Q: What can we do to protect young men of color?

“I insist that the irrelevance of black life has been drilled into this country since its infancy, and shall not be extricated through the latest innovations in Negro Finishing School. I insist that racism is our heritage, that Thomas Jefferson’s genius is no more important than his plundering of the body of Sally Hemmings, that George Washington’s abdication is no more significant than his wild pursuit of Oney Judge, that the G.I Bill’s accolades are somehow inseparable from its racist heritage. I will not respect the lie. I insist that racism must be properly understood as an Intelligence, as a sentience, as a default setting to which, likely until the end of our days, we unerringly return.” –Ta-Nehisi Coates, On the Killing of Jordan Davis by Michael Dunn

There is so much talk about how the parents of young black men can protect them from the fates of Jordan Davis, Trayvon Martin, Oscar Grant III, Sean Bell, and the thousands of young men killed for the supposed threat they inherited with the color of their skin. Yet, there is far too little conversation about how we can prevent white men from shooting those same young men. Parents are responsible for protecting their children from oncoming cars or eating too much candy or falling off their bicycles. But it is a particular brand of cruelty to allow the mothers and fathers of young black men to bear the burden of protecting their children from the irrational, violent reactions of grown men, while sparing the parents of young white men, and the authorities in charge of public safety, the responsibility of preventing those same irrational, violent reactions.

Let’s stop talking about how young men of color should change their behavior to shield themselves from the possibility that some white male with a gun might decide to shoot them. Let’s stop telling young black men to turn their music down. To keep their hands exposed. To pull down their hoodies. To dress differently. To speak differently. To keep silent. Let’s stop telling young men of color not to react when someone makes wildly uneducated assumptions based on their appearance. Let’s stop giving young men of color the responsibility to protect themselves from a violence that our society created and has refused to dismember, piece by disgusting piece.²

We (the privileged, the electorate, the white, the outspoken, the aware, the parents, the adults) are responsible for protecting the people with whom we share this country.

So, what can we do to protect young men of color from violence?

Most solutions, if discussed at all, focus on the justice system—how can we make sure these armed white men are prosecuted and convicted appropriately? How can we make their punishments suit the crime? Part of the problem with these discussions is that you can’t use punishment as a deterrent for reactionary crimes. When a white man shoots a black man in the moment there is no thought to the potential consequences presented by the law. Yes, appropriately sentencing white on black crimes would take away the general sense that white men can literally get away with murder. Perhaps that would take some of the edge off of the arrogance some white men find in aiming a gun at another human. But, most of the time, the moment happens too fast. The violent action is done in a split second of anger, fueled by unconscious beliefs about race, entitlement, and how to control a situation.

What we need to address most are the instincts in the moment. Instant reactions are much harder to change than premeditated crimes.

There are two major problems that I can see, which contribute to the overwhelming problem of white violence against black men: first, the conscious or unconscious biases against black men, perpetuated by the media; second, the proliferation of guns into the hands of violent humans. Finally, there’s the problem of violence itself, as a solution to conflict. I’ve thought about a few ways to address these problems, but I want experts, gun owners, young black men, mothers and fathers, all to think about this and come up with solutions that do not fall on the shoulders of the victims and their parents. These are my ideas to get us started, but what I want is dialogue. I want to find an answer to this question and I want the best, most viable answer to fall into the hands of the people who can make it happen.

First, to protect against average gun wielding citizens, we should require that every person to own a gun earn a license, rather than simply buy one. Gun owners should be required to take a test for accuracy and safety, which must be renewed with similar testing in increments of no more than five years.  As part of this testing, every person should be required to pass a background check and attend at least one class about unconscious biases and how they can affect the emotional response of gun use¹. We should require that every potential gun owner take a test that measures their unconscious biases (or implicit associations), and privately receive the results, so that they have the tools to understand their own instincts should they face a potentially violent moment. Why? Because statistics prove that black men are more likely misidentified as having a gun than white men. That matters if you’re going to hand someone a gun. Once a person becomes aware of what unconscious biases they possess, they’re more likely to think about why they think someone is a threat, to question their own judgment, and to think before they react on those unconscious thoughts. That doesn’t help us with consciously racist individuals, but a minor psych evaluation might.

