[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Moreover, arguably an institution can be "systemically racist" regardless of the identity of its membership. I would argue that "systemic" implies that racism is part of the system, and if the system is racist, the institution is racist even if every single person in it is Black.

I did not say otherwise. I merely suggested that, for instance, the hiring process of the Toronto police does not reflect the make up of the Toronto population. I could have said the same for Quebec broadcasters. Why is that? Is it because the people of the Toronto police are all horrible racist people? No. That's precisely the sort of defensive reaction that talks about systemic racism were hoping to circumvent.

you conveniently ignore a lot of other factors, especially for broadcasters.  Notice many obese presenters?  Ugly women?  Handicapped men?

[viper37]

I think the issue with Stockwell Day (or Réserve Bien Jour) is that conservatives start with a strike or two against them right now, because of the current, and entirely warranted, IMO, suspicion about current conservative movement being pretty welcoming to racists.

Now, who's tone deaf? 

[Oexmelin]

I don' think you know what that means.

[viper37]

I don' think you know what that means.

The Conservatives have rooted every single racist that was observed in their party, but you totally ignore that, because it does not fit your nice narrative.  And you are again in a position to deny a fundamental right, the right to free speech, to someone you disagree with.

I believe I heard someone once said "Freedom of speech means nothing if it's confined to your living room".  Remember that guy?  Cause I sure miss him, despite our disagreements and my sometimes (often) bad temper of the time.

[Malthus]

Moreover, arguably an institution can be "systemically racist" regardless of the identity of its membership. I would argue that "systemic" implies that racism is part of the system, and if the system is racist, the institution is racist even if every single person in it is Black.

I did not say otherwise. I merely suggested that, for instance, the hiring process of the Toronto police does not reflect the make up of the Toronto population. I could have said the same for Quebec broadcasters. Why is that? Is it because the people of the Toronto police are all horrible racist people? No. That's precisely the sort of defensive reaction that talks about systemic racism were hoping to circumvent.

The idea that systemic racism needs to be at the level of horror of residential school or Jim Crow laws makes it really hard to discuss the actual discrimination taking place.

Without any defensiveness, I would merely suggest that having an imbalance is not In itself proof of systemic racism in the hiring process.

That is an allegation that one cannot leap to merely by the observation that there is an imbalance, as there could be any number of explanations having nothing to do with systemic racism.

The problem with the conversation is that, all too often, people jump to the conclusion they wish to see, without evidence; it is then easy to dismiss any criticism as either racist itself, or "defensiveness".

To give an example of why I am not satisfied with the "it's systemic racism" explanation, consider the case of the Jewish lawyer. Jews are wildly disproportionately represented among lawyers, compared to (say) Catholics. Does this mean systemic bigotry against Catholics and in favour of Jews is the explanation?

This, or something like it, is a very popular explanation in extreme right wing circles for why so many Jews (ditto Jews in entertainment, medicine and the sciences): it is all due to Jews sticking together and keeping out non-Jews. That other factors may be at work (for example, a predilection on the part of Jews to heavily favour certain occupations) gets disregarded. 

[crazy canuck]

Jesus Christ Malthus, how much evidence more evidence do you need.

[Ancient Demon]

How would systemic racism be falsifiable?

[Valmy]

How would systemic racism be falsifiable?

That is a problem It kind of hints at the vague and hard to pin down sources of the problems and finding solutions to them.

I mean that is my sense anyway. It can get frustrating for all involved.

[Malthus]

Jesus Christ Malthus, how much evidence more evidence do you need.

Here's the exact problem in a nutshell - I'm critiquing a statement jumping to a conclusion (that more cops are white than the general population = problems in the hiring methodology = systemic racism), and I get met with ... incredulity.

Note that I'm not claiming the Toronto cops do not have a problem with racism, or even that the cops are not "systemically racist". I'm merely stating that you can't get to that conclusion from a simple factual observation that more cops are white than the general population, any more than you could reasonably claim they are *not* suffering from systemic racism because the police chief happens to be Black.

You have to point to something in the system that is racist, and if you can't, it is hard to make the claim that systemic racism is *the* problem (as opposed to something else, such as individual racist officers, or even non-racist violent interactions caused by factors completely unlinked to racism).

The tendency to collapse everything to 'see, there has been violence or other problems, so it simply must be racism in some form', then shouting down any discussion, is a huge problem for progressives, leading to their message being lost because its conclusions become increasingly divorced from sound analysis.

[Oexmelin]

Then ask the question you implied:

Why are Jews more interested in law?
Why are... Whites? more interested in policing?

The first points to a cultural connection. The second, to a racial one.
(I'll acknowledge immediately the racial component in Jewish identity, lest we be derailed in that direction).

