The Glade 4.0

These are all problems with the scope of the study. You're right, it doesn't mean all black people are discriminated against. It means there is evidence that some black people, with names that sound black, are disadvantaged when it comes to searching for certain jobs in Boston and Chicago. The fact that this one study doesn't prove that all black people in the US are discriminated against doesn't change the fact that it provides concrete evidence that some of them are. You have not shown me anything to dispute that. Sure, some white people with weird sounding names might be discriminated against too. Some black people with "white" names might not face this particular type of discrimination.

But the fact of the matter is that when looking for a job in those two cities, Rasheed has a significant disadvantage compared to Brad. Why? What explanation do you have for this besides subtle discrimination on the part of employers? None of your criticisms address this point, you're just muddying the waters trying to point out all the limitations. I'm not saying this study proves that there is institutional racism all across America. I'm just saying it's one piece of evidence. It's not my intention in this thread to provide a mountain of evidence that definitively proves that racism is rampant across the country. If I did, you guys would just nit-pick it to death anyway and ignore it. Maybe if you said something along the lines of "Wow, that's interesting. But that's just one narrow study, I think it's the exception rather than the rule. Do you have any more evidence?", I would feel more inclined to get into this kind of debate. But the fact that you guys start dismissing the study and pointing out it's flaws before even reading it tells me that you aren't interested in debating this with an open mind.


I was referring to the fact that the first link didn't work, and before I had posted the second one that worked you guys were already dismissing it.



I'm not doubting that these messages are being internalized. I'm doubting that this is the explanation for the gap in sentence lengths for blacks vs whites.

Anyway, for all your criticisms of the lit review I linked about the racial disparity in sentencing for crimes, they're usually addressed in one study or another. There's a lot of research on there, with many studies accounting for things like "urban vs rural," other racial groups, and other factors besides race.

Here's an interesting research paper I found on the USSC website. It addresses a lot of your concerns and goes on to show that the disparity only exists for blacks when it comes to drug related offenses, it suggests that the gap is relatively small and could be explained by other factors. (It also shows that the gap in sentencing between men and women is a much bigger problem). Anyway, it's interesting, and I'm sure it has it's own biases and whatnot, and it is limited to the federal government so I'm sure things could be vastly different in the state courts, but I don't really care to look into the issue much more.





I'm just looking for reasonable discussion here. I've already provided some evidence (note: I didn't say proof) for my positive argument, and I think it's reasonable in a discussion like this for you to provide some evidence to the contrary beyond nit picking the scope of my evidence. There's also been many "positive assertions" in this thread by people arguing against institutional racism in this thread. Here's one random example:





In any case, if you want to be real pedantic about it, we all agree that institutional racism existed 50 years ago. The onus is not on me to prove that it is still occurring. You must prove that it has been corrected and no longer exists. It's like... say... Saddam Hussein with his WMDs. We knew he had WMDs in the past. Thus, it was up to him to prove to the weapon inspectors that he no longer had them.

So my argument could be restated as something like:

Institutional racism existed 50 years ago. Lacking evidence that anything has changed, it still exists today.

Disprove that, *****. =P

Except that it doesn't. As is pointed out by the authors o the study themselves, they don't even know to what degree the names are considered, if at all. Worse, it excluded adds that involved a personal appearance. At best, it provides some evidence of "weird-sounding" names. Note that there are no "Wongs", no "Juans" in the first name, nor any "Garcias", "Changs" or any of the last nimes I otherwise mentioned. The study attempts to establish discrimination based on a very narrow selection of "white" first names and Anglo last names for whites, versus highly race-specific "black" last names. Most of the "white" names are those used by many ethnic groups. No "weird" white names are used, so we don't even know if it's the name being "black" or just unusual.



I hate to break this to you, but the study itself says otherwise. It only studies call-backs from resume-only solicitations. The study itself rejects what you are saying here, pointing out that it does not actually study hiring, merely resume callbacks.

As for the rest, you cannot just link a study and then demand people accept what you conclude from it. It is not "nitpicking" to point out the flaws of the study that the authors themselves acknowledge.



That's because I have read it before. The problem is...? Do you think you're the first person on the internet to call attention to it?



I think it explains it exceedingly well. There is a "trial penalty" where one is far more likely to receive a longer sentence at a trial finding of guilt than from a plea bargain. Blacks are far more likely to take a hopeless, even ridiculous case to trial, especially black males. This is because plea bargaining is so frequently seen as knuckling under to "the man". There's also the fact that accepting a plea bargain also often means pleading to a lesser charge and thus a lighter sentence.

page 2 "Factors other than racial discrimination account for most of the disproportionate representation of black males in U.S. prisons."
Page 7. As far back as 1983 "...the sentencing process was not characterized by 'a widespread systemic pattern of discrimination'. Rather, some pockets of discrimination are found for particular judges, particular crime types, and particular settings." In other words, widespread discrimination could not be found 30 years ago, when we would be far more likely to have seen it.

Page 24: Different races evaluate prison differently. I won't quote the whole thing, but whites are more likely than blacks to find electronic monitoring or probation for a longer time prefereable to a shorter prison term.

Page 29: The race of the judge has little, if any, effect on sentencing at trial, but has a dramatic effect on appeals court voting at the Federal level. Black judges are not more sympathetic to defendents in general or to minority defendents than white judges. Results for state judges are mixed, at worst.

Page 49: The problems of attempting to classify offenses and offenders.

Page 50: Research has failed to conclusively identify racial discrimination.



The fact that there are other studies purporting to address other things means little. We cannot simply assume these other studies necessarily find racial bias. The study I just linked indicates that these other studies have difficuly finding anything conclusive.

At best, we can agree that some discrimination occurs in some contexts. This, however, does not support a conclusion of "institutional racism". It, at most, indicates that race may interact with other factors like sex, age, employment status, rural v. urban, etc. to produce a discriminatory effect, but that does not speak to actual racism.



Exactly the point. To what degree is that racial disparity linked to the fact that it's a drug offense? Racial disparity =/= racism. Drug offenses are strongly connected to gang membership; gangs make much of their money through the drug trade. Blacks are vastly more likely than whites to be in gangs; Hispanics more likely still.



You cannot simply assert that something existed in the past and then demand someone disprove that it still exists with no evidence, or even with the questionable evidence you've provided. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. Lacking evidence that they are extinct, they are still alive today.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."