While I realize that many will argue that the second amendment protects Americans from regulations as strict as these, let me assure you that the second amendment was not intended to protect the rights of maniacs who shoot unarmed civilians. The second amendment protects citizens from their governments, or other armed citizens, not to make sure the guy angry about the too-loud music can shoot someone in public. If you go through the proposed steps, you’ll have your gun and there’s your second amendment right.

Driving a motorized vehicle requires a driver’s test, driver’s safety education, and renewal. It is absurd that no such requirements are in place when purchasing a deadly weapon which, may I add, has no other purpose than to kill or injure.  And to anyone who would argue that it is too much of a hassle, or too much to ask of everyone who wants a gun—I ask you, why are a few hours of your time more important than the preservation of other human lives? Are the countless hours of erased time belonging to those expended lives worth less than the few it will take you to learn how to use your gun? If your answer is yes, you are part of the problem.

To protect against the misuse of authority by public safety workers, as well as the danger of internalized associations, any security officer carrying a weapon should routinely be required to attend educational seminars about racial bias. Police officers should be routinely tested for their own unconscious biases and work with a mental health professional to confront those biases if they are unusually apparent. Police officers are in such a uniquely emotionally vigilant position that I find it difficult to imagine their mental state on a day-to-day basis. Unlike most Americans, police officers face the question is this person armed? on a daily basis, and regardless of physical threat, are submerged into vicious situations every day.⁴ Because of that, we should be offering police officers more mental healthcare, more paid leave, and encourage police officers to routinely take a step back from that environment. Too often we have expectations that our police officers should always be ready, aggressive, and express our hyper-masculine brand of courage. In order for there to be any change for men of color in facing the police, we also need to protect the minds of our police officers from becoming so warped that they would shoot a man in the back as he lies face down, as was the case for Oscar Grant III.

Our country needs to get behind a media campaign that will upend the current image of young black men as “thugs” who represent imminent danger, regardless of their actions.^3,5,6  In Jordan Davis’ case, Lizette Alvarez writes, “The prosecutors portrayed Mr. Dunn as a man who felt threatened right away because he viewed the teenagers as “gangsters.” Mr. Strolla[, the defense lawyer,] disputed that notion and said Mr. Dunn has maintained it was the violent rap subculture, not race, that influenced Mr. Davis’s behavior.” Whether or not Dunn shot Jordan Davis because he was black or because he listened to rap music (come on, really?), the result of unconscious bias is the same. Dunn found it within his emotional and physical ability to shoot at three young men, killing one of them, because of preconceived ideas he held about them based on no direct evidence of physical threat.

In order to change this common implicit association between black men and violence, there needs to be a massive overhaul on education about racial bias. Every middle school and high school should require students to take a seminar on at least race and gender in the media. Such a seminar should address how unconscious racial biases are generated from the media we consume every day, and teach young people (who will eventually grow up to be, or to face, these gun wielding maniacs) how to identify their own biases and the biases presented in media.

There needs to be a widespread media campaign, targeted at people in positions of power and authority, representing the diversity of young men of color, of people within inner-cities, and of minorities overall. These campaigns should take real examples of media bias and turn them around, showing the very people whose biases affect the justice system most directly, that young black men are not thugs, that young black men like music, art, sports, science, literature—that these men want to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, pastors, and fathers. We need to intentionally place young black men in positions to create this campaign. Together, we need to proliferate the message that there is hope, kindness, and courage to be found in our young men of color. Because that is the truth and that is what this country needs to see in order to replace negative racial bias with necessary, life-saving pause and consideration of who the person on the other end of the gun is–a living, complex human being.

Television producers, writers, directors, journalists, and news anchors can help by looking more closely at the content that is produced at their place of business. Making sure that images of black men are not associated with every single violent story. Making sure that if we talk about white offenders as sympathetic, we offer the same window of interest into offenders of color. The characterization of people of color should be just as interesting and diverse as that of the white characters, as should be the roles. Compassionate leading roles should be given to men of color. Stories about white crime should be put in the same terms as black crime and vice versa. When reporting about police brutality, sympathy should be applied to the victim more often, or just as often, as it is to the officer in question.

