Thread by @timjacobwise

People rarely think about all the ways that "race-neutral" normal, everyday policies and practices perpetuate and help deepen racial disparities in this country. But they should. Because this too is a large part of what we mean by systemic racism

A thread

When people hear the term "systemic racism" they think those using it mean that every institution is teeming with bigots just waiting to harm Black people or other POC. But that isn't what is meant by the term...(2)

Indeed, some of the most important drivers of systemic racism are not deliberate or intentional at all. Not to say there aren't such intentional elements, but they aren't necessary for racial inequity (and thus racism at a systemic level) to become sedimented...(3)

And yes, sedimented racial disparity is racism. Isms, by definition, are not just ideologies but systems (think capitalism, socialism, communism). They are not merely ways of viewing society, but ways of organizing it. In this case, racism is a system of racial hierarchy...(4)

And like any system, it can be maintained by a number of policies, practices, and procedures -- some formal, others informal. So let's consider some of these. In labor markets, what are the two principal ways that people get jobs? One is via networking, connections, etc...(5)

In fact, research from a few years ago found that about 45% of new jobs post-2009 recession, were being filled via one particular networking mechanism: letters of recommendation from existing employees on behalf of aspiring ones...(6)

Indeed, companies often pay bonuses for employees who bring in new people. It cuts down job search costs and saves them $ after all. But what else does it do? Well, according to the research, this kind of thing tends to favor white men (and upper-middle-class ones at that)...(7)

...because those are the folks most likely to be in the best networks for jobs. So you could be Black or brown, a woman of any color (or hell, a working-class white guy) and never have a shot for nearly half the jobs. This is systemic racism, classism, and sexism...(8)

Sometimes we use the metaphor of the race track when discussing inequity (as in, certain folks had a 3 lap head start, etc). But this is worse. This is like not even knowing where the track is, or that there's a race being run in the first place...This privileges white men...(9)

...and has nothing to do with merit. The second way people get jobs is also problematic. Even in situations where actual qualifications are compared (i.e., resume-based evaluations), the process can perpetuate racial disparity and unequal treatment (i.e., racism)...(10)

How? Simple. Resumes reflect formal credentials (and also, often, a lot of fluff and BS -- I know this because I used to write resumes for people a long time ago and I knew how to make people sound much more qualified than they were)...(11)

But what resumes don't really show you are qualifications. Credentials are like trophies one accumulates. They might reflect real ability and qualifications but often don't. More often they reflect opportunity and access...(12)

And simply put, returning to the race metaphor now, if I've had a head start, I should hit the tape first. So, if I've had more opportunities and access, my resume should look better. I should appear more impressive on paper...(13)

But if employers rely on that, without digging deeper and considering the context within which one obtained all those credentials (or failed to obtain them at quite the same level as someone else) they do a huge disservice...(14)

...first, to the individual overlooked because they were supposedly "less qualified." But also to themselves, because they might be passing on the person who really would have been best for the job...(15)

Conservative critics of DEI or affirmative action efforts often say "we should hold everyone to the same standards" as a reason for hewing to resumes/test scores, etc. when choosing employees or students. But in fact, that holds Black and brown folk to a HIGHER standard...(16)

...bc it asks them to 'hit the tape' so to speak, at the same time or ahead of white folk, despite starting out, typically, behind. They must be faster runners, not merely as good but better. That means they receive disparate treatment/consideration. That is racism...(17)

Or consider access to housing. We all know about redlining back in the day. And evidence suggests ongoing discrimination in lending, home appraisals, etc., even with the Fair Housing Act. But aside from such blatant racism, there are subtle drivers of the problem too (18)...

For instance, lenders often say racial disparities in lending (mortgage rejection rates or higher interest for Black folk in particular) are due to differences in credit history and scores (19)...

For the moment let's put aside whether that holds up (research shows even when Black folk have equal or better credit they are more likely to be rejected or get higher rates than whites). And let's ignore that the banks that say this refuse to release the data to prove it (20)...

...bc they say the data is essentially proprietary and privileged information, or that it's "confidential" and the applicants should have their privacy respected (even though the data could be shared anonymously) (21)...

...and even though I suspect, in any event, Black potential borrowers would gladly relinquish some measure of credit privacy to get to the bottom of the bullshit when it comes to disparate lending. But for now, forget all that. Just consider the credit issue itself (22)...

What determines credit history? First, it's establishing credit early on, perhaps with a credit card or two. When I was 18, my mom added me to a card of hers. I wasn't allowed to use it much but her payment history helped establish my credit (23)...

And we weren't well-off. Far from it. Decidedly lower-middle class. But this was something a huge percentage of my white friends' families did for them. My black friends, even those with more family income rarely did. Why? (24)

First, bc their parents were less likely to have cards themselves. Why? In part because they were probably more responsible financially. Using credit cards isn't a good habit to get in. Most black families I knew thought they were a trap. Which is true (25)...

But it's a trap (or at least a potential one) that can bring benefits when it comes to establishing credit. Which matters, along with payment history, when it comes time to try and buy a house. It even matters for renting nowadays, as landlords check credit history too (26)..

