Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[RDKirk]

I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

"Here are your winnings."

Rewatched that movie literally five minutes ago.

 

[RDKirk]

Justice Dept. finds Minneapolis PD engaged in excessive force, discrimination​

Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ and city have agreed in principle to a consent decree for reforms.

The Minneapolis Police Department engaged in patterns of excessive force and discrimination, according to findings of a 2-year Justice Department investigation.

At a press conference in Minneapolis Friday, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ investigation found Minneapolis police engaged "in a pattern or practice of using excessive force, unlawfully discriminating against Black and Native American people in enforcement activities, violating the rights of people engaged in protected speech, and discriminating against people with behavioral disabilities when responding to them in a crisis."

Garland said the conduct violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Act, Safe Streets Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It's a good thing laws are in place to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

 

[variant]

It's a good thing laws are in place to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

Up until the invention of phone cameras, it simply didn't happen like that.

Now we're making a bit of progress on the subject.

A lot of the "trust the system" types out there haven't been living with systematic police overreach their entire lives.

You also need Merrick Garland looking into it rather than some Trump appointee purposefully ignoring it to get any traction.

 

[variant]

So is the answer to codify reverse-racism into the laws?

How do we do that?

You don't need to codify reverse racism, but rather make a long term institutional effort to enforce the laws fairly and remove systemic problems.

 

[RDKirk]

You don't need to codify reverse racism, but rather make a long term institutional effort to enforce the laws fairly and remove systemic problems.

I would agree that dismantling Affirmative Action right now is probably about 30 years premature (after Boomers are dead would be a better time to look at that), but talk is cheap...make some hard proposals of what new things the government should do.

 

[variant]

I would agree that dismantling Affirmative Action right now is probably about 30 years premature (after Boomers are dead would be a better time to look at that), but talk is cheap...make some hard proposals of what new things the government should do.

The government didn't need to do anything as the process was already working.

Dismantling affirmative action was a political goal of the right wing since the moment it started.

It merely took them this long to pack the courts. You'll see similar regression in any area that they control significantly over the next 20 years or so.

What is best is to not have courts packed by conservatives.

 

[Estrid]

You don't need to codify reverse racism, but rather make a long term institutional effort to enforce the laws fairly and remove systemic problems.

Reverse racism is an absurd concept

 

[Estrid]

The government didn't need to do anything as the process was already working.

Dismantling affirmative action was a political goal of the right wing since the moment it started.

It merely took them this long to pack the courts. You'll see similar regression in any area that they control significantly over the next 20 years or so.

What is best is to not have courts packed by conservatives.

As an Asian I don't see the court ruling as you
choose to.
The "liberal" support for racial discrimination
against Asians is a disgrace and discredits the
liberal - savior industrial complex for what it is.

In the day, your Asian exclusion act was
specifically because Chinese work too hard
for the taste of lazy Americans who imported
slaves to work hard for them, but free men
working hard, that's bad.

The affirmative action Asian exclusion act is
finally finally been abolished. And look how
you react.

 

[ralliann]

Reverse racism is an absurd concept

Racism is racism. For many it is simply a tool. They don't care about these people, they have an agenda.

 

[ralliann]

I would agree that dismantling Affirmative Action right now is probably about 30 years premature (after Boomers are dead would be a better time to look at that), but talk is cheap...make some hard proposals of what new things the government should do.

I disagree, with the form of affirmative action of the past. Correct the problems. Lack of quality education, etc. It is just like black lives matter. They only matter, when the issue promotes their own agenda, and goal. They refuse to even acknowledge black lives when it is black on black crime in these inter cities etc. Deal with the issues plaguing the community. This low expectation is not the answer. We know what good education is. Supply it.

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree, with the form of affirmative action of the past. Correct the problems. Lack of quality education, etc. It is just like black lives matter. They only matter, when the issue promotes their own agenda, and goal. They refuse to even acknowledge black lives when it is black on black crime in these inter cities etc. Deal with the issues plaguing the community. This low expectation is not the answer. We know what good education is. Supply it.

Affirmative action has been applied poorly...and it's also been applied well.

When Affirmative Action was first proposed, the presumption was that there was a "standing wave" of fully qualified black people who had been held back solely by the color of their skin. And there was a whole lot of truth to that. Have you seen the movie "Hidden Figures?" Those are the black people who were in mind at the time. As the Civil Rights Era began to role in the early 50s, the black War Generation, particularly in the south, were anticipating that their children (we black Boomers) would be the first generation of black people who would get a bite of the American Pie, and they had worked hard to make us ready. That "standing wave" of qualified people did exist in many areas at the time.