Finally, we need to start to confront the human instinct to react violently to conflict. We need to give our white children the tools to face a problem with rational thought, conversation, or walking away. Rather than bucking up young men to fight back or exert their control, we need to instill a sense of compassion and forgiveness. If we expect the mothers and fathers of men of color to teach them to avoid white men, to obey without question, to keep their hands in our sights, we better expect the mothers and fathers of white men to teach to their children to respect others, react with kindness and compassion, or to walk away from a confrontation rather than engage in violence.

Let’s stop ending this dialogue with, “Well, if he wasn’t acting that way then–” or “He should have known better.” Unarmed civilians should not have to change their appearance or behavior to prevent themselves from being shot. The way that this conversation goes, every single time, is an atrocity in and of itself. Rather than focusing on the criminality of the shooter, we focus on the appearance or supposed personality of the victim, who can no longer represent himself. Ultimately, we decide that the widespread deaths of young men of color is too large a problem or too rare a problem or not our problem at all. We leave the responsibility on the shoulders of mothers and fathers of men of color, expecting them to harden their children against us, to expect us to shoot them down on a whim. Rather than teaching our white sons and our white mothers and fathers to be kind, to react nonviolently, to understand diversity, to see beauty in a stranger who is different—we accept that we, the privileged many, can get away with murder and that is fine.

So, I ask you—how can we protect our young men of color from ourselves, our implicit associations, and the misguided, deadly actions of our uncles and our husbands and our future children?

Sources and Resources: 

1. Payne, Keith. “Prejudice and Perception: The Role of Automatic and Controlled Processes in Misperceiving a Weapon,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (2001): 181.
2. Rothenberg, Paula S. “The Social Construction of Difference.” Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. New York: Worth, 2010. N. pag. Print.
3. Greco Larson, Stephanie. African American Mass Publics in the News.  “Media & Minorities: The Politics of Race in News and Entertainment.” 2006.  p94. Print.
4. Correll, Joshua, Bernadette Park, Charles M. Judd, and Bernd Wittenbrink. “The Police Officer’s Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83.6 (2002): 1314-329. Print.
5. Gilliam, Franklin D and Shanto Iyengar, “Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public,” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2000): 560-73.
6. Muhammad, Kahlil Gibran. The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America. First Harvard Press. 2011. Print.

Racism without Racists: giving voice to injustice in a “color blind” society

Let me start with the preface, I am white–not color blind.

I believe that our society is as far from colorblindness as it has ever been. The fear of being seen as Racist has overpowered the fear of racism itself, discreetly protecting our racism with “color blind” laws and law enforcement. By using terms like “color blindness” we are protecting institutionalized racism from much needed reform–not making racism disappear.

The biggest question for me, when faced with statistics that show obvious racial bias, is: why? Who benefits from a racial caste system, and what would inspire anyone to support one? I imagined a bunch of powerful white men sitting around a table, smoking cigars, talking about how they could “keep the black man down,” as it happened when racial discrimination was formed [7] and absolutely rejected the possibility that such a club could exist today. No one is that racist anymore (I told myself). But the answer is much more dangerous than that. While I now have no doubt that people exist who see racial discrimination and benefit from it, the core of the problem is even more malignant. The problem does not simply belong to a select few at the top. Racism belongs to all of us.

In a country that largely rejects open racial bias and considers racism a societal flaw and injustice, I often hear the claim: “But I/he/she/they/it is/am not a racist, so how can you say __________ is racism?” The obliteration and extinction of The Racist, will not end racism. One does not have to have intentional bias in order for racism to exist, nor for us to act with significant racial consequences. Studies presenting video game players with white and black men, some armed and some not, resulted in participants being more likely to mistake a black target as armed and a white target as unarmed. These results were the same for both white and black participants [1] [2]. Regardless of whether participants explicitly displayed racism, their implicit or internalized bias affected their external actions. In this case, to the point where innocent, unarmed black men would have been shot and armed white men would have held the participant at gunpoint. That is racism without racists, with fatal consequences.

