As stated on Sunday, the President’s comments on race in part helped to push us away from one discussion on the Trayvon Martin killing and toward another. The President said, “When Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
This is the reality that all African-Americans have to deal with in our society – the prospect of being treated not because of their actions, but being regarded with suspicion because of the color of their skin and the location of their whereabouts.
We have the President of the United States articulating what it is like to be racially profiled. He said, “There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.”
He continued: “There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”
Some believe that this is indeed justified, based on crime statistics and a perceived propensity for African-Americans to be more likely to commit crimes than whites.
But I think the most important thing the President said was this: “The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.”
He adds: “This isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.”
At the same time, he can articulate the concern of those in the black community when he states, “It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.”
“I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys,” he said. “But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”
I apologize to my readers for the long introduction but this is the key point I think that divides black from white and liberal from conservative on the issue of race.
The view of whites and conservatives seem to be that, while the system may be unfair, the key to progress for African-Americans is individual responsibility. If the system is unfair – and many increasingly acknowledge that it is – the answer is to avoid the system.
My problem goes back to the arguments of Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, and I believe that these individuals – while well-intentioned, at least at times – miss the critical link between drug policies, unequal enforcement and the poverty-crime cycle.
To put it plainly – once blacks get into the system, the system creates hurdles making it nearly impossible to get out. The unequal enforcement and damage of a single early conviction has a huge ripple effect down the line.
The argument of Michelle Alexander is this: “In the era of colorblindness, it is no longer socially permissible to use race, explicitly, as a justification for discrimination, exclusion, and social contempt. So we don’t. Rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color ‘criminals’ and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind.”
Once an individual enters the criminal justice, she argues, “the old forms of discrimination – employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, denial of educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusion from jury service – are suddenly legal. As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow.”
I do not go quite as far as Michelle Alexander – at least not yet. I think these are more byproducts of a broken system than an effort to systematically hold down the African-American population.
However, as Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy told the New York Times last year in an article on Ms. Alexander, “I don’t believe in the government conspiracy, but what you have to accept is that that narrative exists in the community and has to be addressed.”
“Everyone in the African-American community had been seeing exactly what she is talking about but couldn’t put it into words,” said Phillip Jackson, executive director of the Black Star Project, an educational advocacy group in Chicago.
“The book is helping white folks who otherwise would have simply dismissed that idea understand why so many people believe it,” said David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “It is making them take that seriously.”
Rick Olson, a state representative in Michigan, was one of the few whites and few Republicans in the room when Professor Alexander gave a talk sponsored by the state’s black caucus in January.
“I had never before connected the dots between the drug war, unequal enforcement, and how that reinforces poverty,” Representative Olson said. “I thought, ‘Gee whiz, let me get this book.’ “
Those who want to put the blame for persistentant black poverty on criminality need to read this part closely. The central thesis here is that the rate of drug use by blacks and whites is fairly even. And yet, for many reasons, blacks are far more likely to be arrested than white for the same crime.
“African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses,” according to the Human Rights Watch. “From 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.”
The biggest reason for that arrest rate differential is probably based on circumstance. While more affluent people can use drugs in the general security of their homes, the more impoverished and youthful users end up closer to the streets – where it is more likely they encounter law enforcement.
This one fact has a cascading effect.
This is where the system takes over. Blacks get harsher punishments than whites, even controlling for repeat offenses and nature of crimes.
“The U.S. Sentencing Commission stated that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent longer than white offenders for the same crimes. The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more like to be sentenced to prison.”
Once in the system, getting out is tough. Convicted felons cannot vote, are ineligible for public housing and an array of public assistance benefits, and, of course, having to check the “felon box” is a huge barrier to attaining jobs.
Studies have shown: “Evidence shows that spending time in prison affects wage trajectories with a disproportionate impact on black men and women. The results show no evidence of racial divergence in wages prior to incarceration; however, following release from prison, wages grow at a 21 percent slower rate for black former inmates compared to white ex-convicts. A number of states have bans on people with certain convictions working in domestic health-service industries such as nursing, child care, and home health care-areas in which many poor women and women of color are disproportionately concentrated.”
So what happens as the result of this? I was sitting in a courtroom once, as an individual pled to selling drugs – why was he selling drugs? He needed to pay for his court fees. While Judge Rosenberg told him that he needed to find a more appropriate means to earn a living, it does raise a real question about the burdens put on convicted people.
So does the discrepancy in drug laws account for differences in violent crime rates? That is a factor that needs to be studied more. Getting people into the system at a younger age is more likely to lead to recidivism, especially when job prospects and future earnings are curtailed. Play the scenario out several generations, rather than a single lifetime, and I think we have a problem.
One of the more commonly noted sentencing differentials is the difference between the penalties for rock cocaine versus powder cocaine. There is an incongruence, just given the difference in the street price for rock which is relatively cheap, versus the much more expensive powder cocaine.
But observe this: Possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine yields a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offense; it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to prompt the same sentence.
Drug use has also shifted from cocaine to the more accessible and much more devastating meth. But the bottom line is that the realities of incarceration perpetuate the problem.
In my view, we need to understand the issue of race now in terms of the criminal justice system. There is a clear link between drug policies, unequal enforcement and the poverty-crime cycle. Basically, once you get into the system, you can’t get out of it.
I agree with many conservatives that part of the strategy is intervention – prevent youths from getting into the system to begin with. I suspect we disagree on how that can and should be accomplished.
But simply preventing the problem is not going to suffice. We need, in essence, another firewall here, and that is to change the system so that it does not cripple someone for life when they take an early felony conviction for small personal use of drugs.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here’s someone who has a grip on the race problem:
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/07/23/bill-oreilly-president-obama-and-race-problem[/url]
Agree GI.
