Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

This is how CRT theorists understand "systemic racism" (note: every word and phrase here is intentional):

"Critical race theory challenges ahistoricism and insists on a contextual/historical analysis of the law. 1/

2/ "Current inequalities and social/institutional practices are linked to earlier periods in which the intent and cultural meaning of such practices were clear.

"More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that presumes that racism has contributed to all

3/ "contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along racial lines, including differences in income, imprisonment, health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this presumption." ~@mari_matsuda et al

4/ Note: "... linked to earlier periods in which the intent and cultural meaning of such practices were clear."

This is Charles Lawrence III's test, something which markedly distinguish traditional CRT approaches from, e.g., Kendi's analysis.

5/ Lawrence discusses Washington v. Davis (1976) in his "The Id, the Ego, and Equal protection." The case involved a written test the DC Metropolitan Police Department used for hiring. And as the Court noted, “blacks failed [the test] at a rate roughly four times that of whites.”

6/ Commenting on this outcome, Lawrence writes:

"The most obvious racial element is the exam’s racially disproportionate impact. One can argue that the government’s action racially stigmatizes because blacks fail the exam in larger numbers than whites.

7/ "But not every case of racially disparate impact has racial meaning. An increased bus fare may burden a larger percentage of blacks than whites, but we do not think of the fare increase as a direct stigmatization of blacks. It does not convey a message of racial inferiority.

8/ "Thus, if the governmental action in Davis conveys a racial message, it must derive that meaning from something other than, or in addition to, its racial impact. Like the traffic barrier in Memphis v. Greene, there must be something in the particulars of its historical and

9/ "cultural context that causes us to interpret this action-at least intuitively-in racial terms."

Lawrence goes to great lengths to establish a set of legal principles to distinguish mere disparate impact from racist disparate impact, that is, disparate impact that consciously

10/10 or unconsciously assumes or promotes racial inferiority. Basic to Lawrence’s racial impact test is assessing the public meaning of an act or policy as contextualized within an identifiable history of racial meanings and cultural symbols shared by a community.