Systemic racism

I give the Black Lives Matter Organization and George Floyd's death and the insinuating protests and societal change its own section here because it's what made me first aware of the idea of systemic racism. I assume the same for many other people. 

Origins 

As stated on their website, the Black Lives Matter organization and movement was brought about in response to the murder of Trevyon Martin at the hands of neighborhood watchmen George Zimmerman in 2012. Zimmerman called police to inform them of "a suspicious man in the area," referencing Martin who was walking back from a 7/11 with a pack of Skittles and Arizona iced tea he had purchased. Despite being told that a squad car would be dispatched, that the police would handle it, and to not follow Martin by police, Zimmerman confronted Martin, I guess for suspiciously walking back to his house. Moments later, Zimmerman shot Martin, who was unarmed (police who arrived at the scene found only $22, the Skittles, and iced tea on Martin), 70 feet from his home. Zimmerman told police he stepped out of the car and fought Martin. Why you would do this when you have been told police are on their way I don't know and why you would shoot an unarmed person for being suspicious I don't know either. The shooting of Michael Brown in 2014 was another galvanizing factor in bringing about the BLM movement. Brown, 18 years old, had stolen a pack of cigarettes from a local convenience store which prompted officer Darren Wilson to receive an alert in his patrol car. Wilson ended up shooting Brown several times, killing him. While the Department of Justice did not prosecute Wilson, the civil rights division did find numerous instances of racial bias in the way police and courts treated black individuals in the community detailed in a report. So, in short, the Black Lives Matter movement was born out of concerns of police brutality and racial profiling/bias in law enforcement and vigilante citizens.

Summer of 2020 - mostly peaceful protests

An independent study conducted by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a non profit, found that 93% of Black Lives Matter demonstrations and protests have been peaceful.  In the "US Crisis Monitor FAQs," the ACLED Project defines a violent demonstration as "events in which the demonstrators themselves engage in violently disruptive and/or destructive acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups, or armed actors. Such demonstrations can involve engagement in violence (e.g. fighting back against police), vandalism (e.g. property destruction), looting, road-blocking using barricades, burning tires or other materials, amongst others." Thus, based on their data, it is evident that 93% of BLM demonstrations and protests have not included targeting individual, property, businesses, or other groups, and not vandalism, looting, road-blocking with barricades, or burning stuff. Furthermore, the ACLED Codebook defines a violent demonstration as "when a group of individuals engages in a demonstration involving violence. Examples of rioting behaviour include vandalism; road-blocking using barricades, burning tires, or other material; other types of violent and/or destructive behaviour are also included here." Thus, it's again evident that 93% of BLM demonstrations and protests did not include vandalism, road-blocking with barricades, burring stuff, etc... Additionally, in the FAQ it is stated that the ACLED defines congregations of three or more people as a demonstration when they are directed against a political entity, government institution, policy, group or individual, tradition or event, businesses, or other private institutions. Now, where did the data they measure come from? The ACLED uses over 1,500 distinct sources including traditional media, reports, local partner data (data from organizations that collect data on events at a local level through primary and secondary sources who then share that data with ACLED), and, "new media:" Twitter and other forms of social media. ACLED also states that they prioritize local sources as opposed to international sources (like your CNNs of the world) because there is less bias involved. More about ACLED's data collection methods can be read in their Sourcing Methodology FAQ.

Aside from certain people just saying that BLM is a violent/terrorist/(insert your choice of synonyms here) group there is no data to support such a claim. 