Here is someone else that has a grip on the race problem.
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html[/url]
And another…
[url]http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist/page/full[/url]
Frankly, O’reilly got very passionate during that monologue and the liberals on here could really learn something from it.
[i]I agree with many conservatives that part of the strategy is intervention – prevent youths from getting into the system to begin with. I suspect we disagree on how that can and should be accomplished.[/i]
You basically have until the child hits puberty to steer him correctly. After that the laws of diminishing returns take over.
I could make a definitive list of actions required to ACTUALLY solve the black community’s problematic over-representation and under-representation. I think there are many people that could do the same… and most of these people would probably agree. But while the media, white elite liberals and race-baiting political and social leaders continue to block any meaningful conversation about race that moves away from blaming history and whites, it is useless to try.
We need to be honest about racial differences and their impact to race-based behavior and outcomes. Until we do that, there is not much return on investment for putting effort into attempts at solutions.
One difference that I think needs to be discussed is the potential correlation with violence, risk taking and testosterone levels. There have been numerous studies that testosterone levels of black males are higher than any other race. There is correlated evidence that this explains the higher rate of prostate cancer in black males. But does it also help explain at least some of the over-representation in crime?
As our education system continues to “chick-a-fy” – as one popular radio talk show host describes – education outcomes for boys, and especially black boys, continues to fall.
From my perspective, there is a bias against testosterone and standard boy behavior that starts in the earliest grades. This is brought to us directly from the women’s movement and the very white liberal establishment that decries black over-representation in crime and punishment.
Maybe one place to start to solve the problems in the black community is to honestly evaluate how changes in our education system over the years have and are contributing to the increasing incarceration rate of black males. There are certainly other causes, but education should be an immediate topic and source of some problem solving. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for blocking needed reforms of crappy inner-city schools only to protect their adult jobs programs and union campaign benefactors.
David wrote:
> To put it plainly – once blacks get into the
> system, the system creates hurdles making it
> nearly impossible to get out.
Most (but not all) people “in the system” are bad people that have been committing crimes for years before they ever get “in the system”. The reason that most “blacks” find it “nearly impossible to get out” is that they keep committing crimes while on parole (just like most whites, Hispanics and Asians on parole that end up back in jail before they get off parole). I actually read something a while back that said white criminals are MORE likely than blacks to end up back in the “big house” while on parole…
> But observe this: Possession of 28 grams of crack
> cocaine yields a five-year mandatory minimum sentence
> for a first offense; it takes 500 grams of powder
> cocaine to prompt the same sentence.
As someone who did “ride alongs” in the “black community” in the 80’s I can tell you that crack does a lot more damage to a community than powdered cocaine (I lived in a “white community” at the same time).
Should a “first offender” who throws a rock at a window found with 500 more rocks in his car get the same sentence as a guy who blows up a building with a shoulder fired rocket launcher and has 28 more rocket launchers in his truck?
Growth and Frankly: I spent a long time putting this piece together, most of my day yesterday in fact, I’d appreciate the first responses not being links to other people’s opinions – just out of courtesy.
South:
“Most (but not all) people “in the system” are bad people that have been committing crimes for years before they ever get “in the system”.”
I disagree. The first foray into the system very well may be felony probation, but that’s still in the system and liberties start getting taken away.
” The reason that most “blacks” find it “nearly impossible to get out” is that they keep committing crimes while on parole”
What I’m suggesting to you is that the rules that are put in place almost insure this and they insure for both whites and blacks, the problem comes when you have a much larger number of blacks than whites in the system initially.
“As someone who did “ride alongs” in the “black community” in the 80’s I can tell you that crack does a lot more damage to a community than powdered cocaine (I lived in a “white community” at the same time).”
Maybe the problem is that the people using the powder have more financial security and a bigger safety net.
[quote]Growth and Frankly: I spent a long time putting this piece together, most of my day yesterday in fact, I’d appreciate the first responses not being links to other people’s opinions – just out of courtesy. I don’t mind vigorous debate and no, Growth izzue, it’s not a rule, your post won’t be taken down, I’m just asking that as a courtesy to me. [/quote]
Seriously David, you’ve got to be kidding.
I’m not. I don’t ask for much from you, I’m asking for that courtesy.
Frankly:
“You basically have until the child hits puberty to steer him correctly. After that the laws of diminishing returns take over. “
Agreed, but many of these kids start out behind the eight-ball.
So I’d like you to evaluate the impact of the system on the possibility of kids getting chances, you basically completely ignored what I wrote.
Okay David, but you have never asked for that before (as far as I’ve seen) and we both know that if you had a supporting link posted it would’ve never been brought up.
[quote]…change the system so that it does not cripple someone for life when they take an early felony conviction for small personal use of drugs.[/quote]
Aside from the option of decriminalizing drug possession, it seems that an option that would clear the conviction (i.e., eliminate the record) under certain circumstances would enable people convicted of minor drug crimes to apply for work without having a criminal record.
Astounding. Confronted with David’s excellent synopsis of a profoundly significant analysis of the institutional racism embodied in the criminal justice system, certain commenters ignore the article and, instead, hide under their security blankets in the form of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. (Describing Bill O’Reilly as “someone who has a grip on the race problem” is worthy of The Onion. Doing ride-alongs in the 80s does not make one an expert on anything except, perhaps, the comfort level of the back seats of 1980s vintage police cars.)
Please consider reading Michelle Alexander’s book before accepting simplistic conclusions, such as “the reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family.” Alexander’s book may actually provide some insights into what’s responsible for the state of the African American family.
