Racing to Justice

Renowned social justice advocate john a. powell persuasively argues that we have not achieved a post-racial society and that there is much work to do to redeem the American promise of inclusive democracy. Culled from a decade of writing about social justice and spirituality, these meditations on race, identity, and social policy provide an outline for laying claim to our shared humanity and a way toward healing ourselves and securing our future. Racing to Justice challenges us to replace attitudes and institutions that promote and perpetuate social suffering with those that foster relationships and a way of being that transcends disconnection and separation.

Quotes and thoughts while reading:

'[f]or Europeans, freedom is found not in autonomy but in embeddedness. To be free is to have access to many interdependent relationships. The more communities one has access to, the more options one has for living a full and meaningful life. It is inclusivity that brings security - belonging, not belongings." (p XVIII) A good way to start this journey through the book is to think about this quote. The beauty and simplicity of the statement that what we should crave is belonging, not belongings. I love it. I also didn't pick up the first time that this is the dominant cultural narrative of Europeans, and that maybe that is truly what we are lacking in this country. That someday we may align with this mindset.

"Aristotle, who gave us much of our understanding of equality, asserted that it is just to treat those who are situated similarly the same, but it would be unjust to treat those who are situated differently the same."(p 10) Isn't this the basis to the colorblind theory? That we should treat everyone the same? But the problem lay in the fact that they haven't considered the second part to Aristotle's quote - that we aren't all situated similarly yet.

Page 15 brings up this beautiful point, and makes clear this idea of affirmative action for whites. In the 40's and 50's the GI bill, along with a myriad of other social programs served as a type of affirmative action for white men returning from war. They were given loans with low interest rates, free college education, "in fact, no other single instrument did as much to widen the racial gap in postwar America."(p 14) The language, and the weight behind the words affirmative action, causes this to stick out to me. I hadn't thought of framing it in this way, but it really was just that - affirmative action targeted at a group of people.

Targeted Universalism is this huge idea that needs a lot of time and space. It needs to be allowed to fill the buckets of people's mind and overflow a bit. Instead of "universal" policies, that attempt to raise all boats, without really looking into the quality of the boats that people are manning - targeted universalism first looks to the boat, and ensures that everyone is sea-worthy. And if you aren't targeted universalism pays special attention to getting your vessel ready to sail. Then, you can start applying a more universal approach. But it would be remiss to forget to first analyze the needs of both the dominant and marginalized parties. "Targeted universalism rejects a blanket approach that is likely to be indifferent to the reality that different groups are situated differently relative to the institutions and resources of society. It also rejects the claim of formal equality that would, as a way of denying different, treat all people the same. Any proposal would be evaluated by the outcome as well as the intent.(p 14)

I am embarrassed to admit that before this book I didn't really know what Plessy V. Ferguson was about(I hope I retain it too). I'd heard of it, but I hadn't realized it was the fulcrum that confirmed that the notion of "separate but equal" was constitutional.

Ok, so maybe this will make me sound like an elitist, but the notion of "the common man" laws made my blood boil. What you're basically relying on is that the culture of the dominant narrative is correct. "The court conceded that definitions of whiteness are predicted upon common acceptance, or rejection, of demographic groups."(p 56) What really irks me about this, is that I hold the court of law to be something above the common sense of mankind. I look for it to be a place of formal logic, rhetoric, and discussion. Not something that is based on the flow and feeling of the land. I understand that everyone has a bias, and that the consensus of the time usually prevails, but I guess I don't like seeing it so openly agreed upon.

"Privilege is distributed and mediated through structures, language, power, and institutions that always outrun the control of any given individual. In fact, I would suggest that having unconscious bias and stereotypes should not be labeled racism. Having these biases is certainly not innocent and requires action, but it is misleading to call them racist when they are formed without conscious intent."(p 79) I find this to be really empowering to read, and also helps frame why we need to go after the institutions, language, etc to really conquer this problem of privilege. I think this speaks to some of the questions the board raised as to "Why not help the individual?". Because, without the institutions, etc getting on board, the individual can't compete.