To address the looting that has been associated with the BLM movement (the looting does not characterize the movement, nor is it representative of it) we turn to a quote from Republican Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense from 2001-2006 under the Bush administration. In 2003, he said the looting in Baghdad where American military forces were was a natural consequence when transitioning from a dictatorship to a free country. Rumsfeld described looting "as part of the price of getting from a repressed regime to freedom." This kind of echoes a quote from Martin Luther King Jr from a letter he wrote in 1963 while in the Birmingham jail: "freedom is never given voluntarily by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

BLM isn't even the most threatening domestic thing to America. The acting head of the Department for Homeland Security Chad Wolf identifies white supremacists as the "most persistent and lethal" internal "threat" to the US. Oh, and Wolf was appointed by Donald Trump too. Furthermore, a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center shows that 48.6% of all hate/extremist motivated crime is attributed to white supremacy whereas just 2.7% was attributed to black supremacy and 18.9% were attributed to anti-police/government ideologies. So white supremacists commit 18x more homicides than black supremacists and 2.6x more homicides than anti-police/government groups (Figure 1 below).

George Floyd death circumstances

Sometimes, in an attempt to discredit and/or shame the Black Lives Matter organization, or I suppose black people in general, people will try and say that George Floyd died due to fatal levels of fentanyl in his system rather than the knee that was on his neck for eight minutes. This is a lazy attempt at a "gotcha" considering the wealth of information that is out there surrounding Floyd. 

Fox News reported, in June, that two separate autopsies - an independent one and one done by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner - declared Floyd's death to be a homicide - a deliberate and unlawful killing of a person. The results of the indecent autopsy showed that Floyd's death was caused by "was caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain," as per the previously linked Fox News article (I don't think that independent autopsy has been released). Asphyxia is a condition in which the body is deprived of oxygen needed to avoid passing out, resulting in unconsciousness or death. The other autopsy which came from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, a press release for the report can be viewed here and the full report can be viewed here or here, and attributes Floyd's death to "Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" and cardiopulmonary arrest occurred "while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)." Cardiopulmonary arrest, more widely known as cardiac arrest, is the abrupt loss of heart function and breathing, leading to unconsciousness. A federal evaluation performed by the Office of Armed Forces medical examiner agrees with the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's conclusion, writing "We concur with the reported manner of death of homicide." 

Now, it is important to note that there were other conditions that contributed to Floyd's death, fentanyl intoxication being one of them. Preliminary reports from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office, which I sourced from this Fox News article, "concluded the combined effects of being restrained, potential intoxicants in Floyd’s system and his underlying health issues, including heart disease, likely contributed to his death," however it is important to remember that this was a preliminary report and should not reflect the report of the more in-depth, thorough, and full autopsy(ies) which attributed Floyd's death to being a homicide. Furthermore, this preliminary report still identifies that police action was a cause of Floyd's death and it's stupid to think that someone who contributed to another's death would face no consequences. Additionally, as reported by Fox News, the chief medical examiner at Hennepin Medical County, Andrew Baker, who labeled Floyd's death a homicide has stated that while Floyd did have a high level of fentanyl in his system, there were other contributing factors: "if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death" but he also said that, while Floyd did have high levels of fentanyl in his system, he's not saying that is what killed him (covered in the previous Fox News link). The examiner's report/death certificate's "other significant conditions" - Floyd's natural heart disease and the presence of drugs of abuse in his tested blood - do not excuse the officers, nor should they cause anyone to blame the victim. The Hennepin County chief medical examiner, Andrew Baker, would say that "the law enforcement subdual restraint to the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions" and as we'll see below in regards to the Eggshell Skull rule Chauvin can still be held liable for contributing to Floyd's death despite not knowing about the heart conditions he had. They are there on the death certificate because those findings, in the opinion of the medical examiner, would have made his death more likely. You could think of it this way: someone who takes blood thinners and gets stabbed multiple times dies from being stabbed, not because they took blood thinners (prolonged bleeding from a cut is a side effect of blood thinners), but the blood thinners make their death in that situation more likely. A federal evaluation performed by the Office of Armed Forces medical examiner agrees with Baker, writing "We concur with the reported manner of death of homicide." It is also worth mentioning that different people respond to fentanyl differently - what is a lethal dose for someone could have little to no effects on someone else. Additionally, people who are addicted to opioids increasingly take larger doses as their tolerance builds up. Fox News contributor and former chief New York City medical examiner Michael Baden also identifies this, saying "Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn. So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others." It is also worth mentioning that research indicates that "postmortem fentanyl blood concentrations were on average up to nine times higher than in vivo serum levels at the same dose," meaning that the concentration of fentanyl in a dead person will be 9x more than the concentration of fentanyl in a living person who took the same dose. This higher concentration is even observed between the day before and the day of an autopsy in other research. Furthermore, a fentanyl overdose would mean there would be a sharp decrease in the frequency of breaths, but Floyd's breathing became fatally shallow under the police restraint, and that the number of breaths he took per minute did not decrease up until the moment he lost consciousness according to Dr. Martin Tobin (more on him later). 