There is enough data out there about racial composition in police forces to posit informed hypothesis about the Toronto police. It's not so much "jumping to a conclusion" than drawing inferences from available data. Which is - and we are back to the "woman debate" - about the only imperfect thing we will ever have.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-department-officer-demographics-minority-representation.html

Sure, there may be a combination of a multitude of factors in all of these very diverse places. But the fact is: the common element they have, is that white officers are all over-represented when contrasted with their communities. And maybe Catholics are under-represented too, I have no idea. But my guess is Catholics don't feel over-policed, and therefore, may not see that as a problem.

*Again*, the point IS NOT that the Toronto police is outright racist, or conscientiously implementing discriminatory hiring practices.The point is that there are structural issues, *systems* which either limit the pool of non-white applicants, or limits the hiring of non-white applicants. We have to fall back on systems - again, a different way of saying "the compounded effects of individual decisions taken collectively" - because the number of people who are observably, or self-reportedly racist is very low.

Is this a problem? Do we care that police forces, or news broadcast, or journalists, or judges do not represent the racial composition of a country? Considering the gigantic body of literature about unacknowledged biases, the role of fear in policing, the place of empathy in sentencing, one may think it is indeed a problem.

[crazy canuck]

Jesus Christ Malthus, how much evidence more evidence do you need.

Here's the exact problem in a nutshell - I'm critiquing a statement jumping to a conclusion (that more cops are white than the general population = problems in the hiring methodology = systemic racism), and I get met with ... incredulity.

Note that I'm not claiming the Toronto cops do not have a problem with racism, or even that the cops are not "systemically racist". I'm merely stating that you can't get to that conclusion from a simple factual observation that more cops are white than the general population, any more than you could reasonably claim they are *not* suffering from systemic racism because the police chief happens to be Black.

You have to point to something in the system that is racist, and if you can't, it is hard to make the claim that systemic racism is *the* problem (as opposed to something else, such as individual racist officers, or even non-racist violent interactions caused by factors completely unlinked to racism).

The tendency to collapse everything to 'see, there has been violence or other problems, so it simply must be racism in some form', then shouting down any discussion, is a huge problem for progressives, leading to their message being lost because its conclusions become increasingly divorced from sound analysis.

I was assuming you had wider knowledge than what was in Oex's post.

While existing equity efforts have led to a greater number and percentage of racial minorities and Aboriginal people being employed within police services, serious barriers of exclusion and discrimination remain. The experience of civil actions before human rights commissions and tribunals has helped to identify at least six remaining barriers that need to be addressed in efforts to further address systemic racism in police employment[4]:

A quasi-exclusive focus on entry-level constabulary positions at the expense of integration and promotion and of the diversification of civilian employees;
Job ghettos;
Racial harassment in the workplace;
Supervisor's support as a condition for promotion;
Security requirements and
The lack of police union support.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/race-policy-dialogue-papers/systemic-barriers-racially-representative-law-enforcement-agencies

I see no compelling evidence that much has changed since this report was released.

[Malthus]

Then ask the question you implied:

Why are Jews more interested in law?
Why are... Whites? more interested in policing?

The first points to a cultural connection. The second, to a racial one.
(I'll acknowledge immediately the racial component in Jewish identity, lest we be derailed in that direction).

There is enough data out there about racial composition in police forces to posit informed hypothesis about the Toronto police. It's not so much "jumping to a conclusion" than drawing inferences from available data. Which is - and we are back to the "woman debate" - about the only imperfect thing we will ever have.

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-department-officer-demographics-minority-representation.html

Sure, there may be a combination of a multitude of factors in all of these very diverse places. But the fact is: the common element they have, is that white officers are all over-represented when contrasted with their communities. And maybe Catholics are under-represented too, I have no idea. But my guess is Catholics don't feel over-policed, and therefore, may not see that as a problem.

*Again*, the point IS NOT that the Toronto police is outright racist, or conscientiously implementing discriminatory hiring practices.The point is that there are structural issues, *systems* which either limit the pool of non-white applicants, or limits the hiring of non-white applicants. We have to fall back on systems - again, a different way of saying "the compounded effects of individual decisions taken collectively" - because the number of people who are observably, or self-reportedly racist is very low.

Is this a problem? Do we care that police forces, or news broadcast, or journalists, or judges do not represent the racial composition of a country? Considering the gigantic body of literature about unacknowledged biases, the role of fear in policing, the place of empathy in sentencing, one may think it is indeed a problem.

Why cannot the second point to a cultural connection as well?

It is well known that policing is a popular occupation for some, in some cases *despite the fact that the group in question is disliked or discriminated against by the general population*. I give you an example: the case of the Irish in America. "No dogs or Irish need apply" was once a common sign - yet the Irish ended up over-represented in the police nonetheless. The reason is that they interacted with local party "machines" in cities such as New York and made a concerted effort to pull themselves into the police.

