When I read recently that The Supreme Court’s gun ruling was a victory over racist policing, I thought there might be at least one small silver lining in its New York decision about guns.
The authors are public defenders and made the case that the police, when not able to arrest a person of color for simply carrying a gun, could not use the simple possession of a gun as a reason for arresting someone. Since such arrests are disproportionately of people of color (POC), this could be a small step toward reducing their incarceration.
That seemed plausible. I sent it to two other friends and writers on Medium for comment. Boy, did I get an earful from both.
Daniel L. Goetz responded first.
“Yes, a very different argument about the NY gun law by this Bronx Defenders group. The moral calculus presented is weighing gun violence v mass incarceration — which option is worse?
The insidious aspect to this choice is that POC’s lose in both cases.”
The last 60 years have taught me that Daniel has an insightful and precise intellect. His response was no surprise.
Dan Stuhlsatz responded next with this equally precise comment.
“My take is that this is another example of our infinite capacity to confuse means and ends.”
It’s the old means and end maxim used precisely.
”If the end/goal is fairer treatment of POC, and less mass incarceration, the Supreme Court’s decision is not going to make a damn bit of difference. That is because this isn’t a law directly concerned with racial equity/equality. Since Reconstruction, we have had a truly remarkable record for jailing POCs, especially black folks. This, despite all the laws that have come and gone during this time.”
Sad but true. So much talk. So much legislation. So little accomplished.
“One of the many reasons that our laws do not achieve success is that they are rarely directly focused on achieving systemic racial equity/equality itself. Also, the “we” who are in charge of making, interpreting and enforcing the law are not — as a whole — interested in achieving systemic racial equity/equality, or may even not wish for this to happen.”
The historical “we” is white people of course. Dan Stuhlsatz continues.
“These defense attorneys will notice no difference in the NYPD capacity to lock up their defendants.
If the end is fairer treatment of POCs, and less mass incarceration, then the means is to understand these problems as the result of a social system and to address these systemic problems directly.”
Dan Stuhlsatz added more:
[ I’m reminded of one of Ben Franklin’s sayings to the effect that there will be injustice until those who benefit from the system have the same experience as those who do not.]
Daniel L. Goetz followed with this.
“Again, I concur!
I find the logic impeccable in your reply. It gets to the core principle of how REI (Racial Equity Institute) defines racism: an economic and social system that privileges Whites to the detriment and the harm of POCs.”
Daniel just doesn’t mention this definition after a quick internet search. He has participated in training conducted by REI, a nationally recognized group that helps participants come to grips with racism in themselves and in others. Attendees then form and participate in a post-training group to work on issues of racism in their own communities. He’s been part of the training and the follow up group. This is where the real work of “taking off the scab” of racism begins.
Why are three older white guys writing about racism?
It’s because we care deeply about the treatment of POC’s by the white establishment to their “detriment and harm”. And it’s not substantially changing for the better, whether it be in economic disparity, random automobile stops by police, or incarceration rate. If you Dear Reader have any statistical measure to the contrary, please share it with me.
But why do we care? It doesn’t have any impact on us, right? While it’s common decency to care about others, it’s also foolish to shut out a whole group of people from fully participating in our nation’s economy. It’s bad for people of color, for sure, but more broadly for the well-being of the entire economy. Only racist thinking gets to such a perverse decision to go against one’s own economic interests.
Racism and democracy don’t play well together.
It’s hard to have a modern, functioning democracy with so many people on the sidelines. Yes, it’s a loss for people of color. It’s also a loss for everyone else too.
It’s particularly a loss for white people who fear the worst every time a person of color makes any advancement of any kind. As the old football chant goes, push ’em back, push ’em back, all the way back! How can one lead a truly happy life when fear of others not like you follows you around every day?
But hasn’t racism ended? No, it’s not over.
As Dan Stuhlsatz said above, ‘the “we” who are in charge of making, interpreting and enforcing the law are not — as a whole — interested in achieving systemic racial equity/equality, or may even not wish for this to happen.”
I would add that every time there is a “George Floyd”, there is a predictable litany of “what needs to be done” and that something must change. And then it never really does.
And even worse, people in power blame the most powerless for having the audacity to protest as our Constitution allows — especially if any destruction of property is involved. If protestors take a local government building hostage for a month, as what happened in Portland in 2020, then the people in power stoke the fears of white people who hold all the cards.
Racism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Blame leads to more fear which leads to more blame. Nothing changes because the status quo is “not interested in achieving racial equity.”
So, if you are reading this, I’m here to ask you to think about the possibility that there is a system of racism that benefits white people in power to “ the detriment and the harm” of people of color. Unless we can discuss whether there is even such a system, then we are simply fish swimming around in water not knowing we are surrounded by water. We can do better. I know we can.
There’s three of us writing for Our Sacred Democracy, a publication on Medium. It’s our effort to write provocative, constructive stories on the importance of nurturing and preserving our democracy.
Daniel L. Goetz has studied sociology, anthropology, and public administration at undergraduate and graduate levels, and his work career became a lifelong practicum in these areas.
Dan Stuhlsatz gave much of his youth to manual labor, carpentry and mountaineering. After accumulating sufficient injuries, he gave much of his older self to sociology as a professor and researcher.
Ken Grotewiel writes for the publication Our Sacred Democracy on Medium and is a Founding Member of the None of the Above Society.
Not yet a member of Medium? Support the Medium community of writers and readers and get unlimited access to thousands of Medium articles. Become an ‘unlimited’ member today.
