcerated blacks.

quote:
The harsher penalties for crack cocaine offenses were supported by most of the Congressional Black Caucus, including New York Representatives Major Owens of Brooklyn and Charles Rangel of Harlem, who at the time headed the House Select Com¬mittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. Crack was destroying black communities, and many black political leaders wanted dealers to face longer sentences. “Eleven of the twenty-one blacks who were then members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the law which created the 100-to-1 crack–powder differential,” noted Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy. “In light of charges that the crack–powder distinction was enacted partly because of conscious or unconscious racism, it is noteworthy that none of the black members of Congress made that claim at the time the bill was initially discussed.” Kennedy added: “The absence of any charge by black members of Congress that the crack–powder differential was racially unfair speaks volumes; after all, several of these rep¬resentatives had long histories of distinguished opposition to any public policy that smacked of racial injustice. That several of these representatives demanded a crackdown on crack is also significant. It suggests that the initiative for what became the crack–powder distinction originated to some extent within the ranks of African-American congressional officials.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/17/is-the-war-on-drugs-racist/

The black caucus wasn't 'racist' against blacks - they saw the harm that crack cocaine was doing to their communities and hoped that harsh penalties would mitigate that harm, but instead it exacerbated the harm - with a disproportionate effect on african americans.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The percentage of African Americans (AA) who were veterans and received loans was about half that of Caucasians who were veterans and received loans.

The pool of low risk Caucasians was much larger a percentage of the Caucasian veterans ( more officers, more medals and recognitions, had fewer demerits etc.).

So the suggestion that race played a large role in the loans is questionable.

It's clear it was a factor, otherwise they would have had such qualifications in proportion. And the GI benefits for educations and loans were intended to actively reward them for service regardless of crediworthiness- it was supposed to create that worthiness for them and be the backing they needed.

quote:
No, you don't get to redefine racism to mean whatever you want it to mean. Racism is only things that are based on belief of inherent inferiority of the individual or class of individuals based on race.
No it's not. That's only rough attempt to capture the gist of possible meaning of it while fitting in the limited space available to a dictionary.

quote:
Similarly the law regarding crack cocaine wasn't racist, even thought it disproportionately incarcerated blacks.
That is exactly what made it racist; disproportionate, oppressive impact along racial lines.

MAybe you should study the issue instead of pretending that one hack line out of a dictionary defines an entire deep field of study. It does show that dictionaries reflect the biases of their writers, but that's a pretty obvious factor regardless of what issue you may be addressing. Dictionary denotations gave give you gist, they can't capture full meaning effectively.

quote:
The black caucus wasn't 'racist' against blacks - they saw the harm that crack cocaine was doing to their communities and hoped that harsh penalties would mitigate that harm, but instead it exacerbated the harm - with a disproportionate effect on african americans.
Being a member of a minority doesn't prevent you from contributing to racism against others of the same race as you when you use your power in ways that, even accidentally, perpetuate harm and oppression along racial lines. A better example is how white and black doctors alike are equally more likely to treat a black patient for gas where they'd treat a white patient for a potential heart attack, leading to a higher rate of heart attacks among blacks. It's not even a conscious or intentional bias, it's so baked in that they only realize it's happening when presented with the statistics after the fact.

Overt personal prejudice can indeed express itself as an active belief in inferiority, but actual, relevant racism is any bias that has a disproportionate, oppressive impact along racial lines, justified or not.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The one thing that would help minorities j the United States the most would an effective policy plan to reduce poverty.

Minorities may face a slightly harder time lifting themselves out of poverty, but most of the factors that keep poor families and people poor affect all races.

Would policies of baseline income, free education, etc, single out minorities and give them extra because they're minority? No. Would it disproportionately help minorities, because minorities make up a larger ratio of the poor population? Yes.

