Somebody Finally Says It

[marshwiggle]

A panel discussion from the Manhattan Institute.

[pepsi_alum]

I've refrained from participating in race-related discussions here because I suspect it's mostly an exercise in futility. I would note, however, that there will likely be ongoing public policy discussions in the years ahead about the role of police in the United States and structural racism more generally whether you like it or not.

My sense is that any policy-level reforms that eventually occur are more likely to be incremental than radical.  Black Lives Matter probably will not get every policy they want; white people who deny the existence of structural racism probably will not be thrilled either. The fact that Joe Biden has an 87% lead over Trump among Black voters even while he simultaneously rejects several of the demands made by Black Lives Matter suggests that people are more nuanced in their thinking about race relations than the discourse in this thread might suggest.

[downer]

I've refrained from participating in race-related discussions here because I suspect it's mostly an exercise in futility. I would note, however, that there will likely be ongoing public policy discussions in the years ahead about the role of police in the United States and structural racism more generally whether you like it or not.

My sense is that any policy-level reforms that eventually occur are more likely to be incremental than radical.  Black Lives Matter probably will not get every policy they want; white people who deny the existence of structural racism probably will not be thrilled either. The fact that Joe Biden has an 87% lead over Trump among Black voters even while he simultaneously rejects several of the demands made by Black Lives Matter suggests that people are more nuanced in their thinking about race relations than the discourse in this thread might suggest.

In my town there is a street with a couple of Trump 2020 flags flying outside people's houses. One of their neighbors has a yard sign saying "Anyone But Trump." I think that captures most people's thinking.

I watched the video shared by the OP with interest, along with Bret Weinstein and John McWhorter: George Floyd Protests and Race in America. It was a little hard to separate out the general gloominess of the speakers attitudes from their particular claims. One central empirical claim is that police killings are not racially biased because they kill non-blacks in proportional numbers. This is a claim I've seen set out before, alongside an admission that other police violence is disproportionately directed at blacks.

There seemed to be some suggestion that the central social problem is poverty rather than race, with the acknowledgement that poverty affects the black population disproportionalately. So do Glen Loury and John McWhorter agree there is structural racism or not? They seemed to be saying yes and no.

There were also claims about the failings of blacks themselves regarding crime, and the need to take responsibility.

And there were digs at affirmative action.

Then there was plenty of concern that critical race theory could lead to the end of democracy. And lots of worry about the "woke" crowd quashing freedom of speech. They claimed that universities as a whole should not be taking political positions. It's an interesting idea, but I didn't hear an argument for it.

Their concerns seemed overblown when it comes to academic life.

When university presidents send out emails endorsing the need for racial justice, I really don't take that as an endorsement of critical race theory or even identity politics. Indeed, I don't think that most of the people who go on protests against police violence and those who put up BLM banners in their windows or yards are endorsing critical race theory either.

One of my major reservations about the current protests has been that there haven't been a clear set of solutions proposed. "Defund the police" seems to mean something different to whoever proposes it.  I've seen plenty of ideas proposed, but there's no consensus. So all I see is a desire for more social justice, which seems bland to me.

What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

[marshwiggle]

What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

In the link I posted, Coleman Hughes pointed out that the rate of police killings is much lower than it was a few decades ago, but this rarely gets mentioned. Also, part of the problem is the American gun culture. In coutries with few guns, police don't have to worry about someone reaching into their coat for what is supposed to be a driver's license. In the USA, especially in heavily-armed neighbourhoods, a second of hesitation by a cop could get them killed, so they have to be much more anxious about that to stay alive.

Here's a study from the Pew Research Center.

From the article:

Many Americans believe it is common for police officers to fire their guns. About three-in-ten adults estimate that police fire their weapons a few times a year while on duty, and more than eight-in-ten (83%) estimate that the typical officer has fired his or her service weapon at least once in their careers, outside of firearms training or on a gun range, according to a recent Pew Research Center national survey.


In fact, only about a quarter (27%) of all officers say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job, according to a separate Pew Research Center survey conducted by the National Police Research Platform. The survey was conducted May 19-Aug. 14, 2016, among a nationally representative sample of 7,917 sworn officers working in 54 police and sheriff's departments with 100 or more officers.

Just for some reality.

[writingprof]

