Mormons and Critical Race Theory

[drumdude]

Isn't this the logic behind things like mandatory minimum sentences? So that the rule always dictates the same equal result in every case, and the outcome is always the same?

Yeah, I think mandatory sentencing in general is a good example. We can conduct all kinds of studies and consult all kinds of experts to create the fairest and most equitable system of mandatory sentencing possible. And, still, we will end up with a truck driver sentenced to 110 years for a traffic accident. Or someone who commits a murder immediately upon release.

I have my own little mantra about fairness. It goes something like: Fairness requires treating like cases the same and different cases differently. Any two cases are both the same and different. The trick is in figuring out which samenesses and which differences are important.

The idea behind mandatory sentencing was that judges were too soft on crime. So, in the federal system and some state systems, the ability to take into consideration the facts of individual cases was taken away. The result, based on federal judges I've listened to, was dockets crammed with relatively minor drug offenses, resulting in sending people to prison that really should not have been there. As a result, we ended up with an embarrassingly high rate of incarceration when compared with other countries, overcrowded facilities, and a for profit industry that needs full cells to turn a profit. That's the price of focussing on sameness and not enough on differences. Too many mandatories and too little discretion.

It seems to me like that’s an artifact of how societies are run. You can either have a society where the rules are applied equally, or one where rules are applied prejudicially.

I’m not convinced that the advocates for critical race theory would be able to create a more fair system for everyone. I’m only convinced that they can lobby to create a differently prejudiced system.

It’s more like “it’s our turn” rather than “let’s create something better.”

[honorentheos]

Thanks, Honor. I had never heard of Hayek. Interesting perspective. The way I think about critical theory is also not a prescription but an attitude. At least I think so. Where I would quibble with Hayek is what I think is his implicit assumption that the choice to change is qualitatively different than the choice not to change. Quibble aside, I think we end up at pretty much the same place. "Move ahead, but be careful" is a pretty good description of where I'm at, I think.

I'm trying to think of a cool name for my political philosophy. I''m jealous of Doc's "radical centrism" because, whatever it means, it's a cool label. Maybe it's Revolutionary Incrementalist. Or just Critical Incrementalist. As long as it comes with cool sunglasses, I'll be happy.

Hayek is complicated. His book, The Road to Serfdom, is practically the Bible to free market capitalists and one can't escape him if one runs in libertarian circles to any degree. But he's just a dude with ideas, like everyone else. Like a lot of thinkers in the middle of the 20th c., his is often a reaction to the extremes of the early century.

I think there is wisdom in the ideas captured in the piece, including the tension in the varied things said by Hayek of a decade of writing. Like you noted from the piece, "Move ahead but be careful" is good advice if entirely subjective in how one goes about applying it. That's where my personal view regarding principles come into play even in light of the discussion regarding critical theory.

[Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I think mandatory sentencing in general is a good example. We can conduct all kinds of studies and consult all kinds of experts to create the fairest and most equitable system of mandatory sentencing possible. And, still, we will end up with a truck driver sentenced to 110 years for a traffic accident. Or someone who commits a murder immediately upon release.

I have my own little mantra about fairness. It goes something like: Fairness requires treating like cases the same and different cases differently. Any two cases are both the same and different. The trick is in figuring out which samenesses and which differences are important.

The idea behind mandatory sentencing was that judges were too soft on crime. So, in the federal system and some state systems, the ability to take into consideration the facts of individual cases was taken away. The result, based on federal judges I've listened to, was dockets crammed with relatively minor drug offenses, resulting in sending people to prison that really should not have been there. As a result, we ended up with an embarrassingly high rate of incarceration when compared with other countries, overcrowded facilities, and a for profit industry that needs full cells to turn a profit. That's the price of focussing on sameness and not enough on differences. Too many mandatories and too little discretion.

It seems to me like that’s an artifact of how societies are run. You can either have a society where the rules are applied equally, or one where rules are applied prejudicially.

I’m not convinced that the advocates for critical race theory would be able to create a more fair system for everyone. I’m only convinced that they can lobby to create a differently prejudiced system.

It’s more like “it’s our turn” rather than “let’s create something better.”

I don't see it that way at all. But I do have a secret theory that white people react to racial issues as they do because they fear that, when they become a numerical minority, POCs will treat them exactly as they have treated POCs.