What also did sometimes happen (and I don't really know how frequently it really happened) is that administrators just got lazy and rubber-stamped diversity instead of making sure they were not overlooking the truly qualified.

But here are a couple of examples of Affirmative Action being applied well:

The US Navy had, up until the 80s, restricted women from sea duty--serving on ships in "blue water." But some of the Navy job specialties, such as Intelligence, that were open to both men and women had both shore duty and sea duty billets.

At the same time, the Navy had a specialty program called Surface Warfare certification that, among other things, required a sailor to do at least one sea duty rotation. Holding the Surface Warfare certification had become, over time, a first-rung discriminator for promotion. The promotion board would quickly go through the candidates' folders and just immediately toss out the folders of any who hadn't gotten their Surface Warfare certifications. It made a certain amount of sense, because getting the Surface Warfare cert meant the sailor was going above and beyond the basics of just doing a good job to become more promotable.

But that also immediately discounted all women from consideration because women were shut out of sea duty, a requirement for the Surface Warfare certification. Realizing this, the Navy instructed promotion boards to reduce the significance of the Surface Warfare certification. They were instructed to look more carefully at the women's promotion folders to determine if they had, indeed, done everything else they could do to make themselves promotable...and as well look at the men's promotion folders to see if they had done nothing more than get their Surface Warfare cert.

With regard to both race and gender, the Navy also made note of proportionality in their promotions. The possible problem was that promotion board members voted anonymously (which is justly desirable for a number of reasons), but promotions were so competitive that anonymous voting also made it possible for a single bigot on the board to "blackball" every minority candidate.

After making promotion selections, the board compared the diversity of its selections to the overall diversity of the specialty. If the diversity of the selections for a particular minority group fell below its overall proportion in the specialty, the board took another look at the highest rated non-selectee of that group and compared that folder with the folders of the selectees. If that person was, indeed, the equal of those they selected, then that person was selected. Then they'd look again at the next rated non-selectee until they were satisfied that those not selected truly didn't deserve to be selected. They basically took a second look as a group to make sure nobody had blackballed that record.

 

[rjs330]

Affirmative action has been applied poorly...and it's also been applied well.

When Affirmative Action was first proposed, the presumption was that there was a "standing wave" of fully qualified black people who had been held back solely by the color of their skin. And there was a whole lot of truth to that. Have you seen the movie "Hidden Figures?" Those are the black people who were in mind at the time. As the Civil Rights Era began to role in the early 50s, the black War Generation, particularly in the south, were anticipating that their children (we black Boomers) would be the first generation of black people who would get a bite of the American Pie, and they had worked hard to make us ready. That "standing wave" of qualified people did exist in many areas at the time.

What also did sometimes happen (and I don't really know how frequently it really happened) is that administrators just got lazy and rubber-stamped diversity instead of making sure they were not overlooking the truly qualified.

But here are a couple of examples of Affirmative Action being applied well:

The US Navy had, up until the 80s, restricted women from sea duty--serving on ships in "blue water." But some of the Navy job specialties, such as Intelligence, that were open to both men and women had both shore duty and sea duty billets.

At the same time, the Navy had a specialty program called Surface Warfare certification that, among other things, required a sailor to do at least one sea duty rotation. Holding the Surface Warfare certification had become, over time, a first-rung discriminator for promotion. The promotion board would quickly go through the candidates' folders and just immediately toss out the folders of any who hadn't gotten their Surface Warfare certifications. It made a certain amount of sense, because getting the Surface Warfare cert meant the sailor was going above and beyond the basics of just doing a good job to become more promotable.

But that also immediately discounted all women from consideration because women were shut out of sea duty, a requirement for the Surface Warfare certification. Realizing this, the Navy instructed promotion boards to reduce the significance of the Surface Warfare certification. They were instructed to look more carefully at the women's promotion folders to determine if they had, indeed, done everything else they could do to make themselves promotable...and as well look at the men's promotion folders to see if they had done nothing more than get their Surface Warfare cert.

With regard to both race and gender, the Navy also made note of proportionality in their promotions. The possible problem was that promotion board members voted anonymously (which is justly desirable for a number of reasons), but promotions were so competitive that anonymous voting also made it possible for a single bigot on the board to "blackball" every minority candidate.