It is also important to note that experts on police use of force referred to this situation as a "checklist of things done incorrectly." LAPD sergeant Jody Stiger, a use-of-force expert brought in by the prosecution at Derek Chauvin's trial, testified that the force officers used on George Floyd during his arrest was "deadly."

Some people will point to the video where Floyd is already in distress and saying that he is having trouble breathing prior to being restrained with the knee on his neck as evidence that the use of force was justified or something, but this observation actually does the opposite, disproving their point - if someone is already expressing that they are having trouble breathing why restrain them in a way that restricts their breathing even further? What's next? - You gonna tell me the Coast Guard should throw a cinder block at someone who is drowning? Idiots will also point to a line in the Hennepin Medical County autopsy that reads "no life threatening injuries identified" as evidence that Floyd's death wasn't a homicide but because they are idiots they are unable to comprehend that asphyxia - being deprived of oxygen - is not an injury. Lack of oxygen is not an injury. Like drowning is a cause of death, but not an injury. If I held someone's head under the water for eight minutes and they die I've still committed a homicide despite not injuring them. They also seem to ignore the "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION" line at the top of the autopsy.

One thing to keep in mind with Chauvin's actions and the result of his trial (more on that below) is the Eggshell Skull Rule. Cornell Law defines it as "Doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort." An "intentional tort" refers to acts that are reasonably foreseen to cause harm to an individual and do so and “tort” is a legal term that means a wrongful act or omission leading to a civil wrong for which courts impose legal liability. So in layman's terms, this is saying that an offender (Chauvin) is liable for the defendant's (Floyd) reactions to the offender's negligence or action that could cause harm. Essentially, if an offender (Chauvin) inflicts injury on a victim (Floyd) and the ultimate harm is worse than what would normally be expected because the victim was more vulnerable due to some pre-existing injury, then the offender is still responsible for the whole harm suffered. The terminology "eggshell skull" implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and an offender  who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the offender did not intend to cause such a severe injury (Remember, the Hennepin County chief medical examiner, Andrew Baker, would say that "the law enforcement subdual restraint to the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions." Chauvin was not aware of Floyd's heart condition yet he can still be held liable for contributing to his death). There is this idea that offenders "take their victims as they find them" as highlighted in Regina vs Blaue in 1975 and the judge presiding over Chauvin's trial - Peter Cahill - echoes this sentiment, asking if Chauvin and the other officers were "duty bound to deal with the arrestee as they find them?”  So even if Floyd was suffering from a drug overdose while in Chauvin's custody (which he wasn't) Chauvin's negligence is still a factor in his death and Chauvin would still have to face legal liability. Like if the police were to arrest someone who then started having a heart attack and they did fuck all for 10, 15 minutes they can face legal liability for that person's death because their negligence contributed to it.

Derek Chauvin trial

On Tuesday, April 20th, 2021, Derek Chauvin, the police officer who knelt on George Floyd's neck, was found guilty of second and third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. Let's run through what these terms mean.

• 2nd degree murder is typically defined as a murder that is not premeditated or a murder in which the offender's reckless conduct displayed a lack of concern for human life. Minnesota law defines it as "the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation" or committing something to do with drive-by shootings. 

• Most states separate murder into just two categories but in Minnesota, they break it up into three. 3rd degree murder is defined by Minnesota law as causing death without the intent to cause death: "whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree."