I also think that the entire Controlled Substances Act schedule classification system is in dire need of review and revision. Probably an independent commission would have to do it.
While this opinion piece has some reasonable points it doesn’t address the the black youth culture and it’s permissiveness towards certain activities. The problem begins with birth rates to single mothers the moves to the drop out rate, the music, the teen pregnancy rate, and the lack of jobs for black youths, especially in inner cities.
Finding a balanced approach would be better than focusing on a singular issue. This article is about statistics, incarceration rates, prison terms, and unequal enforcement.
Prison terms are generally decided by judges. That should be very easy to address because you only have to address the issue with just a few people compared to the total number of people in the justice system.
I know it’s kind of a chicken or egg question but at some point the cycle has to stop. Since the only people who get it are blacks, whites can’t understand, it will have to start internally.
As for unequal enforcement look at the crime numbers. Think about fishing. If you know a bunch of fish are in one part of a lake wouldn’t you fish in that part of the lake. We know from statistics that inner city black neighborhoods tend to have high crime rates. If Davis had huge number of robberies and murders in downtown would it be a good idea to have equal police patrol time in El Macero as downtown? Take race out of it and just look at the crime numbers.
[i]The view of whites and conservatives seem to be that, while the system may be unfair, the key to progress for African-Americans is individual responsibility. If the system is unfair – and many increasingly acknowledge that it is – the answer is to avoid the system.[/I]
I don’t see the system as being “unfair”. I see the system as simply being the system. And the “individual responsibility” I expect from a black person is no different than I expect from any other person.
[I]To put it plainly – once blacks get into the system, the system creates hurdles making it nearly impossible to get out. The unequal enforcement and damage of a single early conviction has a huge ripple effect down the line.[/i]
Again, this is the same for any person. A white person cannot easily recover from big mistakes made early in life that leave him with a criminal record. If his family has money, they might be able to help him open a business, or get him a job. But then the same should be true with a black person in a family with money.
Neither of these are justified racial considerations, so why then use the work “black” in describing them.
I think were you are going with this is to have race-based crime and punishment statutes… I guess a sort of affirmative action system for blacks to be given a second… and maybe a third and forth chance. I could not disagree with this idea any more if accepting it meant that I would also get beat with a hammer.
However, I would welcome discussion about changes in our drug laws to reduce punishment for simple non-violent possession. And take the savings we would get from the reductions in law enforcement and judicial resources required and invest it instead in treatment programs.
I have become much more sympathetic to addiction problems having experienced so many friends, family and coworkers… good people of normal intelligence… have their lives go off the rails because they cannot stop ingesting crap that makes them feel good for a short time while it destroys them and everything around them. I have complete self-control of these things, and so I have always considered addition a choice and a sign of laziness and weakness. But know I see that there is some physiological difference in some people that makes them have stronger cravings and obsessions… and when they are introduced with to a feel good substance with addictive properties, they are toast.
I watched a program on this. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine[/url] Apparently DMT is a new drug gaining popularity that causes black-out dream hallucinations that last about 15 minutes and there are no addictive properties. Maybe this and pot being legalized will provide enough “high” that it will cause more people to stop using meth and heroine.
Mr. Obvious:
“the the black youth culture and it’s permissiveness towards certain activities”
I think this also is the chicken and the egg, because part of the permissiveness is a reflection of absenteeism which is a reflection of the nature of the criminal justice system.
So the question becomes – can we find a way for convictions for small time crimes, I’m not talking violent crimes, but small-time crimes, do not end up crippling for life?
“Finding a balanced approach would be better than focusing on a singular issue. This article is about statistics, incarceration rates, prison terms, and unequal enforcement. “
While I agree on a balanced approach, the article also intends to demonstrate how those statistics and unequal enforcement acts to perpetuate the system.
“Prison terms are generally decided by judges. That should be very easy to address because you only have to address the issue with just a few people compared to the total number of people in the justice system. “
Not so much anymore. The sentencing scheme in California sets a three-tiered system, but even if you end up with felony probation, you end up being ineligible for most work and benefits.
The point many seem to be missing is that young people use drugs – I know it, you know, the American people know it. Turns out blacks and whites share this in common and drug use is about equivalent across races. But for blacks, they are many times more likely to get arrested for simply using drugs and that is the trigger point here because once you have a felony, you become part of the system even if it doesn’t result in prison time.
Problem is, the voters had the chance to reform the drug laws in 2008 (Prop 5), and it failed by a substantial margin.
[quote]So the question becomes – can we find a way for convictions for small time crimes, I’m not talking violent crimes, but small-time crimes, do not end up crippling for life? [/quote]
The small time crimes you are talking about are still felonies. These “minor” crimes are generally theft of some sort or something to do with drugs. People who engage in these activities are generally have little or no education. They are crippled for life before the conviction.
[quote]Not so much anymore. The sentencing scheme in California sets a three-tiered system, but even if you end up with felony probation, you end up being ineligible for most work and benefits.
[/quote]
For repeat offenders this may be true but not for first time offenders. It is extremely rare that first time drug offenders or thieves go to prison. What benefits are you talking about?
The rates for drug use are not equivalent across race:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/druguse.jpg[/img]
Frankly: [i]As our education system continues to “chick-a-fy” – as one popular radio talk show host describes – education outcomes for boys, and especially black boys, continues to fall.
From my perspective, there is a bias against testosterone and standard boy behavior that starts in the earliest grades. This is brought to us directly from the women’s movement and the very white liberal establishment that decries black over-representation in crime and punishment. [/i]
White liberals? It figures you’d say that…
I attribute it over-focus on cognitive outcomes (standardized test scores in math and English) to the point of devaluing and cutting sports, arts, and anything socially or vocationally worthwhile about school because test scores aren’t where they should be.