Sure there's bigotry on earth. Because humans are human. What I'm thinking about more lately is not what causes bigotry (as the left obsesses about) but more how many different ways does it operate, exist, coexist with requirements of acceptable behavior.?
Casual observing:
Our daughter has a Chinese-American best friend from high school days. It's an inner city school, very diverse. When daughter came home from hanging out with the family, she'd say 'they're fun people, we have a blast together, but they are bigoted." "Against who?' "White people." "Wow, and you are comfortable around them?" "Yes, very. It's obvious they like me. Maybe they're too comfortable and that's why they let me see the bigotry. They make fun of white people as a category. For example, we order the stupidest thing on the menu. But they try to  make sure I know they don't mean us.' It interested me, because it seems that while certain American families, like this one that makes a nice living from American whites and others by  owning and operating several Chinese Food Restaurants, they don't feel the need to see themselves as free of bias. Nor are they looking for utopia. They're also not doing what black and white liberal America are doing now, either. They're not to the same extent infiltrating college curricula to overhaul our unconscious thinking habits.They're not trying to get more recognition for national holidays that honor their advocates. Their not getting Hollywood involved, or kneeling at football games. They stick together but they also circulate. They believe in the family unit and their crime rate is low. They're not making heroes out of the dregs among them as some blacks have done.  They're making money, running businesses, playing in orchestras, scoring high on SAT exams. Their attitude, when it's on the more swaggering or insolent side, might be more like 'hey white person, if there's a racial problem between you and me, it's yours. I'm OK.'
The anti-racism trend now appears to be the property of certain blacks. They want it, and they want to require you to jump through its hoops to prove you are not a hopeless misanthrope. And they're being egged on by liberal whites, and I don't think it's going to help them have better lives. The liberal whites are getting confused about what they believe or are eager to be part of a budding in-crowd.

Wow.  Lot of "they" in this.  Just wow.

What would you prefer? "Hu"?

[Economizer]

As there have been mny suggestions for changes in incident response here and in other.media, I make these two points:

1. Someone will have to arrive first and immediately initate actions.

2. I remember times in our country when "the men in the white costs" were called in to remove
    and control non violent[?] subjects. Are we headed back to that? Those "attendents"
    were said to have issues generated by their control and suppression tactics as well.
     

[Economizer]

As there have been mny suggestions for changes in incident response here and in other.media, I make these two points:

1. Someone will have to arrive first and immediately initate actions.

2. I remember times in our country when "the men in the white costs" were called in to remove and control non violent[?] subjects. Are we headed back to that? Those "attendents" were said to have issues generated by their control and suppression tactics as well.
   

[mahagonny]

One of my major reservations about the current protests has been that there haven't been a clear set of solutions proposed. "Defund the police" seems to mean something different to whoever proposes it.  I've seen plenty of ideas proposed, but there's no consensus. So all I see is a desire for more social justice, which seems bland to me.

In my school their goal is to get white faculty to read more books about white supremacy and to bring that term into as many discussions as they can, and keep the conversation around things that oppress black Americans.   This includes not just the diversity staff but the faculty union, which is supposed to be there to advocate for working conditions, pay, job security of faculty the college has been, appropriately, at liberty to hire, based on their need for qualified teachers of any and all races. That part bugs me a bit, especially in these times where many of us are going to be losing credit hours and courses. Your right to have work should be based on your productivity.
BLM needs to ask what are they going to ask of each other.
What do you think would happen if one of  my lilly white colleagues were to write college wide email saying 'thank you for recommending the books White Fragility, etc. I recommend to you a few by Loury, McWhorter, Larry Elder, et al just to add to the pool of interesting thoughts?' I think pandemonium would the result. Yet you should be able to do this in an academic environment.
I'm not that worried about the reading list. I may even peruse. You know what happens when you give someone too big a reading list. They don't do it, and then you've got the problem.

[downer]

What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

In the link I posted, Coleman Hughes pointed out that the rate of police killings is much lower than it was a few decades ago, but this rarely gets mentioned. Also, part of the problem is the American gun culture. In coutries with few guns, police don't have to worry about someone reaching into their coat for what is supposed to be a driver's license. In the USA, especially in heavily-armed neighbourhoods, a second of hesitation by a cop could get them killed, so they have to be much more anxious about that to stay alive.

You don't address policy solutions to further reduce police killings. What has led to those decreases.

It sounds like you are recommending gun control as a solution. I agree.

[downer]

One of my major reservations about the current protests has been that there haven't been a clear set of solutions proposed. "Defund the police" seems to mean something different to whoever proposes it.  I've seen plenty of ideas proposed, but there's no consensus. So all I see is a desire for more social justice, which seems bland to me.

In my school their goal is to get white faculty to read more books about white supremacy and to bring that term into as many discussions as they can, and keep the conversation around things that oppress black Americans.   This includes not just the diversity staff but the faculty union, which is supposed to be there to advocate for working conditions, pay, job security of faculty the college has been, appropriately, at liberty to hire, based on their need for qualified teachers of any and all races. That part bugs me a bit, especially in these times where many of us are going to be losing credit hours and courses. Your right to have work should be based on your productivity.
BLM needs to ask what are they going to ask of each other.
What do you think would happen if one of  my lilly white colleagues were to write college wide email saying 'thank you for recommending the books White Fragility, etc. I recommend to you a few by Loury, McWhorter, Larry Elder, et al just to add to the pool of interesting thoughts?' I think pandemonium would the result. Yet you should be able to do this in an academic environment.
I'm not that worried about the reading list. I may even peruse. You know what happens when you give someone too big a reading list. They don't do it, and then you've got the problem.

What if you replied: "Sorry, this is not part of what I get paid to do. If you want me to read those books, you will need to pay me to do so." ?  That's the reply I'd be tempted to give.

