Does Systemic Racism Exist?

Much of the racial debate that has been amplified since the George Floyd riots in 2020 rest on one theory presented by radical activists – that systemic racism is prevalent throughout the United States and the Western World at large. Is this true? Radical activists would say “absolutely”, when asked to define systemic racism or provide a concrete example, just asking that question makes you a racist. It is rather elementary their debate tactics, but seemingly rational individuals will capitulate because they are afraid of being called a racist of any sort – even if it is a concocted and cooked-up definition to benefit the activists.

What very few rational people seem to want to engage is asking the question does systemic racism exist. An additional question, can it be clearly defined? Let’s work deductively here to answer the second question first and get a clear definition. Every word matters here, ‘does’ and ‘exist’ signal empirical truths based on available evidence on the topic. Systemic Racism – capital S, capital R – is not an idea or a theory, it must use definitions to give identity to what it is:

• Systemic: relating to a system (rules, policy, and law), especially as opposed to a particular part.
  
• Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.

Ok, we have an answer to the second question. The definition of systemic racism is the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people concerning a system. Thus, the question of systemic racism existing today asks: Is there evidence to support the claim that prejudice and discrimination are found against a person or people about rules, policies, or laws opposed to a specific part outside of individual circumstances? This is the heart of the debate and the deciding factor to determine whether this narrative is useful going forward. To observe this, two distinct factors need to be discussed about the rhetoric of racism in America. These factors are wealth inequities and prison-police-crime (PPC) outcomes.

Wealth Inequities

To observe wealth inequities, let’s focus on the issues pointed out by activists. Issues involve the inability to build wealth in the American economic system or lack of representation within the professional-managerial class as outlined in charts from Business Insider. With nuance, we must use the old economic axioms when discussing wealth and data as correlation does not always imply causation, and that data does not infer individual or overall severity of financial inequity. We can look at these charts, much like the debate on the gender pay gap, with more nuance and deeper understanding.

First, population share is an important metric to use here for a multi-factor analysis. According to the most recent census, whites comprise 76% of the population, with blacks making up 13%, and Hispanics making up 19%. When comparing the charts from Business Insider, you will see that black and Hispanic members perform higher relative to the population compared to white people for professional and managerial employment. Furthermore, the wage gap reflecting blacks only get 62% of what white people make, is mirrored against black are more likely to engage in government assistance relative to their population with blacks having 25% of SNAP assistance, opposed to 40% for white – 30 points less relative to population.

An argument for welfare is “the reason for the government assistance is because of a racialized society where black people cannot build wealth through education, thus need for assistance”. The question is what are the empirical markers that prove this? The most recent education data suggest that blacks are closing the gap, or in some cases, over-performing whites in educational markers such as advancement in high-paying STEM fields, high school completion rates, and college participation rates which carries significance towards building wealth in the future. So, it is not education.

There is achievement in the workforce and education, so why do they gravitate toward government assistance? Also, why is this proclivity toward a racialized narrative of inequity with wealth? Thomas Sowell describes the difference in life actions to be the greatest cause of this factor, suggesting individual or group choice as a larger factor than “ominous racial doctrines”. His analysis shows that black males who had similar family structures and upbringings as white males in 1969 had similar outcomes in terms of income and wealth. Now as Sowell rightly points out educational and professional access was hindered by Jim Crow laws, but to consider today with a leveling through legal and economic means towards success under current laws, issues arise when familial structures are broken leading to more governmental help which hurts the black communities causing a stifling growth in wealth over generations.