Michael Jordan's kids don't need extra help. The kids of meth addicted or alcoholic white people do.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

the difference between caucasian and AA treatment for infarction is because they self report the symptoms differently,

quote:
African American patients were as likely as white patients to report "typical" objective symptoms but were more likely to attribute their symptoms to a gastrointestinal source rather than a cardiac source (P =.05). Of those patients with the final diagnosis of myocardial infarction (n = 45), 61% of African American patients attributed symptoms to a gastrointestinal source and 11% to a cardiac source, versus 26% and 33%, respectively, for white patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12094188

So again - not racism. Rather the opposite of racism - doctors give some deference to the self reports of patient regardless of race, but AAs are more likely to interpret the signs and symptoms as gas than are caucasians.


I realize that 'social justice warriors' would like a dramatically expanded meaning. I've used the commonly agreed upon meaning that the word racism has had since the introduction of the word.

When you use word in a way that don't mean what the rest of the world means with the exact same word - you basically eliminate the ability to communicate effectively.

When you mean something other the commonly held meaning - perhaps you can indicate it with additional notation such as a an asterix. racism*. Then everyone will understand that you mean something other than the normal meaning and the wasted verbiage can be avoided.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Michael Jordan's kids don't need extra help. The kids of meth addicted or alcoholic white people do.
Michael Jordan's kids are far more likely to be arrested based on racial profile than white kids of drug addicts are, straight up. Or pulled over for driving because the car they're in suggests to police trying to profile them that hey must have stolen it, they're more likely to be shot trying to get their registration card out than a white guy visibly going for a gun is, etc...

Eliminating poverty is absolutely a parallel issue with crossovers, but pretending that there's no racial bias means that efforts that don't address that as well will have very lopsided results. you have to address and fix every issue, not just one or two, then cross your fingers and hope the rest will fix themselves. Any issue you don't take on in its own right will only get worse if you don't address it, not better.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding is that previous attempts to reduce poverty without regard to race have often resulted in different outcomes for different races. That more resources get allocated to white neighbourhoods than black, for instance.

The problem with race-blind solutions is that prejudices can be baked into the metrics or criteria for making decisions about who and how to help. Unless measures are in place to prevent it, the solution, without any deliberate attempt to be racist, will tend to exclude black people and favour white people. The most direct way to avoid this is to include race as one of the criteria for decision making; to mitigate unintended consequences of other metrics.

Though this line of reasoning pre-supposes that "helping black people" is one of the justifications for the program. If it isn't, then by all means, discount race. Just don't be surprised if it doesn't end up helping black people.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

quote:
Michael Jordan's kids are far more likely to be arrested based on racial profile than white kids of drug addicts are, straight up.
There is no evidence that this is the case.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It happens frequently, to the point that black people generally, and completely rationally, have to presume that is going happen and need to preemptively defend themselves from it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Feel free to provide evidence from any source that any children of famous african americans have a greater chance of being arrested that 'white kids of drug addicts', that sounds like a completely made up claim.

I doubt even children from unknown middle class families have a higher chance of arrest that children of white drug addicts.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets see what the research says

quote:
In sum, most racial discrepancies in juvenile male arrests were accounted for by an increased exposure to childhood risk factors. Specifically, Black boys were more likely to display early conduct problems and low academic achievement and experience poor parent–child communication, peer delinquency, and neighborhood problems, which increased their risk for juvenile arrest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2981137/

quote:
These findings suggest that the disproportionately high arrest rate for black citizens is most likely attributable to differential involvement in reported crime rather than to racially biased law enforcement practices.
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/4/1381.abstract

You might be thinking of data from 1968(!) that showed that high SES African Americans were more likely (11.4%) than low SES whites (7.5%) to be arrested. The world has changed over the past 47 years. Even if it hadn't, that data still wouldn't support your claim since low SES doesn't imply children of drug addicts, whom would have a far greater risk of arrest; and the definition of high SES would be insufficient to cover the extremely wealthy and powerful.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Feel free to provide evidence from any source that any children of famous african americans have a greater chance of being arrested that 'white kids of drug addicts', that sounds like a completely made up claim.

I doubt even children from unknown middle class families have a higher chance of arrest that children of white drug addicts.

You forgot "based on race" there. Please respond to what I said, not what you're making up.