[apl68]

Oh, for Pete's sake. All lives matter! Yes, they do! And there is a disproportionate amount of police brutality aimed at black people!

This is something I keep hearing, but never with credible sources/numbers identified. I need more information to believe it.
How are we calculating this? By blacks being only some 13% of the population but receiving more than 13% of the brutal treatment? That might be assuming that only 13% of the encounters with policemen involve blacks, or that there isn't more criminal activity in black neighborhoods. Which I have never seen anyone show.

There's more criminal activity in black neighborhoods, but there's also widespread evidence that many police forces take a more heavy-handed approach toward black neighborhoods and toward black youth.  It's this heavy-handedness, and the resentment that it stores up in black communities, that lies behind the explosions of protest and rioting that occasional exceptionally egregious cases like the Floyd killing set off.  There's an urgent need to address this issue more effectively and consistently than it has been in the past.

I share your concern about excessive anti-police rhetoric, focus on identity politics, and talk about "defunding" and "dismantling" police forces.  I'm concerned that these sorts of radical excesses will make it harder to pursue the needed legitimate reforms.

[marshwiggle]

What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

In the link I posted, Coleman Hughes pointed out that the rate of police killings is much lower than it was a few decades ago, but this rarely gets mentioned. Also, part of the problem is the American gun culture. In coutries with few guns, police don't have to worry about someone reaching into their coat for what is supposed to be a driver's license. In the USA, especially in heavily-armed neighbourhoods, a second of hesitation by a cop could get them killed, so they have to be much more anxious about that to stay alive.

You don't address policy solutions to further reduce police killings. What has led to those decreases.

It sounds like you are recommending gun control as a solution. I agree.

Policies like mandatory bodycams make a lot of sense and have broad support. They have nothing specific to do with race.

Gun ownership is as popular with noisy people on one end of the political spectrum as defunding the police is with the noisy people on the other, and since nuance is obliterated, there doesn't seem to be much room for collaboration and compromise. (Although polls of actual voters, not just the screamers, actually show more consensus than popular media lead you to believe.)

[downer]

Policies like mandatory bodycams make a lot of sense and have broad support. They have nothing specific to do with race.

So did the Scared Straight program and to some extent the Abstinence pledges. But it turned out that they didn't work at all, and they were counter productive.

There's no evidence that body cams make any difference. In fact, there is evidence they don't.

So I'm still looking for one good proposal.

[Baldwinschild]

Sure there's bigotry on earth. Because humans are human. What I'm thinking about more lately is not what causes bigotry (as the left obsesses about) but more how many different ways does it operate, exist, coexist with requirements of acceptable behavior.?
Casual observing:
Our daughter has a Chinese-American best friend from high school days. It's an inner city school, very diverse. When daughter came home from hanging out with the family, she'd say 'they're fun people, we have a blast together, but they are bigoted." "Against who?' "White people." "Wow, and you are comfortable around them?" "Yes, very. It's obvious they like me. Maybe they're too comfortable and that's why they let me see the bigotry. They make fun of white people as a category. For example, we order the stupidest thing on the menu. But they try to  make sure I know they don't mean us.' It interested me, because it seems that while certain American families, like this one that makes a nice living from American whites and others by  owning and operating several Chinese Food Restaurants, they don't feel the need to see themselves as free of bias. Nor are they looking for utopia. They're also not doing what black and white liberal America are doing now, either. They're not to the same extent infiltrating college curricula to overhaul our unconscious thinking habits.They're not trying to get more recognition for national holidays that honor their advocates. Their not getting Hollywood involved, or kneeling at football games. They stick together but they also circulate. They believe in the family unit and their crime rate is low. They're not making heroes out of the dregs among them as some blacks have done.  They're making money, running businesses, playing in orchestras, scoring high on SAT exams. Their attitude, when it's on the more swaggering or insolent side, might be more like 'hey white person, if there's a racial problem between you and me, it's yours. I'm OK.'
The anti-racism trend now appears to be the property of certain blacks. They want it, and they want to require you to jump through its hoops to prove you are not a hopeless misanthrope. And they're being egged on by liberal whites, and I don't think it's going to help them have better lives. The liberal whites are getting confused about what they believe or are eager to be part of a budding in-crowd.

Wow.  Lot of "they" in this.  Just wow.

What would you prefer? "Hu"?

I would prefer to be in a different discussion, which is where I'll be after hitting "post."

[marshwiggle]

Policies like mandatory bodycams make a lot of sense and have broad support. They have nothing specific to do with race.

So did the Scared Straight program and to some extent the Abstinence pledges. But it turned out that they didn't work at all, and they were counter productive.

There's no evidence that body cams make any difference. In fact, there is evidence they don't.

Whether they directly change behaviour or not isn't as important as the fact that when there is an accusation of misconduct, there will be evidence other than testimony which can be used to make a judgement. That's a HUGE improvement. Let's face it; it's the video of the George Floyd situation that made it blow up, not the mere testimony that it happened.