PPC: Prison, Policing, and Crime

Racial activists provide a wealth of information regarding to PPC factors between white communities vs. black and brown communities. When discussing prison by the numbers, the data – without any doubt – shows a disproportion of black and brown members incarcerated compared to white members. Thus, the phrase from activists: ‘black men are jailed at disproportionate rates’ is categorically true. However, the cause of incarceration seems to be left for further discussion – also requires a deeper look at the data. Looking at policing data, one factor comes to the forefront. Now when I said correlation does not always imply causation, I never said ‘never implies’ but that it can imply in some circumstances. For example, when talking about the disproportionate number of black and brown people in prison, you see the correlation with crime statistics that black and brown people commit. For example, relative rates of violent crime such as murder, rape, and robbery are committed more by black and brown people compared to whites. Going back to the population ratio, black people have rates of violent crime almost 40 points higher than their population compared to whites who are on average 20 points lower. This is quite a significant correlating marker.

Now activists will say that the incarceration rates are still disproportionate given black people go to jail longer than white people for the same crime. This was a major talking point when discussing drug charges. Sure, no one is doubting some of the exceedingly harsher sentences given to individuals with possession of crack compared to individuals with possession of cocaine as noted in the ACLU report. But an omission from that report introduces many biases. Even a nuanced discussion is needed here as a host of prior convictions with black and brown individuals determine the drug sentence. Research suggests less proclivity to using drugs from black and brown communities, and more proclivity to traffic and distribute drugs, further compounded by familial structure and compounded with additional violent crimes. Drug use or not, violent add-on offenses along with failed family structures seem to be the most significant marker of PPC outcomes. The concept of familial structures, yet again, provides an answer to another issue that is common in activist discourse.

***

The question that remains is does systemic racism exist? Activists commonly present a five fallacies model for the justification of systemic racism: individualistic, legalistic, tokenistic, ahistorical, and fixed. The issue with this model is that it allows no recourse mainly due to data directly refuting the model with some answers to their framework. However, if we use the empirical data, we can use their method to answer their concerns:

1. Individual: data shows that racism is not a factor and that individual choice determines the successful wealth markers for people of color.
   
2. Legalistic: laws, especially for violent crime, are uniform in our system and it is familial factors that create outcomes, not racial ones.
   
3. Tokenistic: No, it is not the eradication of racism, the topic is about systemic racism, and if systems allow for success through closing wealth gaps to all races (as shown in the data) then systemic racism is unfounded outside of isolated racist incidents.
   
4. Ahistorical: No one is disputing the history of slavery and Jim Crow in the United States. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not cause a general stagnation of advancement; rather, a positive growth over the past 50 years, which should be applauded.
   
5. Fixed: Incorrect, racism has, is, and will continue to be isolated to individuals outside of a super-structure. It is fixed within individual proclivities, not a system predication.

It would seem the concept of systemic racism is born out of a sophist rhetoric of implying causation to vast interconnected factors relating to society. This does not remove the historical racism or that isolated incidents do not happen; rather, it shows that systemic racism is an aggrandizement of disparity and false equivalency given the available data on social, political, and economic markers.

In fact, in my research, I did find one policy that could be considered ‘systemic racism’ as per the previous definition, and it comes from the Canada Employment Equity Act which achieved Royal Ascent (signed into law) back in 1995. The purpose of this Act is to

“Achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.”

What are these ‘special measures’ for differences? Well, it means giving special and preferential treatment for hiring individuals who are in designated groups such as women, Aboriginals, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities. The key piece is defining the members of visible minorities, which the act defines as: “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”.

This act passed over 25 years ago, gives special measures and preferential treatment to everyone except for white men. Now, this is an example of systematic racism, so one can argue it certainly exists, but not in the way that the activists want you to think it exists. Another example that is more mainstream is the lawsuit regarding Anti-Asian bias presented by Harvard University in their admissions in favor of more ‘politically advantageous’ minorities.

The implications that stem from this are whether we should or should not engage with these activists. Unless they can provide a clear defense of their stances in line with clear definitions, they are more than happy to state their case. They don’t seem to do that, as a common move is to ignore, obfuscate, and cast blame on someone to avoid debate if at all possible. I am more than welcome to accept a challenge related to this topic, anytime, anywhere.

(Image is from the George Floyd Riots that happened exactly 3 years ago today)