I wrote:
> Most (but not all) people “in the system” are
> bad people that have been committing crimes for
> years before they ever get “in the system”
Then David wrote:
> I disagree.
I estimate that well under 1% of people (of all races) arested and convicted of a crime are caught on their first time breaking the law. Since Davis disagrees I’m wondering what percentage of people he thinks are “in the system” after their “first crime”?
I then wrote:
> The reason that most “blacks” (and other races)find it
> “nearly impossible to get out” is that they keep
> committing crimes while on parole”
Then David wrote:
> What I’m suggesting to you is that the rules that
> are put in place almost insure this and they insure
> for both whites and blacks, the problem comes when
> you have a much larger number of blacks than whites
> in the system initially.
There has always been a much larger “number” of whites “in the system” than blacks (there is a higher “percentage” of blacks in the US criminal justice system).
I’m not a Fox News watching Republican and I’m not CNBC watching Democrat. I’m a guy that has personally donated tens of thousands of dollars and spent probably close to a thousand hours working with underpriviliged (about half black) kids over the past 20 years.
Is there some racism in America, sure, does our criminal justice syster have problems, yes lots of them. Do both racism and the criminal justice system have a lot to do with the high percentage of blacks in prison, not even close.
To quote Chris Rock’s #1 reason(see below to see him say it) on how to stay “out of the system” 1. “Obey the Law”…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zXlytv01c
Until we get past the Republican “blacks deserve what they get”/Democrat “white racism is the reason for all problems in the black community” we will never get anywhere…
Ignoring that fact that in many urban areas 70%+ of black boys don’t have a Dad, graduate from High School, or make any effort to learn a skill to earn an honest living while “focusing” on “justice system” is like trying to help a starving family and ignoring the fact that they have no food and focusing on the lack of newspaper ads for organic produce…
David wrote:
> Maybe the problem is that the people using
> the powder have more financial security and
> a bigger safety net.
I think we should make all drugs other than crack (used mostly by blacks) and crystal meth (used mostly by whites) legal.
The problem is that crack and crystal meth are evil and literaly destroy people and communities.
[i]I attribute it over-focus on cognitive outcomes (standardized test scores in math and English) to the point of devaluing and cutting sports, arts, and anything socially or vocationally worthwhile about school because test scores aren’t where they should be.[/i]
I agree, but those are symptom problems of another root problems. Until we attack and solve the root problems, we can only talk about the symptom problems… we will do nothing to solve them.
Again, you and I agree on quite a bit related to education. Our differences appear to be primarily focused on the root causes and hence the root solutions.
But while we argue about these things, more and more kids have their lives destroyed by the crappy education system. I need to clarify this related point… Some kids are directly destroyed by the damage caused by their crappy education experience. But others are destroyed from our failure to exploit the opportunity that exists for a reformed and remodeled education system to compensate for the other social deficits plaguing these kids.
[quote]As our education system continues to “chick-a-fy” – as one popular radio talk show host describes – education outcomes for boys, and especially black boys, continues to fall. [/quote]
The same point could be made with the derogatory and condescending term “chick-a-fy”. Why use it?
Come on B. Nice. I have not read where that is a derogatory and condescending term. Maybe you are just getting confused with being irritated in disagreement on my point. That point is valid, education has taken a giant turn to be more oriented toward girl student’s learning style and away from boy’s learning style. Title-IX, while arguably helpful to girls, has done so at the expense of many boys.
By the way, I dude-a-fied my garage a few months ago, after my wife chick-a-fied my son’s bedroom after he moved out.
See how that works?
Maybe your popular radio host should check the urban dictionary.
[quote] there is a bias against testosterone and standard boy behavior that starts in the earliest grades.[/quote]
Actually, it has been shown that teachers favor boys, particularly outgoing boys, in the classroom, and that boys get a disproportionate amount of resources. Certainly that was the experience in our family.
[quote]Women’smovementwhiteliberalsDemocratsunions[/quote]
Yeah. Right.
[quote] honestly evaluate how changes in our education system over the years have and are contributing to the increasing incarceration rate of black males.[/quote]
If we do such an evaluation, it should be based on actual evidence, not ideology.
David’s essay focuses on the disparities in the criminal justice system. It seems that there could actually be workable reforms in how drug crimes are handled. Obviously it’s always good to try to improve educational outcomes as well. It’s probably also good to try to reduce urban poverty and the myriad social ills that exist in urban centers. My guess is solutions to those problems would divide along partisan lines. But public attitudes on drugs have changed. A more libertarian ethos seems to be developing. Maybe there’s hope for legislative initiatives in that regard.
Frankly:
[quote]By the way, I dude-a-fied my garage a few months ago, after my wife chick-a-fied my son’s bedroom after he moved out.
[/quote]
Frankly, I’m offended by “dude-a-fied”. I think it would be much more PC to say non-gender-a-fied.
[quote]Ignoring that fact that in many urban areas 70%+ of black boys don’t have a Dad, graduate from High School, or make any effort to learn a skill to earn an honest living while “focusing” on “justice system” is like trying to help a starving family and ignoring the fact that they have no food and focusing on the lack of newspaper ads for organic produce…[/quote]
Yup.
Interestingly, I’ve also spent a lot of time working/volunteering with inner city populations, a large chunk of it being at-crisis (often violent) teens. One common thread I found, time after time after time, is these kids weren’t ever taught that they could amount to anything. By parents or teachers or any adult in their life EVER. In fact, quite the opposite. They were told that the system was stacked against them, so no reason to bother trying.