Now you might say, what's the big deal? Shouldn't lenders (even landlords) be able to look at financial ability to pay a mortgage or rent before lending/renting a place to someone? OK. But many of the things Black and brown folks DO have and pay on (other than credit cards) (27)

Like phone bills, utilities, even prior rent, don't count towards a potential borrower's credit score. Well, I should say, they don't count FOR you if you pay consistently. If you don't pay and they get turned to collections or result in a court judgment it could hurt you (28)...

And perhaps you think, no shit, those aren't "credit" so they shouldn't count. OK, but if banks/landlords are trying to get a sense of risk, why is "credit" the only aspect relevant? If folks pay their regular bills in a timely fashion, why shouldn't that help? (29)...

And if Black folk are less likely to have strong credit histories, or FICO scores that would be better if key bills like rent, utilities, and phone were considered, then not counting them perpetuates racial disparity in lending, even without intent. Again, this is racism (30)...

Or consider schooling. Obviously, there is evidence of overt racism in discipline (Black kids 3x more likely suspended/expelled despite similar rates of infractions, and especially for lower-level infractions), or racism in "ability tracking." But forget that for now (31)...

And forget racially marginalizing curriculum or other things like that. Just consider two things considered totally normal, and which may have legitimate non-racial reasons for them, but which end up perpetuating racial inequity and thus racism, systemically (32)...

First, neighborhood schools. On the one hand, most parents regardless of race would probably prefer their kids go to school close to home. But when neighborhoods are so racially and economically bifurcated, this arrangement locks in inequity (33)...

First, neighborhood schools. On the one hand, most parents regardless of race would probably prefer their kids go to school close to home. But when neighborhoods are so racially and economically bifurcated, this arrangement locks in inequity (33)...

I'm not saying schools in all-Black neighborhoods can't be excellent. During segregation many were and many are now. And many in all-white 'hoods aren't really that great in terms of adding value to the more privileged kids who attend them (34)...

That said, it is obviously easier to teach/administrate or learn in schools that are 1/10th as likely to be places of concentrated poverty (true for mostly white schools) than schools that are 10x more likely to be high poverty schools (true for Black majority schools) (35)...

Especially because unlike in segregation, where the amazing Black teachers were also relegated to teaching in Black schools -- and so the kids were guaranteed some of the best educators out there -- now majority Black schools are far less likely to get the best teachers (36)...

Or even teachers certified specifically to teach the subjects they teach. They are, however, more likely to get some young white person fresh out of college and 5 weeks of TFA training or some other alternative certification program (sigh) (37)...

This is NOT to glamorize segregation. But, ironically, when we integrated bodies (theoretically, since it has returned de facto), the allotment of teachers to Black and brown schools trended toward less experienced, less effective, on average, than before (38)...

And w/ neighborhood schools largely segregated by race and class, whiter spaces (on avg more affluent) can add to their budgets w/ outside fundraisers, wealthy PTAs, etc to meet their kids' needs. So racial disparity in the quality of education & preparation is perpetuated (39)..

Then we take all these kids from unstandardized backgrounds w/ unstandardized K-12 school quality, w/ unstandardized curriculum, etc, and give them standardized tests, which is the 2nd "race-neutral" and normative mechanism reinforcing racial inequity (40)...

And i just lost points 40-55 due to a computer glitch, so please bar with me while I recreate it...ugh, I hate that they make you stop threading after 25 points and start a new one...thus the glitch. I'll be back...

Now, I'm not against standardized testing entirely. If used to gauge teacher/school effectiveness it can give us important info. And some kids do better on them than they in day to day grades (especially some who are neuro-atypical & may struggle in class but are bright) (41)...

But in this country we use them, let's face it, more as a gatekeeping mechanism than anything else: to determine if and where students will go on to the next level. And that reinforces inequity embedded bc of differential resources which has class and race dimensions (42)...

And these tests are NOT great indicators of ability. Indeed HS grades (which are far less racially disparate) are much better predictors of college success (tests add little to their predictive validity even to the extent we think that's the key metric--itself arguable)...(43)

So if we looked at grades and classroom performance along with some of Bill Sedlacek's Non-Cognitive Instruments (used on the Gates Foundation Millennium Scholarships, for instance) which test perseverance, etc. we would get greater racial equity in college admissions (44)...

...all while preserving the notion of "merit" (broadly defined) and high standards. But we don't do that. Why? Bc the tests work very well for those at the top so there is no major push to change it. Tests are MOST correlated with zip code, after all (45)...

And so that too perpetuates class and race inequity, and again even without any specific intent to marginalize anyone, and even with otherwise (arguably) defensible non-racist reasons for doing it...(46)...

I have a section of this on policing and criminal justice too but I need to take a break to do some things...I'll post that later tonight...Bottom line, these things are all the ways racism is maintained BEFORE any actual "racist" in the old school sense enters the room (47)...

Even before a single racist HR director, loan officer, teacher, principal, or admissions officer enters the picture. Even BEFORE the consideration of bias, explicit or implicit. This is all normative structural stuff..and it matters (48)