"Recognizing the necessity of confronting privilege is a difficult task for privilege holders. As [Peggy] McIntosh puts it, "the pressure to avoid it is great, for in facing it I must give up the myth of meritocracy."(p 80). Let that sink in for a second. And permeate through. Because truly, it is a myth(meritocracy). It's not, and the white affirmative action that was shown above just proves it further. But we all keep telling ourselves that this is a meritocracy, or that it is the best system. I think this section in particular - The Damaging Effects of Privilege on Privilege Holders is a great snippet to share with other privilege holders. Because it speaks so much to fear of recognizing your privilege

I was struck comparing the recent stories I've heard of how women are now making their way into the armed services serving in combat roles(an honor that has been kept from them up to until this time). The "sameness/difference dilemma" becomes apparent. We judge women in combat based upon the same tests we conduct for men, so in effect the are tested to the "assumed norm" - which is in fact a white male. I just find it interesting how these norms creep up in a 1000 different ways. I guess my next question, that has been percolating up is "How do we judge, without a norm to base information from?", and is this very thought dangerous and damaging? Is judging wrong? Can we apply methods of science to people? Is it fair to do that? Is it fair, or right to judge a person in the same way we would judge a rat in a lab, with a control group and everything? Isn't that what societal norms are attempting to create - a control group?

"What about the idea that whites might renounce their privilege? Although it is important to interrogate how much privilege is generated and how it functions it is not clear that much of what is called privilege can or even should be given up. There is often a false symmetry: if blacks are denied something that whites have, then it must be a privilege. If we define privilege as an illegitimate benefit that injures others, however, this confusion can be avoided. Consider voting rights, for example, or being treated fairly in the judicial system, or any number of other benefits denied in disproportionate numbers to blacks. These are privileges of whiteness, to be sure, but they are not ones that whites should contemplate giving up. These rights must form the bedrock of any humane society."(p 98) So my next logical step would be to state that although whites shouldn't give these things up, they should instead figure out a way for everyone to have them. Thus, they would no longer be privileges, and the the whites would have indeed given up the "privilege", but not the basic rights to voting, judicial fairness, etc.

"Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek - it must be rejected, altered and exposed." - Toni Morrison, Nobel Lecture (p 102)

The notion that the courts need "proof of explicit discriminatory intent" vs "historical evidence demonstrating discriminatory intent"(p 112) was interesting to chew on and think more about. I can see the courts limitations, in that they want to be able to point at something and make a ruling based on that, and at the same time that seems really... limiting. Maybe it isn't the job of the courts to make rulings that are based off historical socio-political events, but that maybe it is the job of the lawyers to see the greater political meaning, and to find the explicit event that gives their case backing. In any case, it seems like the courts are working to find their way out of making the decisions that would further inclusion.

An unfortunately quick win & loss surrounded the idea of "laws [which] give those facing a death penatly sentence the right to present statistical or other evidence that race was a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the death penalty."(p 115) I'll never understand why they would make it illegal to present statistics, but I'll also never truly understand hate and bias that is unfounded. Shockingly, one of the states to pass that law was North Carolina, who has been in the news recently for it's laws blocking cities from allowing transgender individuals to use public bathrooms for the sex they identify as -- as well as restricting cities from passing nondiscrimination laws more broadly. Interesting how they were on the forefront, but have now slipped to last place in regards for public policy that furthers inclusion.

"[Derek] Black has also gone a step further by advocating the use of a modified deliberate indifference standard as a replacement for the intent standard in equal protection cases. Under the standard, a challenged policy's constitutionality would be determined as follows: First, a court would determine whether a governmental actor 'was or should have been aware of the racial harm or impacts that its actions caused or the benefits/opportunities denied' and whether other less harmful alternatives were available. If so, the court would inquire as to why those alternative were not implemented. Finally, the court would consider what, if any, interests the governmental actor had in permitting the harm. This standard would place more responsibility on governmental actors to be alert to and intervene in policies or programs in which racially disparate impacts resulted. It would also require serious consideration of situatedness, rather than a highly theoretical investigation of 'intent'."(p 123) I think this is one of the opportunities that Racing to Justice takes to present a real world solution to the issues of implicit bias in policies and courts. It would examine who has to benefit, and gives a sense of attainability.