Poor white kids might be more likely to be acutely involved in criminal activity due to class and thus arrested, but they're not going to be stopped and detained _because of their color_ wish is something that does frequently happen to blacks. If the white kid actually earns enough to afford a fancy car, they will never be stopped on suspicion they stole it because of their race. Jordan's kids, on the other hand, have to expect that there's a real chance that a cop will pull them over simply because they're black and driving a car that's "too expensive", never mind possibly risking brewing shot in such a situation because they're trying go get their registration.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

quote:
You forgot "based on race" there. Please respond to what I said, not what you're making up.
Let us read exactly what you said,

quote:
Michael Jordan's kids are far more likely to be arrested based on racial profile than white kids of drug addicts are, straight up.
I don't think what you are claiming you said can reasonably be interpreted from what you actually said.

Also it looks like you've also moved the bar from 'arrested' to detained. Offspring of high SES parents in an expensive car are likely to be detained based on racial profiling, but are extremely unlikely to be arrested.

If you were really trying to imply 'Michael Jordan's kids are far more likely to be detained based on racial profile than white kids of drug addicts are to be detained based on a racial profile' - then I completely agree. I also completely agree that any African American has a greater chance of being detained on racial profiling than does any White American.

As to 'driving while black' - I do plan to look at the statistics on this - there are a number of confounders that tend to be ignored and thus in many parts of the country it is probably overstated.

For instance African Americans (AA) are far less likely to wear a seat belt while driving, especially young AA males. Similarly they are far less likely to use car seats, and more likely to use them improperly.

quote:
These populations are less likely to wear seat belts or use child safety seats–especially young males. [...] A recent study examined motor vehicle fatality exposure rates and found that, although black and Hispanic male teenagers travel fewer vehicle miles than their white counterparts, they are nearly twice as likely to die in a motor vehicle crash. Black children ages 5 through 12 face a risk of dying in a motor vehicle crash that is almost three times as great as white children. [...] High school students surveyed by telephone also underscored the disparity in belt use that exists between African Americans and other groups. Over 31 percent of black high school students reported rarely or never wearing their safety belts, compared to 21 percent of white and 18 percent of Hispanic students. (Youth Risk Behavior Survey)
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/Archive/safesobr/22qp/seatbelt_fact_sheets/seatbelts_afr_amer.html

So that would account for almost all of the disparity using just a single confounder that is ignored in all studies to date of this issue.

I'd also suspect that

1) poor people do more night driving, and since there are more blacks that are poor, that AA do more night driving

2) poor people do more driving under the influence, and the higher rate of poverty among AA implies that there are more AA who DUI

3) poor neighborhoods have more night crime, police patrol and pull over more cars in poor neighborhoods at night, and more AAs live in poor neighborhoods

That would likely remove most of the difference in stops between AAs and whites - and all of the factors can be largely attributed to poverty related behavioural differences as opposed to race. (Which isn't to say that cops don't use racial profiling, just that far less of the difference in stop rates can be attributed to profiling versus poverty behavioural factors).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Confirmed another of my suspected confounders - African Americans are dramatically more likely to work late shifts, and thus be driving during the hours when police increase their rate of random stops looking for DUIs.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2008/workingaroundtheclock.aspx

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another counfounder would be newness of vehicle. AAs are more likely to be poor, poor individuals are more likely to have an older vehicle, older vehicles are more likely to be in disrepair.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious what role time of day plays in risk of being shot by an officer - any bets that night stops are significantly higher risk?
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
there are a number of confounders that tend to be ignored
I don't know a polite way to put this, but:

I know a fair bit about statistics, enough to know why your analyses of these studies tend to be flawed themselves. It seems to me that you spend a lot of time lately trying to figure out why statisticians are coming to conclusions that don't comfortably align with your opinions, and thus attempting to poke holes in methodology from the position of someone who is loosely familiar with that methodology.

And that's fine. I actually think more people should do that. I think aiming masses of people at difficult social problems is a good thing, and forcing experts to defend their conclusions is generally a positive. But I also remember a "major medical breakthrough" you announced about four years ago that was going to turn the world on its ear.

Would it make more sense for you to contact the authors of the studies you find inconclusive and direct your questions to them? In my experience, most researchers are quite approachable, even the ones that do "controversial" work.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1