• Minnesota law defines 2nd degree manslaughter as any of these five things: 1. a person's culpable negligence in whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; 2. by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; 3. by setting a spring gun, pitfall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; 4. by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; 5. by committing or attempting to endanger or neglect a child which results in first, second, or third degree murder. As we can see, the first definition applies to Chauvin. 

Some important things to note about the trial

• A lieutenant in the Minneapolis police force, Richard Zimmerman, testified and said that Chauvin's use of force was "uncalled for" and kneeling on someone's neck "would be the top tier, the deadly force. Because if your knee is on someone's neck that could kill them." He also went on to say that Chauvin's use of force was "totally unnecessary" Zimmerman is apparently the longest serving member of the Minneapolis police force (serving since 1985) and said that he has never been trained to kneel on a person's neck. He also notes that that could kill someone. 

• David Ploeger, a now-retired Minneapolis police sergeant who was on duty the night Floyd died, testified that based on his review of the body camera video, officers should have ended their restraint after Floyd stopped resisting. He also stated that officers are trained to roll people on their side to help with their breathing after they have been restrained in the prone position, putting them in a "side-recovery position." He served as Chauvin's supervisor on May 25th, 2020. 

• Inspector Katie Blackwell, the Fifth Precinct Inspector for the Minneapolis Police Department who formerly headed up training for the department when Floyd was killed, said this of Chauvin's tactic: "I don't know what kind of improvised position this is. So that's not what we train." She also identified that the technique Chauvin used when pressing his knee on Floyd's neck was not a trained technique the Minneapolis police department used. She also noted that Floyd should have been put in the side-recovery position or stood upright, basically the same thing David Ploeger said. She also stated that police were taught about positional asphyxia "all the way back to my academy." 

• Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified that Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck is not part of the department's trainings or part of their policy. He also stated that Chauvin's use of force was "certainly not part of our ethics or values." 

• An apparent use of force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department, Sergeant Jody Stinger testified that Chavin applied "deadly" force when no force should have been used once Floyd was handcuffed and in the prone position. Stinger would also go on to say that Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck or neck area from the time officers put Floyd on the ground until paramedics arrived. 

• Dr. Martin Tobin, Lung and critical care specialist at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital and Loyola University’s medical school in Illinois, testified that "A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died." Fox News also has this better article describing Tobin's comments. Tobin stated that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck for more than 90% of the time for the first five minutes Chauvin knelt on Floyd. Tobin also says that Floyd died due to a lack of oxygen which was caused by More from Tobin can be read here. 

  • Essentially Tobin attributes Floyd's death to a combination of factors: the prone position he was in, coupled with being handcuffed behind the back and slightly propped up on his right side, made it so that Floyd was unable to expand his chest and Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck meant he could not draw insufficient breath. Tobin also identifies that due to the position Floyd was in - slightly propped up on his right side - his left lung was practically useless. From the Law and Crime article: "So, basically, on the left side of his lung, it was almost like a surgical pneumonectomy, it was almost to the effect that a surgeon had gone in and removed the lung.” Essentially, the force Chauvin used meant Floyd was having to battle to breathe, resorting to taking shallow breaths "that weren’t able to carry the air through his lungs down to the essential area of the lungs that get oxygen to the lungs and get rid of the carbon dioxide" according to Tobin. It wasn't just Chauvin's knee but being in the prone position pressed up against the solid pavement as well as the knee to his back that deprived him of oxygen. 

    • "If you can talk you can breathe" yeah but that doesn't mean you can breathe adequately. A fentanyl overdose would mean there would be a sharp decrease in the frequency of breaths, but Floyd's breathing became fatally shallow under the police restraint, and that the number of breaths he took per minute did not decrease up until the moment he lost consciousness.

  • This is a nice graphic that illustrates the position Chauvin and Floyd were in for the majority of the time Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck and is a mock up of what Tobin is talking about. You can also see it below in Figure 23. 