I’ll never forget the look of astonishment-and then the tears- after I spent an hour or so working with a teenage boy who’d been involved in some pretty scary stuff. I told him (truthfully) that he was incredibly smart and that he was letting his future self down by being involved with gangs. Not only was I the first person in his ENTIRE life that told him he was smart, (“Really? [i]Me[/i]? You think [b]I’m[/b] smart. Nobody has ever told me that before.” “Nobody?” “No. Never.”) he also had NO idea that he could go to college. He thought it an impossibility, being a kid from the projects.
I explained to him about grants and other financial aid that was there just for kids in his situation…he literally thought that because his mom couldn’t write a big check, he’d never be able to go. Plus he thought being black was a strike against him regarding admissions. It’s what he’d always been taught.
All he’d heard was that the system was against him, and that he was destined to live his life in the projects just like everyone else he knew. So why finish high school? Why not instead attempt to rise in the ranks of the powerful in his “world”…thus, the gangs.
One more example- once while volunteering at a clinic, I had to break the unfortunate news to a 14 year-old girl that she was pregnant. She? Was scared and upset. Her mom? Whooped happily because, as she told me, that was going to be more money coming in each month from Welfare.
These aren’t isolated incidents. The despair in some of these communities is unfathomable to those of us who live in Davis and argue about plastic bag bans. The degree to which they are CONVINCED that they don’t have any options, and then proceed to make decisions based upon that is heartbreaking.
“The rates for drug use are not equivalent across race: “
They are not equivalent, but the variance does not account for the differential in arrest rates.
[quote]Actually, it has been shown that teachers favor boys, particularly outgoing boys, in the classroom, and that boys get a disproportionate amount of resources. Certainly that was the experience in our family. [/quote]
Boys are diagnosed with learning disorders far more often than girls. They are prescribed Ritalin more than girls. They are expelled and held back more often. Girls outnumber boys on honor rolls and in AP classes. Girls matriculate into college in greater numbers than boys. (Sorry, I’m too lazy to look up actual stats. Heh.)
Just the fact that, as you say, boys get a disproportionate amount of resources points alludes to this.
Thanks Ginger. That post choked me up. How did we all make such a mess out of so many kid’s lives? Unfortunately there are just not enough people like you available to help save them all the way they need to be saved, and too many people trying to save them in ways that just make things stay the same or get worse.
[i]But public attitudes on drugs have changed. A more libertarian ethos seems to be developing. Maybe there’s hope for legislative initiatives in that regard. [/i]
I think you are correct here. But I think there are still quite a few people that give you a sense of a libertarian ethos on drug use, but are racked with unease about it knowing people that lack self control.
I had a friend from Stockton that claimed half of his family dealt drugs and the other half were in prison from dealing drugs. I said “I bet you support legalization”. He said: “no way, because then they would all be dead from over-dosing.”
Or maybe if we stopped using prisons as de facto detox centers, we would have resources to do real rehabilitation.
Frankly: [quote]The rates for drug use are not equivalent across race.
[/quote]
In fact, the rates are pretty much equivalent. Frankly’s graph is from a 2011 SAMHSA (US Dept of Health & Human Services) survey. Omitted from Frankly’s comment is the following annotation to the graph: “There were NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES in the rates of current illicit drug use between 2010 and 2011 or between 2002 and 2011 for any of the racial/ethnic groups, except for Hispanics.” (Emphasis added.)
And yet, the incarceration rate for blacks is 10 times what it is for whites. If the War on Drugs put as many resources into rooting out drug use on college campuses as it does in urban neighborhoods, the incarceration rates would change dramatically.
And: If the War on Drugs focused on white suburbia and college campuses, you can bet funding would dry up quickly.
Eric Gelber – what about the drug use rates for blacks and Asians? I was just responding to David’s point that drug use was equivalent across races. It is not. And blacks are at the clear top of the list for drug use.
And why do you assume there is an equal correlation with drug use and incarceration rates. Of for that matter any correlation at all with crime and punishment outcomes?
First, to control for other types of crime, you need to separate out all non-drug-related incarceration.
Now, out of that, how much more criminal activity would derive from a small increase in drug use? Use more and there will be more dealing, more gangs defending turf, more property crime, more public nuisance, etc.
Lastly, drug use incarceration is in part a factor of law enforcement convenience. Most illicit drug use is done inside and cops won’t uncover it unless there is a complaint or some other business that takes them there. With so much crime in many black neighborhoods, the cops are already spending more time there, and the risk that a drug user gets caught goes up.
So in essence, higher crime rates in general will increase the rate of incarceration for drug possession. The stoner college kids don’t get busted as much because all they are doing for the most part is eating Twinkies and potato chips and playing video games.
Hey Frankly, I’m sitting at my computer laughing. Did you see where Anthony Weiner got busted again?
[quote]Anthony Weiner confirmed Tuesday that he was behind a series of newly released explicit messages sent to a woman who was not his wife more than a year after a sexting scandal forced him out of Congress in 2011.[/quote]
He’s says he’s still running for mayor. Unbelievable!
GI – what is up with Democrat candidates? They are held to absolutely no standards other than taking an oath to tax, borrow and spend.
I would not doubt it if the Weiner is considering a Presidential run and thinks this is the best way to get elected by he party.
As long as he doesn’t question anything about any group within the establishment, he can do no wrong.
Off topic, to put it mildly.
[quote]Come on B. Nice. I have not read where that is a derogatory and condescending term.[/quote]
You are honestly telling me that you didn’t know that female professionals find it offensive when they are referred to as “chicks” and their work as chick-a-fed. I’m not sure what is more disturbing you saying it to be condescending or the fact that you don’t know it is.
