Thread by @deonteleologist

I just watched this video. In short: I agree that this popular style of diversity education/workshops/training, whether in the workplace or the academy, is generally unhelpful; at worst, it's counterproductive.

But Casey Peterson has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1299010255817334785

Peterson identifies the target of his criticism as critical race theory (CRT), and he cites a portion of @DrTJC's definition for Britannica, which you can find here in full: britannica.com/topic/critical…

CRT is "un-American," he argues, because it contradicts the order of our justice system: it assumes every white person is racist "until absolved of [their] racism by a person of color."

His thesis: "CRT breeds nothing but unjustified fear, guilt, anger, victimhood, & hatred.”

It's worth pointing out that @DrTJC's definition does not imply that all white people are racist until proven otherwise. It seems Peterson found this definition appropriate because it was similar enough to the ideas expressed in the workplace trainings he describes throughout.

Some of the main ideas Peterson reports:

Peterson & his coworkers were given a list of 100 things white people can do to combat racial injustice, as well as a list of the 20 "best books about anti-racism."

Peterson focuses primarily on White Fragility, How to Be an Antiracist, Me and White Supremacy, & White Rage.

Peterson found a lot of things he didn't like in these books, and these carried over into training. The two biggest problems, as I interpret his argument, are political bias and anti-police rhetoric.

He sums up his introduction to the workplace training with this graphic. For Peterson, these principles are the fundamental tenets not only of critical race theory, but also of white supremacy. These ideologies are equally evil.

A significant portion of the video is dedicated to debunking some of the more common examples of institutional or systemic racism. Peterson makes the rather ambitious claim that he can refute over 90% (not clear how he got this #) of these by identifying 1 or more of 5 fallacies

But before we dive into the details of his experience at work, Peterson wants to start by disproving "the myth of systemic racism in policing." His argument is a bit all-over-the-place, so let's take it one step at a time.

Before even defining "systemic racism," he just gives us the data on police shootings in 2019. He tells us that only .0004% of the 3 million arrests of black Americans led to a cop shooting an unarmed black citizen, saying, "that does not sound like systemic racism in policing."

All of a sudden, Peterson gives us this. Wait a minute...

Peterson just told us a cop is up to 30x more likely to be killed by *a black male* than *an unarmed black male* is to be killed by a cop. Before identifying the non-apples-to-apples fallacy in any CRT, he just casually employs it himself without any discernible purpose. Weird.

Now he tells us what "systemic racism" can mean.
1. “Institutions are racist” -- no further clarification.
2. “All racial inequality is due to racism”
3. “Historic racism is still being felt today"

Peterson lists "The Three Questions That Must Be Answered."

We're launched into a discussion of Roland Fryer (Peterson calls him 'Ronald Fryer') and his research on police violence.

Next, Peterson discusses 2 videos presented on a panel. He argues that the first one relies on the fallacy of fast-forwarding: it assumes the racist roots of policing have yet to be remedied. The second video, he claims, illicitly infers racist treatment from racial disparities.

And... that's it. With his discussion of Fryer and these two videos, Peterson apparently believes he has shown us that there is no systemic racism in policing.

This is wrong. All he has shown is that our best data suggests race does not significantly influence police shootings.

If he had read Fryer (2016) carefully, he would have learned that, even when factoring in several controls (incl. those related to racial disparities in criminal behavior), police were much more likely to use *non-lethal force* against black and Hispanic civilians than whites.

Furthermore, as we all saw with the police killing of George Floyd, police don't only kill people using guns. The fact that race is insignificant in the cop's decision to fire his weapon DOES NOT entail race is insignificant in police applications of other forms of lethal force.

** TO CLARIFY: To make Peterson's argument as strong as possible, I'll assume Fryer's studies hold up under scrutiny.

See some of the replies to the above tweets on Fryer for reasons to think this might not be the case. **

Aside from racial biases in police brutality, there is strong evidence of systemic racism at the level of police stops and vehicle searches. Analysis of nearly 100 million traffic stops: nature.com/articles/s4156…

So, far from refuting "the myth of systemic racism in policing," all Peterson has done is demonstrate his lack of familiarity with research that *does* suggest systemically racist treatment of black and Hispanic civilians vis-a-vis nonlethal force, traffic stops, and searches.

Back to the video: here Peterson starts to ignore his own standards--particularly, his commitment to asserting only what can be backed up by science. He does not offer any evidence for the claim that the ideology of CRT is causally responsible for the increase in police deaths.

Similarly, this seems to be some sort of appeal to intuition. If you think there is no systemic racism in American policing, it makes sense. But based on the data Peterson neglected, we would be lying to black children if we were to tell them police aren't systemically racist.

Remember how he told us he could debunk over ninety percent of systemic racism claims using those five fallacies? Looks like we're gonna have to wait for future videos for that. Here are some teasers though!

For now, we'll just have to settle for a failure to understand John Green's point. This is very odd

Last clip: "Anecdotal evidence proves nothing."

But now Peterson seems to find real value in his anecdotes. He spends quite a bit of time narrating them for us.

He appears to think they can tell us "what an average white American male's experiences might actually look like."

Peterson on "Systemic Racism Explained": "Every single claim in this video is false. Not just 50 percent, or 75 percent––every single claim is false in this video."

Given that the thumbnail promises "unraveling claims through... critical thinking," do we get any analysis?

Nope.

Nobody said "white privilege" would help you pay your tuition. Nobody said it would give you more scholarships. This is just such a whiny, reactionary way of thinking.

Here it comes to a dramatic end.

For those interested: pause the clip early and reply to this tweet identifying as many inconsistencies as you can conjure up!