• Louisville Metro Police Department surgeon Dr. Bill Smock testified that Floyd did not show any symptoms of a fentanyl overdose, nor behave in the manner in which someone overdosing from the drug would have heaved like. Smock dismissed the idea that fentanyl was responsible for Floyd's death. Smock also stated that Floyd appeared more alert and responsive than an individual high on fentanyl ought to have been. 

• Dr. Daniel Isenschmid testified that the levels of fentanyl and methamphetamine in Floyd's system were significantly lower than the average amount seen in blood samples of DUI suspects and much lower than post-mortem cases for individuals who die from drug overdoses. He also stated that there was evidence a lot of the opioid had been broken down in Floyd’s body to norfentanyl, which a doctor would not expect to see in someone killed rapidly in an overdose. 

• Derek Chauvin himself didn't even testify or provide his own defense lol what a coward. 

Idiots will fall back on this notion of Chauvin only being found guilty because the jurors were afraid of “BLM/Antifa mobs” or something, apparently not aware of all the testimonies and legal stuff covered here or maybe they’re intentionally ignoring it or just lying, but this is not the first time a Minneapolis police officer has been charged with manslaughter.  Interestingly, a Somali American police officer named Mohamed Noor had shot and killed an unarmed white woman - Justine Ruszczyk Damond - in Minneapolis in April of 2019. No protests from white people. He was found guilty of manslaughter as well. 

Touching on the idea that jurors were afraid of "BLM/Antifa mobs" again we can look at the way a jury is selected. Both the prosecution and defense have a say in what people the jury can ultimately consist of. The process by which the judge and attorneys who represent the prosecution and defense select the jury members is a process known as "voir dire" which is Latin for "speak the truth." The judge and both attorneys ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent enough to serve in the case, looking to weed out those with potential biases, prejudice, prior knowledge, et cetera. After this questioning process is completed the prosecution and defense begin removing candidates from the pool of potential jurors by making challenges. Lawyers can Challenge for Cause - in which a potential juror exhibits something, usually actual or implicit bias, that would prevent impartial evaluation of the evidence presented in court - or do a Peremptory Challenge - in which a lawyer can advocate the exclusion of a potential juror without the need for any reason or explanation unless it is on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex in which case the opposing side would need to present a Prima facie argument to prove such discrimination. The prosecution and defense take turns arguing their cases for what members of the jury pool should be struck (not actually serve on the jury) in a process known as "Striking the jury." If the judge grants a challenge then that potential juror will be struck from the jury panel. Once there are no more viable challenges for cause, the sides alternate in striking jurors via peremptory challenges until those are exhausted or each side is satisfied with the jury panel. So, with this in mind, if the jury in Chauvin's trial were all afraid of the "BLM/Antifa mobs" then Chavin's defense attorney Eric Nelson did a very poor job at striking the jury and allowed for these people to consist of the jury. If it is true that all the jury members were scared of the "BLM/Antifa mobs" then why did Nelson agree to them being part of the jury that would judge his client? These jury members apparently so scared of "BLM/Antifa mobs" were approved by Chauvin's attorney. Fox News even reports that "Attorneys on both sides used questions about Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter to probe deeper attitudes on race and policing. Prospective jurors were also asked whether the protests and violence following Floyd's death had a positive or negative effect on the community, and whether they supported defunding the Minneapolis police department." So is Nelson just a dumbass? The defense had more peremptory strikes than the prosecution and the judge even gave the defense three extra peremptory challenges. Also regarding the makeup of the jury: Fox News reports that there were 15 people, nine of which are white and six who are Black or multicultural. NBC reports the jury was half white with six white people, four black people, and two mixed race people and the two alternate jury members were white. 