john powell discusses how the poverty rate in Malaysia went down from 74 percent during the uprising in 1964 to less than 6 percent in 1994. See this paper linked to read more of the study. Link to paper >>

"Dreams allow us unrestrained adventures, costless experiments, and some of out most uninhibited states. In them, we have license to experience superhuman powers or ignore sexual taboos. Social constraints and reality have little grip on our dream worlds. Yet our classroom discussion(where powell asked his group of students if any of them had ever dreamed they were a different sex, or race, etc) indicated that for many, racial boundaries remain largely intact, even in this realm. How is it that such a line is drawn and policed, even in our sleep, and what does this mean for our waking consciousness?"(p 136) I would love to incorporate this question into my daily routine. To begin asking people if they have ever dreamed they were a different person, or gender, or race. I find it fascinating how deep our subconscious is, and how it seems the conscious mind is just the first few inches of the massively deep cerebral lake that is our brain. We go fishing too often with bobbers on our lures, it's time to attach some weights.

"A black-white binary is not the same as a black-white paradigm or hierarchy. For example, in a hierarchy, there might well be a gradient with white at the top and black at the bottom that could easily situate those who were neither black nor white."(p 141) This particular quote is in response to the racial others that are stigmatized by being excluded from the white-black binary, namely(but of course not including all) Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and other non-white non-blacks. Right? I mean we get so caught up in the black-white discussion that the challenges of other groups seems to get swept under the table. I'd say this also introduces into the mix to talk about gender identity, sexuality, socioeconomic class, etc. These are all elements that are lost in the white-black paradigm.

I have a question for john powell of how to dispel the myth that "black progress means white loss"(p 144). What narrative do I share with people? Voter's rights seems like a pretty easy one to explain. Whites don't lose anything by letting blacks vote, so progress in that arena doesn't mean loss. Is the issue that we live in a capitalist economy that is based on the principles of scarcity and supply and demand? What about black progress in the jobs market? Wouldn't that necessarily mean less jobs for whites? Or would it be growth in the job market overall? I can see this myth still living in the hearts and minds of many people whom I talk to about this issue, and would love more input on it.

"Those of us with privilege must therefore use the privileges we cannot reject to better understand, expose, and destabilize the structures and cultural norms that support and reinscribe whiteness. We must raise the cost of maintaining whiteness by seeking strategic interventions that reduce racialized disparities across multiple areas - but still seek to better understand and challenge whiteness. We must begin to work for a new set of arrangements that will support a new way of relating, a new way of being."(p 159)

Charles Lawrence explained that: "The human mind defends itself against the discomfort of guilt by denying or refusing to recognize those ideas, wishes, and beliefs that conflict with what the individual has learned is good or right... When an individual experiences conflict between racist ideas and the societal ethic that condemns those ideas, the mind excludes his racism from consciousness." (p 179) Here powell starts to delve into Freudian theories of the multiple self, and while I find value in this approach, I have some kind of weird internal bias against Freud. I would agree with the phrase "theorists believe that these processes of the mind, the interplay of the unconscious and conscious involving drives and instinct, exist in everyone.", but once you put "Freudian" in front of that sentence I bristle up and become more skeptical.

"...common misconceptions of the way the self functions continue to be used to justify a demand by the courts for proof of an explicit, conscious intention to discriminate in all cases related to race and racialization. This demand has grave repercussions. It means that the courts recognize only a small subset of racist actions - those that can be proved to be the product of some specific conscious mind or minds - and leaves the vast majority of them unaddressed. In our current social context, where overtly racist theories are generally discredited, most racist actions are driven by semiconscious, subconscious, or unconscious motivations."(p 190)

Lessons from suffering lays out the framework for two forms of suffering: "Spiritual suffering can be thought of as ontological or existential suffering...Social suffering, unlike ontological suffering, is not inherent in self-consciousness or being but is largely the result of our social arrangements."(p 197-198) I would argue that you have to have a certain level of privilege to engage in the act of ontological suffering. I was just discussing tonight how there appear to be people who never suffer from ontological suffering, and with this framework I would have to concede that they do in some ways suffer from social suffering.