After making promotion selections, the board compared the diversity of its selections to the overall diversity of the specialty. If the diversity of the selections for a particular minority group fell below its overall proportion in the specialty, the board took another look at the highest rated non-selectee of that group and compared that folder with the folders of the selectees. If that person was, indeed, the equal of those they selected, then that person was selected. Then they'd look again at the next rated non-selectee until they were satisfied that those not selected truly didn't deserve to be selected. They basically took a second look as a group to make sure nobody had blackballed that record.

I absolutely agree. I know some have a real problem with merit, but it is the right way. Merit determines which candidate has done the best to get the job, promotion etc.

I really like the "second look" idea. Especially when dealing with anonymous voting. A racist or sexist person could prevent the best candidate from being promoted etc. Because racist and sexist people do exist. And you could have one on the hiring or promotion board. I'm not sure having anonymous voting is the best way but I haven't thought through it much. I've always thought transparency is best for holding people accountable.

 

[rjs330]

I disagree, with the form of affirmative action of the past. Correct the problems. Lack of quality education, etc. It is just like black lives matter. They only matter, when the issue promotes their own agenda, and goal. They refuse to even acknowledge black lives when it is black on black crime in these inter cities etc. Deal with the issues plaguing the community. This low expectation is not the answer. We know what good education is. Supply it.

My wife was a teacher for a while. So you can imagine she is sedative to anybody attacking the teaching profession. One of the things she constantly points out is you can't make students learn. If the student doesn't put forth the effort and the parents don't reinforce the learning, the education could be awesome but it won't help.

One thing I'm in favor of is equality in education. Give every kid the same opportunity to a good education. Make sure every school has the same equipment etc. There shouldn't be any "poor" schools who can't afford computers or necessary equipment. K-12 is one area where I am more socialist in funding. The rich areas shouldn't have better education than poor areas. If you need to pull some funding from the rich areas to make education better in the poor ones I'm all for it. We need to give every kid the best opportunity to learn. Now we can't make them learn. And there are areas where there is a culture that frowns on learning but that's on them and those areas need to figure out how to change that. But at least the opportunities should be there. And if they were it might help with changing those cultural issues.

 

[Valletta]

I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

It's very much what I expected. What it ignores is that Minneapolis, like San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, and the vast majority of so many other large crimes cities are ruled by Democrats with progressive policies. So often the major crime cities have George Soros backed district attorneys. In Minneapolis, like Chicago and St. Louis, the percentage of crimes committed by black youths are staggering. President Obama spoke out years ago about the problem with absentee fathers, a root problem. Minneapolis schools are taking a progressive approach and allowing more and more violations of discipline and the kids are being taught in school that they are victims and are being taught CRT and other forms of racism. The bottom line is that they are taught lack of respect for police officers, and many of these incidents would not have happened but for the anger and animosity taught to the children. Just look at all of the incidents on the 4th of July, why are these kids allowed out in the middle of the night? Fireworks recklessly shot off by revelers in Minneapolis on July 4th
Minneapolis has for many decades had either a police chief appointed by a Democrat mayor or nominated by a Democrat mayor. The black police chief at the time of George Floyd had problems in the past with police misconduct, but was still hired. Affirmative action also plays a role i the selection of officers. There was the example of the shooting of the Australian woman who ran up to the police care, the officer panicked and it is quite likely that if it were not for the diversity polices of the progressives he never would have become a police officer. Choke holds sound awful, but they are used to varying degrees in other Democrat run cities like Los Angeles and New York. Think of all of the progressive council members and mayors and police officers who could have changed the policies long ago but did not.

 

[rjs330]

Kansas City police officer files lawsuit alleging forced discrimination in minority neighborhoods​

The lawsuit alleges that Kansas City police officers were told it would be easier to write up multiple citations during traffic stops in minority neighborhoods.

A white Kansas City, Missouri, police officer has filed a lawsuit with a slew of complaints against the Kansas City Police Department, including accusations that some in the division regularly used racist language and forced badge bearers to use racist policing tactics.

The lawsuit — which was filed mid-March in Jackson County Court by 21-year police force veteran Edward Williams, 44 — alleges that KCPD officers were told to only respond to distress calls from predominately white neighborhoods and to target minority neighborhoods for issuing tickets.

Williams says that he was retaliated against for being a whistleblower and was discriminated against after an injury. He is seeking monetary damages, per NPR.