I with you there B. Nice and while you’re at it put a stop to that “dude-a-fied”. I’m so offended.
As a female professional I don’t find it offensive to be referred to as a chick. Not at all. Call me a chick, call me, “dude.” Whatever.
In fact, I know female professionals who’ve built successful brands AROUND the work “chick.”
Females, whether professional or not, actually are able to be independent thinkers. Some certainly do find that term offensive. Others think it’s hysterical, find it quaint, couldn’t care less, etc.
So let’s not pretend there is some universal female response. THAT? I do find offensive.
Thanks Ginger, I guess I’m okay after all being called a dude.
My above rant was in response to B. Nice’s comment:
[quote] You are honestly telling me that you didn’t know that female professionals find it offensive when they are referred to as “chicks” and their work as chick-a-fed. I’m not sure what is more disturbing you saying it to be condescending or the fact that you don’t know it is.[/quote]
Just FYI. 🙂
I knew that 🙂
[quote]As a female professional I don’t find it offensive to be referred to as a chick. Not at all. Call me a chick, call me, “dude.” Whatever. [/quote]
Are you saying that you didn’t know women find this term condescending and demeaning either? No wonder women are fleeing the republican party….
FYI-David interesting article, thanks for doing the research, I was wondering about some of the statistics you dug up.
After watching Oriley’s commentary from last night I must say he knocked it out of the park.
[quote]Are you saying that you didn’t know women find this term condescending and demeaning either? No wonder women are fleeing the republican party….[/quote]
Are you implying that I’m a Republican? I am most certainly not and never have been. Nice little ad hominem attempt there, however. Better luck next time! 🙂
What I am saying is that all women don’t think alike. Again…SOME women find the term “chick” condescending. Others? Don’t. Yet others? Use the term very successfully in their branding. Dixie Chicks comes immediately to mind.
Are you saying ALL women find this term condescending, demeaning, and offensive? Because twice you’ve stated that as some type of universal female groupthink truth.
[quote]Thanks Ginger. That post choked me up. How did we all make such a mess out of so many kid’s lives? Unfortunately there are just not enough people like you available to help save them all the way they need to be saved, and too many people trying to save them in ways that just make things stay the same or get worse.[/quote]
You’re too kind. We all do what we can when we can. It’s been years since I had the time/ability to work with at-risk inner city youths…I’m hoping to again some day when my own kids are older and I have some “spare” time. 🙂
But yes. Sometimes well-intentioned attempts to “save” people have unintended consequences.
Ginger wrote:
> I’ve also spent a lot of time working/volunteering
> with inner city populations, a large chunk of it
> being at-crisis (often violent) teens. One common
> thread I found, time after time after time, is these
> kids weren’t ever taught that they could amount to
> anything. By parents or teachers or any adult in
> their life EVER. In fact, quite the opposite.
> They were told that the system was stacked against
> them, so no reason to bother trying.
It is sad to say that parents of all races that have not done much in life rarely tell their kids that they were slackers, but instead tell their kids “I didn’t go to college because I could not get scholarship money like the black kids on affirmative action” or “I don’t even bother trying to get a job because all whites are racist and will not hire a black guy”.
Getting to “at risk” kids early and giving them the facts to know their parents are “making excuses” will do a lot more to reduce the prison population than any “focus” on race in the justice system…
[quote]Are you implying that I’m a Republican? I am most certainly not and never have been. Nice little ad hominem attempt there, however. Better luck next time! 🙂 [/quote]
Damn! Should have saved that one for Frankly, he is a republican right?
[quote]Are you saying ALL women find this term condescending, demeaning, and offensive? Because twice you’ve stated that as some type of universal female groupthink truth.[/quote]
In the CONTEXT that it was used (which is what I was addressing) I believe the women it referred to would find it offensive.
I asked my wife and she said being called a “chick” makes her want to dance with the person delivering the name.
B. Nice, I think you are confusing “condensation” with “flattery”.
My point had to do with the education system. I think that is what got your goat and you are conflating.
[i]he is a republican right?[/i]
Let’s just say that I am right and I have always been right.
Ginger – I think you hit on something related to the topic here.
It is a small group of group elites speaking for the rest of the group.
In terms of the women group, most women I know don’t associate with and don’t agree with much of the NOW agenda and tactics. Yet that is the agenda and tactics related to the political and media template for “womem’s rights.”
I think the same is true for the black group. There is a small group of elites that set the agenda and tactics and the average black person does not agree. Yet that is the media and political template for black rights.
Which leads me to ask the question, who are these people and how did they get the keys to drive the agenda and tactics when they hold the minority view?
And the follow up question, how do we take the keys away from them before they drive us off a cliff and into a void.
Frankly your first comment was this
[quote]As our education system continues to “chick-a-fy” – as one popular radio talk show host describes – education outcomes for boys, and especially black boys, continues to fall.[/quote]
then this:
[quote]B. Nice, I think you are confusing “condensation” with “flattery”. [/quote]
By this logic, “chick-a-fy” is a good thing? Hmm, I thought you were implying the opposite…..
[i]By this logic, “chick-a-fy” is a good thing? Hmm, I thought you were implying the opposite[/i]
I was implying that it is good for the chicks at the some expense of the dudes.
I was implying that it is good for the chicks at [s]the[/s] some expense [s]of[/s] [b]for[/b] the dudes
[quote]Damn! Should have saved that one for Frankly, he is a republican right? [/quote]
Dunno. I’m new to the party here. Just getting to know all you crazy kids!