My favorite example is the criminal justice system, with the specific example of minor drug crimes. When we look at arrests for illegal possession of, say, marijuana, the arrests are skewed heavily toward black folks. Now, lots of folks look at these kinds of statistics and conclude that black folks just commit more crime. That's based partly on looking at our laws and seeing that there is no racial component written into the laws and no police department policies that even suggest treating black folks different than white folks. Since the rules are "colorblind," the answer must be that black folks just commit more drug crimes.

What Critical Race Theory says is that we shouldn't just assume the difference reflects bad choices by black folks. We should take a closer look and find out why that is. So, we take surveys to measure illegal drug use and find that rates of illegal use of marijuana among black folks and white folks is pretty similar. It is nowhere near the difference that the figures on arrests would lead us to believe.

What Critical Race Theory again says is figure out why the rates of arrest are so divergent from the rates of criminal behavior. And a major part of the answer is pretty simple. Most arrests for minor drug possession offenses result from "pretext stops," which the Supreme Court has held to be Constitutional. If your tool is pretext stops, then you will find drug offenses only where you look for them. If the department is conducting pretext stops in black neighborhoods at a disproportionate rate compared to white neighborhoods, then it will be arresting a disproportionate number of black folks.

That's a source of structural racism that is unquestionably unjust. Now, the view you expressed is that the solution that Critical Race Theory would propose is to reverse the situation and disproportionately patrol white neighborhoods -- it's our turn. That's not the type of solution that I've heard expressed. The solution is to eliminate the unfairness. Police departments could conduct pretext stops in black and white neighborhoods proportionately. Or, state legislatures could ban pretext stops, returning to the former standards. Or the state could decriminalize minor drug possession crimes. The first option would result in more arrests of white folks who are violating the law. If the arrests aren't disproportionate to the actual rate of crime, I don't think you can make a credible argument that the revised system is just a differently prejudiced system. The other two reforms won't result in any increase in arrests of white people. So how could they be just a differently prejudiced system?

Note that critical race theory doesn't tell us how best to fix the problem. It just helps us see systemic bias so we can address it.

That's one issue at one of the many steps in the criminal justice system. And there is pretty good evidence that black folks receive disproportionately harsher treatment at each step in the process. So, Critical Race Theory would tell us to look at each step to see if there is systemic bias that we can address. And it's fallacious to think that addressing the bias just means that two races just exchange places.

It's easy to say that change can't make things better when you're not a member of the disadvantaged group. Taking the view you expressed to its logical conclusion, the elimination of slavery shouldn't have been happened because it just resulted in a differently prejudiced system. But we didn't address the problem by making white people the slaves of black people. We did it by saying people don't get to own other people as property.

So that's my long-winded example. It's an easy one to pick because people who study the criminal justice system spotted these problems some time ago and are working on steps to take that reduce the racially disparate outcomes that are not the result of individual choices. We can do the same thing in schools. If we study school disciplinary measures and find that black students receive harsher punishments than white kids for similar offenses, we've got some kind of problem in the system. Changing the system so that black students and white students receive similar punishments for similar behavior is certainly not "it's my turn" for the black students. It's not replace a prejudiced system with an equally prejudiced system. It's an improvement in the fairness of the system.

Critical Race Theory helps us find the problems in the system.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Honor. I had never heard of Hayek. Interesting perspective. The way I think about critical theory is also not a prescription but an attitude. At least I think so. Where I would quibble with Hayek is what I think is his implicit assumption that the choice to change is qualitatively different than the choice not to change. Quibble aside, I think we end up at pretty much the same place. "Move ahead, but be careful" is a pretty good description of where I'm at, I think.

I'm trying to think of a cool name for my political philosophy. I''m jealous of Doc's "radical centrism" because, whatever it means, it's a cool label. Maybe it's Revolutionary Incrementalist. Or just Critical Incrementalist. As long as it comes with cool sunglasses, I'll be happy.

Hayek is complicated. His book, The Road to Serfdom, is practically the Bible to free market capitalists and one can't escape him if one runs in libertarian circles to any degree. But he's just a dude with ideas, like everyone else. Like a lot of thinkers in the middle of the 20th c., his is often a reaction to the extremes of the early century.

I think there is wisdom in the ideas captured in the piece, including the tension in the varied things said by Hayek of a decade of writing. Like you noted from the piece, "Move ahead but be careful" is good advice if entirely subjective in how one goes about applying it. That's where my personal view regarding principles come into play even in light of the discussion regarding critical theory.