"The more we withdraw from the world, the more disenchanted it becomes, requiring still further withdrawal... Unger's resolution of this problem is to add love to the mix - not the narcissistic love dominant in society today, but rather a low that seeks and embraces the other. This love, central to both our existentialist project and our spiritual yearning, should not be confused with altruism. Unger explains that love requires that we fully engage with the embodied self instead of with the removed and distanced space suggested by altruism. Love requires engagement with out others in their otherness and in their situated embodiedness. It is not enough to care for someone just as a spiritual being, nor can there simply be a resignation to what is."(p 206 - 207) This is where the American mantra of rugged individualism butts heads with the solutions to the current crisis we face. America has this mindset that you are allowed to withdraw and do whatever it is you choose in the sanctity of your own home. And it is this withdrawal - this strengthening of the lack of contact with "others in their otherness" that I think will be one of th biggest hurdles to overcome. We've reached a weird point in our society where the amount of entertainment one can engage in from the comforts of their own home is so high, that other than going to work, our perceived necessity for other human contact is much lower than it used to be. To see a movie, or listen to music 80 years ago required being surrounded by people. And yes, 80 years ago things were very segregated - but you still had to get out of your home and be surrounded by others. I don't know, I feel like for love to work we have to get people away from their screens, and into real, physical experiences, in public places, surrounded by people of all different walks of life.

"This is a call to enhance love, but not just private love. This is a call to enhance public love - justice. This is a call to intentionally support the creation of structures informed by and informing our sense of social justice and spirituality. This is a call to become responsible for the institutional structures we inhabit and that inhabit us."(p 228) Unsurprisingly, this ties in with the last quote and section above. We need to enhance public love - but how? Is it through vulnerability? Is it through engaging with people who think, look, behave differently than yourself? Is it being conscious of the history that affects marginalized groups, instead of the colorblind practices that are prevalent today? Can you love someone by being blind towards them and their struggles? Or does love come when you see into their history, and truly begin to know them?

A fun number to keep in your tool chest: "Scientists estimate that we can process eleven million bits of information per second but can only consciously process up to about forty of these."(p 230) So here is where your unconscious thoughts have the capacity to inform your conscious choices. There is so much data being pushed back and forth, that the chances of one of those forty bits being influenced by your past experiences, or learned traits is incredibly high.

This topic came up just the other day, about the baking crisis, and I was surprised to hear the rhetoric of victim blaming first hand. "[The] rhetoric in this crisis was focused exclusively on blaming the victims of their[the banks] lending scams - scams yielding enormous profits for those on the inside. How ironic it is that now, after having received staggering infusions of our tax dollars, they turn around and blame the targets and victims of their schemes, and the victims of the fallout from their schemes, for what has happened to all of us - around the world - as a result. Indeed, they frequently throw in a little lecture about the irresponsibility of their targets and victims as well." (p 238) Isn't this a case study for how institutions can shift the consensus of the public to believe in something that isn't entirely factual, that these huge institutions can influence our implicit bias - and make us judge someone for something they realistically had little to no control over?

This seems like an odd way to end, and I think I'll point back to the subject of love and belonging. This is the common theme of our time - and I'm curious to see how it develops through the next decade and on. Authors like Burnet Brown, Elizabeth Gilbert, Simon Booy, etc have all written recently about why we need love, and how it is the fulcrum through which we can move the world. And at the same time, 100 years ago, countless authors were writing nearly the opposite - Bertrand Russell, Thoreau, Emmerson, etc. And maybe it was this culture and thought of rugged individualism that pushed us into this current state that we exist. I have a hard time with love, it's something I shy away from, and my initial instinct is to say - "Sure, love is important, and something we should work towards", but I know that I'll have an incredibly hard time following through. They say that growth doesn't happen in your comfort zone - so as a society we need to be a little more uncomfortable.