[quote]In the CONTEXT that it was used (which is what I was addressing) I believe the women it referred to would find it offensive.[/quote]
Well, that’s a fancy bit of backpedaling footwork. 😉
Because when I stated,
[quote]”As a female professional I don’t find it offensive to be referred to as a chick. Not at all. Call me a chick, call me, “dude.” Whatever.
[/quote]
You replied,
[quote]Are you saying that you didn’t know women find this term condescending and demeaning either?[/quote]
So I guess the CONTEXT that would make the term universally unpalatable for women is having it attached to the term “Chick-a-fy”? Nope, I’m still not offended. In fact, I’d say “Chick-a-fy” is just a humorous way to say “feminize.”
Or is “feminize” offensive as well? 😉
I’d sooner use “Chick-a-fy” than “feminize.” Feminize sounds old school and stodgy to me…chick-a-fy has a more hip energy around it. At least to me.
I’ll give you this…older women are more likely to be offended by the term “chick.” My baby boomer mom, for example, thinks it’s demeaning. My contemporaries (and I’m no spring CHICKen, mind you) and I use the term as a more hip and fun way of saying girl. “Chick flick” or “Chick lit”…we toss those terms around freely.
[quote]It is a small group of group elites speaking for the rest of the group.[/quote]
There’s definitely a contingency that is really quick to speak up and point the finger FOR OTHERS (now I don’t know if B. Nice is a male or female…I’m speaking generally here and absolutely not directly to/about B. Nice) to show how intolerant/hateful their speech is.
It’s often used as a way to shut down dissent. If a person’s speech is offensive/demeaning then they are by extension offensive/demeaning…and thus an oppressor and should be summarily dismissed.
Even when there isn’t any actual hateful words being uttered, we start hearing that a term is “code” for hate speech. One of the more absurd recent examples is the MSNBC commentator that said people complaining about Obama golfing too often are racists…because who is a well known black golfer? Tiger Woods! And then there was some convoluted explanation about how the racists really wanted to say “angry black man” but instead complained about golf.
I’m not readily offended, don’t really appreciate when others are offended on my behalf, and I think this whole “I’m offended so you need to shut up” tactic is really old and stale.
Just on3 gynecologists point of view.
I think it is undeniable that children born to a single mother living near or below the poverty line have major disadvantages often starting from before birth. One positive trend in our society is a marked decrease in the teenage birth rate which can be attributed to a couple of factors. One is better contraception education often provided through the schools. Another is greater availability of long acting highly effective reversible means of birth control. It will be of a great deal of interest to me to see how this plays out in terms of education, job opportunity and crime rates over the next twenty to thirty years.
In terms of lessening undesired outcomes, nothing works quite as well as prevention. If we truly want to strengthen families, we should do our best as a society to make it is easy as possible to plan your family based on your ability to care for its members.
Ginger – Ha! I was typing away with almost exactly the same points.
I was going to go a further though. I think we need some reverse finger pointing at those that do this. It has gone way too far. They are out of control.
Part of the reason I put so much time into blogging here and a few other places is that I think these folks have only heard the sound of their own voice and those that think like them, that they are stuck thinking everyone else agrees with them.
I think real sensitivity and real tolerance are two sides of the same coin. If you are really sensitive, your feelings will transcend simple words. If you are really tolerant, you will seek the true context and meaning in communication and give communicators latitude for their choice of words.
I think you are correct though. When I get a response like B Nice’s I can tell that she was first just agitated with my points, and her focus on a word was an attempt to deflect and change the topic to one that she feels morally and intellectually superior about. Don Shor does the same frequently. I am constantly shamed by Don for my insensitive choice of words (from his perspective).
But what it displays is a lack of tolerance… more precisely a lack of speech intolerance. Often the same people that demonstrate speech intolerance will ignore actions of those that say words they like. That is why Obama is a Teflon president. He is a master of words that make these voters feel all warm and fuzzy inside… while he steals their healthcare and retirement and spies on them.
Any time you all want to get back to race relations and the judicial system, that will be just great.
Sorry Don…
“When I get a response like B Nice’s I can tell that she was first just agitated with my points”
Stop assuming what I’m agitated about, I’ll let you know…..
Ok B. Nice. I am sure you will!
Back to the topic.
I am guessing that David might be a bit disappointed that there was not more buzz around his ideas.
I will go on record to say that I support decriminalization of some drugs and increased treatment programs funded by the savings of all the laid off useless DEA employees, and reductions in local law enforcement. Basically accept that we have failed to prevent drug use, and change our tactics to manage quality and quality and then provide treatment for those that cannot control themselves.
But I absolutely would not support any type of race-based drug offense affirmative action.
Study concludes that exposure to prenatal crack itself may not be as harmful as once thought, but babies exposed to poverty conditions may be more harmful than exposure to crack cocaine:
‘Crack baby’ study ends with unexpected but clear result ([url]http://articles.philly.com/2013-07-22/news/40709969_1_hallam-hurt-so-called-crack-babies-funded-study[/url])
Frankly, I’m sure your last comment was a joke, but my proposed solution is similar to Don Shor’s initial comment which would be to change post sentencing restrictions in addition to decriminalizing drug use and using current incarceration and interdiction monies for residential treatment and job training.
Wdf1
Thanks for the link to Hunt’s study. I had not seen it. I would like to add a couple of points from a prevention point of view.
“Hurt, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, is always quick to point out that cocaine can have devastating effects on pregnancy. The drug can cause a problematic rise in a pregnant woman’s blood pressure, trigger premature labor, and may be linked to a dangerous condition in which the placenta tears away from the uterine wall. Babies born prematurely, no matter the cause, are at risk for a host of medical and development”
Prematurity and life threatening separation of the placenta from the uterine wall remain devastating consequences of cocaine use during pregnancy. The only drug that I am aware of that is associated with the long term intellectual and emotionally crippling effects previously attributed to cocaine, is alcohol. Alcohol, especially binge drinking, is associated with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome which does carry with it devastating lifetime neurological adverse effects.