I do recognize the title of the book. I don't see your principles as being in contradiction to critical theory, but I certainly could be missing something.

[drumdude]

But I do have a secret theory that white people react to racial issues as they do because they fear that, when they become a numerical minority, POCs will treat them exactly as they have treated POCs.

I would bet on it. The story of human history is one group of people subjugating another, over and over and over. We’re at a very unique time in history that has never been more peaceful or fair, when viewed in that longer context.

I completely agree there’s work left to be done, and I’m glad there are thoughtful people like yourself working on it. I really do hope that we create something better while we’re fixing the injustices.

[Res Ipsa]

But I do have a secret theory that white people react to racial issues as they do because they fear that, when they become a numerical minority, POCs will treat them exactly as they have treated POCs.

I would bet on it. The story of human history is one group of people subjugating another, over and over and over. We’re at a very unique time in history that has never been more peaceful or fair, when viewed in that longer context.

I completely agree there’s work left to be done, and I’m glad there are thoughtful people like yourself working on it. I really do hope that we create something better while we’re fixing the injustices.

I can't represent myself as working on it. Perhaps when I hit retirement, I can do some work in criminal justice reform. It seems to me an obvious place for a legal beagle to start. I do think it's reassuring to take the long view and see how far we've come. I can't recall whether it was Pinker's Enlightenment Now or something similar that gave me cause for optimism.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Perhaps when I hit retirement, I can do some work in criminal justice reform. It seems to me an obvious place for a legal beagle to start.

I wish we could do something about

1) overclocking prison sentences in the first place

2) mandatory sentencing

3) prison conditions - the sheer inhumanity of the physical prisons themselves and the lack of prisoner reform

If you do get involved in prison reform, man, it’s going to be soul crushing. The comments I read from our local Conservative news outlets are unthinking at best and gleefully inhumane at worst. A huge percentage of our population literally wants prison to be torturous and to ‘throw away the keys’ with regard to the prisoners themselves. Were creating a lot of psychopaths inside and outside the prison system.

- Doc

[Morley]

I don't see it that way at all.

{excellent snip}

Critical Race Theory helps us find the problems in the system.

Res, I think that you said it very well.

One point that you repeatedly make, that can’t be overstated, is that Critical Race Theory, like any type of postmodernist thought, is only a critique. My first exposure (to what I later learned was Critical Theory) was to the Russian literary and social critic, Mikhail Bakhtin. I was endlessly frustrated because it seemed that Bakhtin only offered an assessment of the problems he saw, but never a way to resolve them. I still bang my head against the wall over this.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some Critical Theorists who don’t offer suggestions. Some do. Those solutions, however, are not a part of Critical Theory as it stands and shouldn’t be confused with the discipline itself. Some who read and dislike one or another suggested remedies mistakenly think that the entire discipline hinges on that. It doesn’t.

Setting aside Critical Theory critiques, because the solutions are neither as readily apparent nor are as palatable as we’d like, is a dumbass response that only makes the problem worse with the passage of time. For instance, at the American founding, there were no good antebellum solutions to the issue of US slavery. We kicked that can down the road until the Civil War. We’re still dealing with the consequences because we didn’t adequately resolve the issue that led to and justified one race enslaving another.


...


“We set you all free, what more do you want? A hundred years later, we gave you the right to marry into our race and cleaned up the right-to-vote stuff, and you’re still complaining? That our language, culture, and legal system, as well as most of our institutions carry a slight bias against you should not be a problem. Shut up about it already. We let you have Denzel Washington, Barak Hossein Obama, the month of February, and the NBA. Take a page from Native Americans. They, at least, mostly restrict their bitching to Columbus Day and Thanksgiving.”

[sock puppet]

Solutions are another matter.

Critical race theory is about identifying the problem and the extent of it. Stifling the discussion prevents any solutions--if we don't recognize that there's a problem, there's nothing needing fixed. Discussing it, even from a young age to include all aspects of the history of racism and its continuing impacts in American socient, opens the door to then discussing solutions. No society should be an alcoholic that denies it has a drinking problem.

[honorentheos]

I don't see your principles as being in contradiction to critical theory, but I certainly could be missing something.

Sorry, I skipped over some of my thinking in making that comment. In the course of the discussion it appears to me that critical theory is essentially post-modern critiques of legal and social structures. Given idealism is anathema to post-modernism, well.