As a result of shining light on the ugliness of racism, we have created an automatic defensive response that protects anyone from ever objectively or actively addressing persisting racism in our society.

If you have ever questioned whether or not an idea, institution, phrase, question, or relationship was racist, you will understand what I mean. Any person involved, regardless of how removed from the inquiry they are, will immediately cry in offense, “that’s not racist!” and either argue that the act is justified by other causes [10] or change the subject by way of their anger and frustration. As a result, our internalized fears of being considered racist has overpowered the fight to end racism. More recently, arguments that whites should not be made to feel guilty for past injustices has distanced racism from our present society and allows whites a simple defense—“I didn’t do it, so why am I to blame?”

That’s not to say that racism is a white issue. Just as often, minorities have deeply rooted biases about other minorities as well as whites. The difference, of course, is that political, economic, and judicial power is still largely in the hands of whites, giving whites more responsibility to check their internalized bias.

This is not about blame. It is bigger than blame. Institutionalized racism is about actions unconsciously informed by racially charged images. No one cares if you do or do not, should or should not, feel guilty. No one is saying that slavery or segregation were your fault. I am saying that in order to address a modern problem, causing the suffering and endangerment of a large group of people based on their race, we need to start protecting our reputations second and first and foremost protect our fellow citizens from injustice.

I was taught, according to society’s standards, that racism is wrong and that all people, regardless of their race are equal. I believe that and have always believed that. And yet, it was not uncommon to hear phrases like, “So there are black kids in your class?” or “The neighborhood is mostly black but we get along okay.” Or to hear the preface to a story, “I’m not racist but—”. I heard this kind of speech about race from people I admired, people who were educated, and people who openly decried racism, denied being racist at any accusation, and praised civil rights icons. If questions about institutionalized racism, or their own use of racially biased language, should arise–they would no doubt exclaim “But I’m not racist!” and be genuinely offended by the simple idea that they might possess racial bias.  Those exclamations always end the conversation or deteriorate the dialogue into a fight.

In addition to those intimate experiences, the media constantly conveys two contradictory messages. First, that racism is unjust and shameful. Second, that minorities, particularly blacks, are violent criminals, goofy and uneducated, and that their lives are only side stories relevant in their relationship to more important white issues. Crime is almost solely depicted as violent and almost always beside the image of a black man. Those messages were not unique to me or the media I consumed [3] [4] [9]. Resulting from these messages, I have racial bias. Do I believe that I am a racist? No. But I accept that internalized ideas of race do affect my behavior, however unconsciously, and that my desire to not be labeled a racist is not more important than having a conversation about eliminating racial bias from both private and federal institutions.

People like me, who grew up with these messages (or in worse post-segregation times like the 70’s and 80’s), run this country. Class is largely divided by race, with the most powerful wealthy being almost solely white men, and a significant portion of the impoverished made up of minorities [12]. The powerful elite are prosecutors, judges, legislators, and police officers and they are mostly white. While positions of complete disenfranchisement, such as the abject poor, prisoners, and parolees, are overwhelmingly occupied by minorities. Internalized bias informed by the media’s association between dark skin and criminality (or, in the case of The Racist–overt bias) give far too many people the explanation that the high conviction rate of racial minorities, is driven by character flaws, rather than institutionalized racism.

Despite evidence that blacks and whites commit crimes at the same rate, blacks face much harsher consequences at every single stage of our criminal justice system. Blacks are more often stopped and frisked, due to blind-eye discretion awarded to law enforcement [5], blacks are more often charged with additional crimes, due to the power awarded to prosecutors, and are more often convicted and harshly sentenced for the same reason. One study showed that blacks convicted of killing white victims were eleven times more likely to receive the death penalty than whites who killed black victims. Further, blacks are more than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced to prison for identical crimes, with prosecutors describing blacks’ crimes as motivated by “internal personality flaws such as disrespect,” and whites’ crimes justified by “external conditions and circumstances” [6] [11].

Racially biased institutions come from two sources: internalized racism (discussed above) and political convenience.