I also support drug decriminalization. It is amazing to me how long after the abysmal failure of prohibition, we continued down this path of criminalizing illness. And I would also pursue my goal of educating and making easily obtained and, if not free, at least very inexpensive long acting highly effective contraception the norm. Planned pregnancies for those who are emotionally and economically stable enough to care for their children will do much to support strong healthy individuals, reduce poverty, and promote a stronger society overall. We should be encouraging and supporting both men and women in their efforts to defer child bearing until in a stable social and economic situation instead of making if more difficult by restricting access to health care facilities in a futile attempt to stop abortions as some states are currently doing.
The best way to decrease the number of abortions, the number of children born to drug addicted women, and the number of children living in poverty is to prevent unintended and sometimes unwanted pregnancy. This is demonstrably best done by education and support, not by condemnation of behavior.
David: [I]Frankly, I’m sure your last comment was a joke, but my proposed solution is similar to Don Shor’s initial comment which would be to change post sentencing restrictions in addition to decriminalizing drug use and using current incarceration and interdiction monies for residential treatment and job training.[/I]
You mean this…
[quote]Don: “Aside from the option of decriminalizing drug possession, it seems that an option that would clear the conviction (i.e., eliminate the record) under certain circumstances would enable people convicted of minor drug crimes to apply for work without having a criminal record.[/quote]
So, where my opinion diverges is the criteria that would be used to apply post sentencing leniency (for example, expunging records). Since this was a piece on race, my assumption was that you and Don are advocating race be a criteria in this decision process. Hence my calling it “affirmative action sentencing”. I think that would be an apt label for any consideration of race in sentencing. And I 100% do NOT support using race in any way shape or form in sentencing.
However, it does seem like there is quite a bit of common ground here that crosses political lines. Why then do we not see more action by our politicians to move the needle this way? Democrats held all three branches of the federal government for two years after Obama was first elected, and then have held the Senate and Whitehouse for the next three. Yet, we have nothing being proposed. No work being done across the isle.
Why?
I was mainly referring to your comment about affirmative action for drug users.
” Since this was a piece on race, my assumption was that you and Don are advocating race be a criteria in this decision process. Hence my calling it “affirmative action sentencing”. I think that would be an apt label for any consideration of race in sentencing. And I 100% do NOT support using race in any way shape or form in sentencing. “
That’s a faulty assumption on your part. As I stated above, my goal would be to change the inequities of the system through changing the post-sentencing arrangements.
Since I explained that, I find it a bit odd that you didn’t address that at all in your response.
David, you need to more clearly explain your idea then. Because I keep re-reading your piece, and I believe I have addressed your point.
[quote]”change the inequities of the system through changing the post-sentencing arrangements”[/quote]
What inequities? I assume you are referring to the over-representation of blacks in drug crime conviction and sentencing.
What do you mean by “arrangements”? That is a nebulous term in the context of sentencing. I assume that you mean change sentencing rules based on criteria that would include the race of the convicted criminal (as well as maybe other criteria like age, priors, neighborhood, economic status, etc.).
Okay.
So let’s start with the first point of inequity, it has to do with who gets charged with drug crimes. It appears reading Michelle Alexander’s work, that the problem starts with unequal enforcement. You’ve addressed some of these issues, anything from targets of opportunity to deliberate policies that aim at one group of users over another. Easiest solution: dicriminalization. Take the money used for confinement and supervision and convert it to treatment.
Another step, more people of color charged with the crimes, they end up in the system. Once felons, they become ineligible for jobs and benefits. Solutions: change post-sentencing restrictions on non-violent felons, no longer require checking the felon box unless convicted of a violent/ sex crime, liberalize voting and housing and benefits restriction.
None of these involve treating blacks and whites differently, but both address the problem.
Ok – thanks for explaining David. I support these ideas with the following caveats.
1 – I would not support this for felony property crime. In fact, I think I would only support this for non-violent drug-related crimes.
2 – It terms of felony drug possession, I would expand the ability for certain employers to do random drug testing of employees. Since hiring someone convicted of drug possession without knowing they had been convicted would add employer risks that the employee would become a liability as continuing drug user.
3 – This would exclude any felony where a minor was harmed or victimized. For example, any drug dealer selling drugs to minors would not get the exemption.
4 – No additional discrimination laws (other than what we already have) related to convicted felons. In other words, if the application does not check the box, but has a gang tattoo on his forehead, the employer would not be liable for claims of damage for choosing not to hire.
I have one additional related idea. I think we should have a felony point system for minor felony convictions like drug possession where convicts can work down their points in prison and after they are paroled. For example, paying restitution to victims and the public, public service, obtaining skill and academic certification, certification for completing treatment programs, etc. Work down the points to zero and you earn and have your criminal record expunged.
1. Obviously it’s all negotiable, but the reason I would favor property crime is a lot of it is related to drug offenses.
2. In general I’m not in favor of drug testing except where using drugs would represent a risk to employees. If people’s work performance is harmed by their use, then that ought to be measurable in other ways. I know a number of people who are drug users, but otherwise productive. If they can handle their stuff – and it doesn’t impact work – why should they be penalized?
3. The problem with three is that you would then insure that the individual would continue selling drugs – what you need to do is give them a better way to earn money. You can’t do that by penalizing them.
4. I’m okay with that.
Your additional idea is worth considering.
A model discussion about race: link ([url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-24-2013/a-conversation-on-race[/url])