The first juror in Chauvin's trial to speak out publicly said "We just felt like the evidence was overwhelming for our verdict. It didn’t have to do with pressure from anywhere." Some people are freaking out over how this dude said he wanted to be on the jury to be part of justice or something like that. This is hardly controversial considering the jury's role in the justice system - it's part of the court which is part of the judicial/justice system. The jury plays a role in "enacting justice" since it is part of the system that "enacts justice" - the judicial/justice system. So to express interest in being part of that process as a jury member is hardly controversial. But apparently just wanting to be a part of the judicial system is some shady "ulterior motive" that makes this grounds for a mistrial. How a jury member expressing interest in enacting justice - something the jury plays a role in since it is part of the judicial/justice system that enacts justice - is wrong I have no idea. Should we have juries full of people who hate justice or don't care about justice instead? He also expressed that his experience shows the importance of Black men showing up for jury duty, as reported by a local news station. 

It turns out that Chauvin was the subject of 22 complaints or internal investigations (the LA Times reports that there were 18 complaints filed and Fox News reports there were 17 - and link to a page which has them categorized - so I guess that means there were 4 or 5 internal investigations) during his time in the Minneapolis police department. Is it really that hard to believe that a dude who messed up about once a year would mess up again, this time just having it caught on video?

"Allegations" of socialism and marxism 

Many idiots looking for a quick easy way to discredit the BLM organization refer to it as a Marxist/socialist/communist movement and therefore is evil. They are either repeating talking points from certain people on certain news networks or referencing a five year old interview where one of the originators of the Black Lives Matter hashtag says she is a "trained Marxist." However, she also mentions that she is "super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories," so Marxism is just one of the ideological theories she is familiar with and informed about. 

For whatever reason, because one of the originators of the BLM hashtag is knowledgeable regarding Marxism, along with other ideologies, lots of idiots see this comment as an indictment that all of BLM is evil and Marxist. This is dumb. Not every single person involved in or who supports BLM is Marxist and there is no mention of Marxism, socialism, or communism on the BLM website. It’s also important to recognize that movements and people evolve. Remember when Charlie Kirk said Trump was "self destructing in front of us" in 2016 and now piously treats everything the president does as the best thing ever? 

Furthermore, by this logic that the entire organization is Marxist because one or two of the people who kick started the movement with a hashtag shared on social media five years ago, then I suppose the entire American police force is racist due to the racist comments some law enforcement officers have made in the past few months. 

Sentencing and the Legal System

The United States Sentencing Commission, a government entity, identifies that black male offenders receive longer sentences than similarly situated white male offenders. The US government acknowledges that the criminal justice system has a harsher impact on black offenders who've committed similar crimes as white offenders. Specifically, the report found that black male offenders receive 19.1% longer federal sentences than similarly-situated white male offenders. 

• This study states that the dependent variable is "an offender’s total sentence length, in months, which included alternatives to imprisonment" and the independent variables were as follows:

  • The presumptive sentence, which is the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range that applies in a case (i.e., the minimum sentence, in months, to which the offender was subject under the sentencing guidelines, taking into account all guideline, statutory, and mandatory minimum provisions);

  • Type of offense committed (violent, sexual, pornography, drug trafficking, white collar, immigration, or other);

  • Whether a statutory mandatory minimum punishment was applied at sentencing;

  • Whether the court determined that a sentence outside the applicable sentencing guideline range was warranted; 

  • on bail prior to sentencing); 

  • Whether the offender pleaded guilty; 

  • Race of the offender paired with the gender of the offender; 

  • Citizenship of the offender (whether the offender was a United States citizen); 

  • Educational level of the offender; and 

  • Age of the offender.  

• The study states that "Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders. Black male offenders received sentences on average 19.1 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders." (page 2)

• The study states that "Black male offenders were 21.2 percent less likely than White male offenders to receive a non-government sponsored downward departure or variance," and "when Black male offenders did receive a non-government sponsored departure or variance, they received sentences 16.8 percent longer than White male offenders who received a non-government sponsored departure or variance," and, "there was a 7.9 percent difference in sentence length between Black male and White male offenders who received sentences within the applicable sentencing guidelines range." (page 2)

  • Departure and variance refer to sentences imposed outside of a specific range: "variance is a sentence imposed outside of a specified range based on specific sentencing factors codified by Congress in the U.S. Code (U.S.C.). A departure is a sentence imposed outside of a specified range based on specific sentencing guidelines and policies written by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency of the judicial branch that publishes federal sentencing policies" according to Bloomberg Law. So essentially this means that black men are less likely to receive a sentence higher or lower than guidelines, but when they do it is always a sentence longer than similar white male offenders.

