The U.S. as "systemically racist" -- reality or "a bunch of horse manure"?

Ron DeSantis has characterized claims that the United States is “systemically racist” as “a bunch of horse manure.” Writing for Salon, Jeff Cohen, an activist and retired journalism professor, challenges DeSantis to answer this question: “When did systemic racism end in our country?”

The question assumes that, at one time, the U.S. was plagued by systemic racism. The assumption is indisputable. Therefore, the question is fair.

However, like just about everyone who slings the term around, Cohen does not define “systemic racism.” Without a definition, it’s difficult to say when systemic racism ended — or whether it has.

Use of the word “systemic” in connection with race originated, I think, in the law. In that context, it was discrimination (not racism) that was said to be systemic. Systemic discrimination referred to policies, practices, and patterns that were built into an organization and that operated unfairly to the disadvantage of members of a race (typically blacks).

A parallel definition of systemic racism in a society would refer to policies, practices, and patterns that are built into that society, and that operate throughout society, to the disadvantage of members of a race, due to bias against that race. I include the “throughout society” part because pockets of systemic racism don’t make a society systemically racist. I include the bias element because without racial bias (conscious or unconscious) there can be no racism.

I exclude the possibility that systemic racism can be inferred simply from the fact that outcomes for one racial group are significantly worse than outcomes for another. Disparate outcomes may not be the result of current racism (or even of racism at all).

Using the definition I presented above to address Cohen’s question, there’s a strong case that systemic racism against blacks ended in the final quarter of the last century when laws passed mainly in the 1960s banning nearly all forms of racial discrimination came to be vigorously enforced. It was also during this period that preferences for blacks came to be granted in vital areas including employment, college admissions, and government contracting. It’s questionable whether a society that routinely grants preferences to blacks because of their race can be systemically racist.

Once potential discriminators faced legal jeopardy for mistreating blacks because of their race, discrimination became mostly episodic, rather than systemic. This, at least, is what I observed in litigating employment discrimination cases during these years, both on the plaintiff and the defendant side.

Indeed, employment law has gone so far as to ban practices disadvantageous to blacks that fall outside a sound definition of systemic racism. A facially neutral rule or test that blacks fail at higher rates than whites does not disadvantage blacks due to racism or because they are black. Yet, unless an employer can show that the rule is job related (at a minimum), the practice of using the rule or test is illegal.

What evidence does Cohen present to show that systemic racism persists in America? He cites “racial segregation in housing.”

It’s true that in America today, a great many neighborhoods are predominantly black and a great many have few black residents. But to the extent this results from blacks not being able to afford to live in white neighborhoods, or choosing not to, the “segregation” is not evidence of systemic racism.

However, Cohen alleges “wide-ranging barriers to black homeownership like redlining and predatory bank lending” Redlining is the practice whereby banks deny home loans to members of a group (typically blacks) who want to live in certain neighborhoods. The practice has been illegal for more than 50 years, and the source Cohen cites acknowledges that red lining rarely happens now.

Predatory bank lending is the practice of deceptively convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms. The definition leaves plenty of room for interpretation, but under any interpretation it occurs disproportionately in poor and minority neighborhoods.

Some common forms of predatory lending are unlawful and challenges to the practice have resulted in some banks changing their policies. Moreover, there is controversy over whether certain forms of lending said by some to be predatory are actually “unfair and abusive” — i.e., harmful to borrowers, on balance.

In any case, when people agree to unfair and abusive loan terms, they do so because they aren’t sophisticated. In other words, they aren’t victimized because of their race, but because they lack financial savvy.

Cohen also points to evidence that real estate agents steer blacks away from mostly white communities. This practice, if widespread, is evidence of systemic racism.

But against this evidence, one should weigh the fact that racial preferences are sometimes granted to blacks because of their race. This occurs in connection with policies that fall under the rubric of “affirmatively furthering fair housing.”

For example, in Dubuque, Iowa the federal government forced the city to build low-income housing for residents of Chicago, Illinois. Dubuque has plenty of low-income taxpayers who could have benefited from the housing units, but most of these taxpayers were white. Because of their race, some of them lost out to black out-of-state residents who had never paid taxes in Dubuque.

Looking at all of this evidence, I think it’s a stretch to say that there’s systemic discrimination against blacks in housing. But even if one could say that there is systemic discrimination in this particular area, it would not mean that America, on the whole, is systemically racist.

Cohen also alleges “environmental racism.” It’s true, I think, that poor communities suffer worse environmental outcomes than prosperous ones and that blacks live in poor communities to a disproportionate degree. But blacks tend to live in poor communities because they are disproportionately poor, not because they are black. And the communities get the short end of the environmental stick not because they are black, but because they are poor.

The only other area Cohen cites as systemically racist is law enforcement. He points to Ferguson, Missouri, where a police officer killed Michael Brown and where the Obama Justice Department found racism in the police department.

But the killing of Brown was justified, and the Obama Justice Department was a left-liberal operation whose findings about the Ferguson police department were quite flawed. In any event, Ferguson is only one jurisdiction.

In my view, Heather Mac Donald has demolished claims of systemic racism in policing. Cohen has nothing to say about her work or about any jurisdiction other than Ferguson.

Cohen complains that when he spends his winters in Florida, he observes “black poverty, despair, and segregated neighborhoods.” Here, Cohen shows that he’s simply an “equity” proponent who wants to infer systemic racism from unequal incomes.

I’m inclined to agree with Ron DeSantis that this outlook is a pile of horse manure.