I don't know if any of this is true. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of it is. Agencies are lead from the top down. And if you get a crappy leader you have a crappy agency. I don't know anything about Smith, how he got to be chief or anything about his career. And I'm not going to research it. But if what is said is true he should have been forced out along with all of his upper command staff. And if they broke civil rights laws they should not only be fired but also fined and do jail time if that's allowed by law. They should be stripped of their pensions as well. There is no excuse for that kind of leadership. It's the worst kind. And if none of this occurs you can blame the state and feds for supporting racism as well. Because if I'm correct, what he did, violated all kinds of laws and his oaths as a law enforcement officer.

 

[rjs330]

Kansas City police officer files lawsuit alleging forced discrimination in minority neighborhoods​

The lawsuit alleges that Kansas City police officers were told it would be easier to write up multiple citations during traffic stops in minority neighborhoods.

A white Kansas City, Missouri, police officer has filed a lawsuit with a slew of complaints against the Kansas City Police Department, including accusations that some in the division regularly used racist language and forced badge bearers to use racist policing tactics.

The lawsuit — which was filed mid-March in Jackson County Court by 21-year police force veteran Edward Williams, 44 — alleges that KCPD officers were told to only respond to distress calls from predominately white neighborhoods and to target minority neighborhoods for issuing tickets.

Williams says that he was retaliated against for being a whistleblower and was discriminated against after an injury. He is seeking monetary damages, per NPR.

I don't know if any of this is true. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of it is. Agencies are lead from the top down. And if you get a crappy leader you have a crappy agency. I don't know anything about Smith, how he got to be chief or anything about his career. And I'm not going to research it. But if what is said is true he should have been forced out along with all of his upper command staff. And if they broke civil rights laws they should not only be fired but also fined and do jail time if that's allowed by law. They should be stripped of their pensions as well. There is no excuse for that kind of leadership. It's the worst kind. And if none of this occurs you can blame the state and feds for supporting racism as well. Because if I'm correct, what he did, violated all kinds of laws and his oaths as a law enforcement officer

It's very much what I expected. What it ignores is that Minneapolis, like San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, and the vast majority of so many other large crimes cities are ruled by Democrats with progressive policies. So often the major crime cities have George Soros backed district attorneys. In Minneapolis, like Chicago and St. Louis, the percentage of crimes committed by black youths are staggering. President Obama spoke out years ago about the problem with absentee fathers, a root problem. Minneapolis schools are taking a progressive approach and allowing more and more violations of discipline and the kids are being taught in school that they are victims and are being taught CRT and other forms of racism. The bottom line is that they are taught lack of respect for police officers, and many of these incidents would not have happened but for the anger and animosity taught to the children. Just look at all of the incidents on the 4th of July, why are these kids allowed out in the middle of the night? Fireworks recklessly shot off by revelers in Minneapolis on July 4th
Minneapolis has for many decades had either a police chief appointed by a Democrat mayor or nominated by a Democrat mayor. The black police chief at the time of George Floyd had problems in the past with police misconduct, but was still hired. Affirmative action also plays a role i the selection of officers. There was the example of the shooting of the Australian woman who ran up to the police care, the officer panicked and it is quite likely that if it were not for the diversity polices of the progressives he never would have become a police officer. Choke holds sound awful, but they are used to varying degrees in other Democrat run cities like Los Angeles and New York. Think of all of the progressive council members and mayors and police officers who could have changed the policies long ago but did not.

Not to mention the police chiefs that were placed into that position by these progressive politicians. The chiefs that are in charge of formulating and enforcing the policies. A failure on on levels of leadership from these progressive liberal leftist cities and politicians. Who are proving over and over again that they are all talk while their actions speak very loud.

 

[RDKirk]

Now we can't make them learn. And there are areas where there is a culture that frowns on learning but that's on them and those areas need to figure out how to change that. But at least the opportunities should be there. And if they were it might help with changing those cultural issues.

Every idea I think of to solve that problem looks too much like what was done to Native American children 100 years ago.

 

[Bradskii]

It's very much what I expected. What it ignores is that Minneapolis, like San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, and the vast majority of so many other large crimes cities are ruled by Democrats with progressive policies. So often the major crime cities have George Soros backed district attorneys.

I'm glad you mentioned George in the first sentence. It saved me having to read the rest of the post.

 

[Sabri]

I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

I don’t think you are.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don’t think you are.

That's a line from the movie Casablanca. It is meant to express cynicism.