When political power and influence is in the hands of a mostly-white, mostly-affluent legislature and that same legislature is awarded significant power over the judicial branch, the risks of policing, enacting legislation, and punishing people living in certain places becomes very high. As a matter of convenience, the police have an enormous incentive to detain people who have no power over them, hold no risk of repercussions, and can pass easily and unnoticed through the system. If the police were to invade the suburbs in search of weapons or drugs, which they are equally likely to find there as in the inner-cities, the likelihood that they would step on a politician’s toes, or encounter a wealthy lawyer, or be met with someone aware of their rights would be vastly higher [6]. Further, there are far fewer consequences in passing regulation to limit the services available to groups not highly represented in congress, than it is to regulate the wealthy elite.

As a result, we have a system that rewards the prosecution and sacrifice of low-income minorities, and progresses the interests of high-income whites—without the presence of the Racist, which would have previously fed civil rights activists with someone to blame.

As it stands, the Supreme Court has protected these interests by ruling against arguments of racial bias. Just as we shout “I’m not racist!” and end a discussion, the Supreme Court has made several decisions—McCleskey v. Kemp, Armstrong V. United States—that require defendants to present evidence that intentional bias exists in their particular case by the prosecution, or they cannot make any claim that racism affected their conviction. This is a clear catch-22. The defendant is required to have proof that the person prosecuting them—who has every incentive not to provide that proof—acted with intent motivated by racial bias. Studies revealing clear racial bias in a particular state, district, or court have been rejected as evidence because the statistics were not relevant to the defendants’ particular case. So while no discretion in claims of racial bias are awarded to defendants (the victim), complete discretion is awarded to the prosecutors and law enforcement agents (the perpetrators of a racist system, however unintentional their actions may be) [6] [8]. In large part, these decisions are defended by the belief that if a precedent for racial bias arguments is set, the entire criminal justice system will be called into question and we will see countless appeals on that basis. My counter-argument: as it should be.

If enough studies exist (and they do) to prove that unintentional racial bias has infected our criminal justice system, resulting in catastrophic consequences for low-income and minority communities, then we should not just throw up our hands and say “it’s too much work to address that problem,” by instead declaring “I’m not racist and you can’t prove it!”

Once convicted, the quality of life and opportunity in communities with large populations of minorities significantly decreases. With a population of men far more likely to be convicted and receive a lengthy sentence, you create a neighborhood of one-income families, and one-parent households. As a result, you create a set of circumstances that is cyclical: the population is seen as criminal and is treated as such, the children do not have the benefits of two parents and two incomes, the city does not have the resources of a high-income community, each generation then returns to the happenstance of their fathers and mothers, while everyone with the power to change it cries—“But I’m not racist!” and “It’s their own fault!”

When fear of the Racist label, racialized media coverage, and convenience mentalities are coupled with the prevalent idea that all economic, social, and criminal circumstances are created by lack of self-discipline [10], we find ourselves in a country that perpetuates the poverty of minorities with criminalization. Racism without racists.

In order to end this cycle we need to do a few things, starting with whites setting aside our pride and discussing our own flaws. We need to end mandatory minimum sentences for drug charges based on a precedent of proportionality in relation to “cruel and unusual punishment.” We need to put a stop to leniency of discretion for law enforcement by requiring substantiated proof of reasonable suspicion for a search or arrest, rather than allowing officers to use vague charges to justify a search. We need to end leniency of discretion for prosecutors by disallowing trumped up charges and plea bargains based on mandatory minimums. We should require law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights to deny a search. We must create avenues to populate the legislative branch with a representative population, regardless of access to campaign funding. We should require law enforcement agencies to spend equal time and money investigating and patrolling all neighborhoods, regardless of influence or income.

At your next opportunity to cut a conversation short with the declaration, “I’m not racist!” or preface a statement with, “I’m not racist but,” I implore you to allow the conversation to go beyond your comfort. To explore your own internalized racism. To allow yourself to question whether tangible evidence is required for racism to be present.

Finally, leave room to consider that your offense is not more important than our collective progression toward an equal society. If you can rid yourself of a fear of blame, you and I can work together to put solutions into place, rather than bury them.