Is there a similar pull for visible minorities to become cops today in Toronto? I would suggest there is not, for a whole slew of cultural reasons - police jobs are not highly regarded in immigrant communities, for example.

Assuming this is true, using  "systemic racism" as they label is misleading, as it implies a system designed to keep certain races out - which may not be the case at all. Claiming that the aggregate of individual decisions leading to differences in racial balances equals "systemic racism" diluted the latter term to meaninglessness - it can not differentiate between (say) 'I am a member of minority X, my relatives would all hate me if I dared to become a cop, so I will become a nursing assistant instead" and "I am a member of minority X, I submitted my application to become a cop, but it was rejected because my name was Mohammed - while my friend with the same qualifications was accepted because his name was Smith, because he went to a school in an all-White area which their system was rigged to accept".

[Malthus]

Jesus Christ Malthus, how much evidence more evidence do you need.

Here's the exact problem in a nutshell - I'm critiquing a statement jumping to a conclusion (that more cops are white than the general population = problems in the hiring methodology = systemic racism), and I get met with ... incredulity.

Note that I'm not claiming the Toronto cops do not have a problem with racism, or even that the cops are not "systemically racist". I'm merely stating that you can't get to that conclusion from a simple factual observation that more cops are white than the general population, any more than you could reasonably claim they are *not* suffering from systemic racism because the police chief happens to be Black.

You have to point to something in the system that is racist, and if you can't, it is hard to make the claim that systemic racism is *the* problem (as opposed to something else, such as individual racist officers, or even non-racist violent interactions caused by factors completely unlinked to racism).

The tendency to collapse everything to 'see, there has been violence or other problems, so it simply must be racism in some form', then shouting down any discussion, is a huge problem for progressives, leading to their message being lost because its conclusions become increasingly divorced from sound analysis.

I was assuming you had wider knowledge than what was in Oex's post.

While existing equity efforts have led to a greater number and percentage of racial minorities and Aboriginal people being employed within police services, serious barriers of exclusion and discrimination remain. The experience of civil actions before human rights commissions and tribunals has helped to identify at least six remaining barriers that need to be addressed in efforts to further address systemic racism in police employment[4]:

A quasi-exclusive focus on entry-level constabulary positions at the expense of integration and promotion and of the diversification of civilian employees;
Job ghettos;
Racial harassment in the workplace;
Supervisor's support as a condition for promotion;
Security requirements and
The lack of police union support.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/race-policy-dialogue-papers/systemic-barriers-racially-representative-law-enforcement-agencies

I see no compelling evidence that much has changed since this report was released.

You assumed the argument was other than it was.

[crazy canuck]

You are being a bit obtuse.  Oex has his own reasons for thinking there is structural racism.  I don't think he is wrong, but I do think there are a number of other reasons to also reach that conclusion.  You also know those reasons.

[Oexmelin]

it can not differentiate between (say) 'I am a member of minority X, my relatives would all hate me if I dared to become a cop, so I will become a nursing assistant instead" and "I am a member of minority X, I submitted my application to become a cop, but it was rejected because my name was Mohammed - while my friend with the same qualifications was accepted because his name was Smith, because he went to a school in an all-White area which their system was rigged to accept".

It's well-known that some cultures have an ingrained distrust of the police for no reason at all. It's just a preference. Like the color blue, for instance. It emerged from the ether.

Why are classical orchestra so white? The advent of blind auditions has seen a remarkable increase in non-white musicians, and women soloist - this, despite assurances from overwhelmingly liberal musicians that they were not individual racists, or individual sexists. Still, classical orchestras remain mostly white. Can't black people be classical musicians? Of course not.
They just "prefer not to". This, on the face of it, is true. They prefer not to. But *why* do they not prefer to?

This is quite similar to the women-in-math debate. It's not that women can't do math, it's just that they prefer not to. So... therefore, nothing should be done, right? It's just a preference. But, as decades of scholarship on feminism (and indeed on culture) have shown, preferences do not emerge from the ether. They are shaped by expectations, created and enforced by institutions, policed by conformism. And what you can expect for yourself is an extraordinary hurdle to overcome.

In the end, your cultural explanation is, I argue, a lot more plastic, a lot more amorphous, a lot more unhelpful, and ultimately, a lot more of an encouragement to do nothing. Yet you seem more than ready to accept it, and refute systemic racism. It really seems like the crux of your objection is that idea that racism requires individual intent. In short, you accept culture as a system that constrains individual behavior, but refute racism as such a system. It's easy to turn the argument on its head: it's within white culture to prefer white applicants. We end up with similar conclusions as the use of "systemic racism", except that now, it becomes extremely difficult to confront it. Rather than change behavior that can be studied in institutions, we are stuck confronting "culture". What isn't encompassed in "culture"? Should we intervene to change the culture, or do nothing because it's a culture, and nothing should be done to change a culture?