Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

Folks ask me all the time, “But couldn’t it be past racism that is responsible for current disparities rather than systemic racism?” This, I’d argue, shows that the meaning of “systemic racism” is being missed altogether.

Sorry, another long thread:

2/ I’d argue that “systemic racism” could be defined as any historic and/or current system of ideas, social philosophies, institutions, policies, and practices which have created and/or continue to perpetuate the SUBORDINATED CIRCUMSTANCES and INFERIOR CONDITIONS of historically

3/ contingent, socially constructed, racialized people-groups. (I think Vernellia R. Randal’s is pretty good as well, viz., “polices, practices, and procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative effect on racial minorities’ access to and quality of goods,

4/ "services, and opportunities.”)

As such, past racism is inseparable from current systemic racism. (I, of course, am not granting that racism is somehow in the past; just trying to discuss systemic racism’s connection to the past.)

5/ Thus, we can see in MANY areas that a long period of explicit, government sanctioned, discrimination led to a specific distribution of social and economic goods. We can also see that once such explicit discrimination was outlawed (e.g., 1964 CRA), explicitly racial

6/ discrimination was superseded by facially "race-neutral" standards.

Now, when we see, by and large, the same racially disproportionate distribution of social and economic goods that was found under the explicit discrimination that was outlawed, it is more than reasonable to

7/ question the presumed race-neutrality of the new standards. That is, if the SUBORDINATED CIRCUMSTANCES and INFERIOR CONDITIONS of historically contingent, socially constructed, racialized people-groups persist from an era of explicitly racially discriminatory standards right

8/ on through, for example, the 1964 CRA (and similar) and continue into an era of facially “race-neutral” standards for said distribution, then we are justified in questioning these standards.

9/ Racially discriminatory CIRCUMSTANCES exist in both cases and are certainly what victims of such discrimination are most rightly concerned about.

A perfect historical example, supplied by Freeman, of this latter pattern is Griggs v. Duke Power Co (1971).

10/ (You can exit here if this is already way too long—unless you want a long example, hahaha.)

11/ In this case, the employer, as a matter of open company policy, had discriminated against Black Americans by limiting advancement to higher paying positions. In response to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, wherein such practices were outlawed, the employer changed his policy, now

12/ adding a diploma requirement as well as sufficient scores on a pair of competencies tests in order to advance out of the “black department.” When the suit came to the Supreme Court, the Justices saw their task as to determine,

13/ “whether an employer is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, from requiring a high school education or passing of a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs when (a) neither standard is shown to be

14/ "significantly related to successful job performance, (b) both requirements operate to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than white applicants, and (c) the jobs in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of a longstanding practice of

15/ "giving preference to whites.” (401 U. S. at 425-26)

The Court ruled unanimously that the policy violated Title VII. In the opinion of the Court,

“The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.

16/ "The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.” (at 431)

17/ Hence, the court put the burden of justification on the supposedly neutral test, not on the disenfranchised victims. The Court even went further.

“The facts of this case demonstrate the inadequacy of broad and general testing devices as well as the infirmity of using

18/ "diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of capability. History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees.” (at 433)

19/ What is, in the end, so interesting about this and similar cases is that it demonstrates the Court’s intent, for a time, to remedy the CIRCUMSTANCES of discrimination by modifying the traditional color-blind notion of “violation,” thereby expanding the formal

20/ “antidiscrimination principle” to include the perspective of victims and their discriminated real life circumstances. Griggs explicitly required the employer to demonstrate the racial neutrality of the test to avoid legal violation of Title VII.

21/ And the evidence required by the Court to prove such racial neutrality was DEMONSTRABLY PROPORTIONATE OUTCOMES, thus forcing the employer to actively ensure fair representation throughout his company. The Court effectively required businesses to voluntarily institute

22/ affirmative action programs to avoid violating Title VII.
Further, as Freeman observes,

“the ‘intentional’ violation in [this case] was adherence to a practice … that produced results associated with segregation. Under this view, retention of the practice in the face of its

23/ "known results becomes a prima facie case of discrimination, again giving rise to a demand for rational justification.” (p. 1102)

Wow. Thus, we see the Court making an antidiscrimination ruling based on the persistence of subordinated circumstances from explicit racial

24/ discrimination through to facially “race-neutral” standards that replaced them, thus—justly!—placing the burden to prove non-discrimination on the supposedly neutral standard itself!

The Supreme Court, for a time, understood systemic racism. And I can't help but pointing

25/ that it is much more reasonable—given the millions of daily repetitions of the Griggs example in all areas of life since "discrimination” was "outlawed”—to explore persistent racial disparities in the light of the systemic racism defined above, rather than presume inferior

26/ behaviors of the victims, placing the burden of proof on them, right smack in the face of obvious, vast, and persistent subordinated circumstances and inferior conditions, wherein “the actual conditions of racial powerlessness, poverty, and unemployment can be regarded as no

27/27 "more than conditions—not as racial discrimination.”

“Those conditions can then be rationalized by treating them as historical accidents or products of a malevolent fate, or, even worse, by blaming the victims as inadequate to function in the good society.” (Alan Freeman)

28/27 In short (hahaha) "systemic racism" itself INCLUDES the preservation of subordinated life circumstances, created by explicitly discriminatory standards and practices, by means of the facially "race-neutral" system-wide standards and practices meant to replace them.

(For more from Freeman, please see: thefrontporch.org/2020/08/the-ch…)

Ugh, so many typos and poorly worded sentences. I hope the points got across.