A 2017 paper from the National Registry for Exonerations found that innocent black people are 7x more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people and that black prisoners convicted for murder are 50% more likely to be innocent than any other convicted murderer.

• "Judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people." (page ii)

• "African-American prisoners who are convicted of murder are about 50% more likely to be innocent than other convicted murderers." (page ii)

An examination of federal data done by the University of Michigan found that Black Americans spend about 10% more time in prison when compared to comparable White Americans who commit the same crimes: "blacks receive sentences that are almost 10 percent longer than those of comparable whites arrested for the same crime"

• "Black arrestees are also disproportionately concentrated in federal districts that have higher sentences in general. Yet even after we control for these and other prior characteristics, an unexplained black-white sentence disparity of approximately 9 percent remains in our main sample. The disparity is nearly 13 percent in a broader sample that includes drug cases" (page 1,323)

• "Black male defendants in federal criminal cases receive much longer prison sentences than white men do" ( Page 1,321)

  • See Figure 14 below

• Used data from "multiple agencies" which covered "the universe of black and white male US citizens who were arrested for violent, property/fraud, weapons, and public order offenses and referred to federal prosecutors for potential prosecution" (page 1,321)

  • "These data allow us to compare the sentencing outcomes for black and white men who are arrested for the same offenses and appear comparable when they enter the federal justice system" (page 1,322)

In regards to sentencing and plea bargains, a research summary from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the US Department of Justice found that collected data strongly indicates a racial bias against black people with regards to sentencing and plea bargains. More specifically, black people are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with white people and studies suggest there is a relationship between race and whether or not a defendant receives a reduced charge. 

• "The majority of research on race and sentencing outcomes shows that blacks are less likely than whites to receive reduced pleas." (page 3)

• "Studies that assess the effects of race find that blacks are less likely to receive a reduced charge compared with whites...one study found that blacks are also less likely to receive the benefits of shorter or reduced sentences as a result of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion during plea bargaining" (page 3)

• "Studies have generally found a relationship between race and whether or not a defendant receives a reduced charge," and the race which does not receive reduced charges the most is the black race. 

A report from the Yale law journal found that black men are twice as likely to have charges which carry mandatory minimum sentences filed against them than similarly-situated white men.

• "research shows that after controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, there remains a black-white sentence-length gap of about 10%. But judges’ choices do not appear to be principally responsible. Instead, between half and the entire gap can be explained by the prosecutor’s initial charging decision—specifically, the decision to bring a charge carrying a 'mandatory minimum.' After controlling for pre-charge case characteristics, prosecutors in our sample were nearly twice as likely to bring such a charge against black defendants." So prosecutors are more likely to pursue a charge that has a mandatory minimum sentence when prosecuting black defendants than similarly situated white defendants.

A University of West Florida study found that black defendants with multiple prior convictions are 28% more likely to be charged as habitual offenders ("habitualized") than similarly-situated white defendants.

• "For example, consistent with the prior studies, Black offenders are significantly more likely to be habitualized than White offenders. Specifically, Blacks’ odds of being habitualized are 28% greater than Whites’ odds of being habitualized." 

• Habitual offenders are more likely to receive "harsher sentences, greater penalties overall and specific consequences," than non habitualized offenders and some states have specific habitual offender laws. For example, under Mississippi state habitual offender laws "a person convicted of a third felony can be harshly punished, regardless of the severity of the crimes."

A study from The Urban Institute analyzing the histories of four probation offices found that black people were extremely more likely - 18 to 39% more likely - than similarly situated white people to have their probation revoked.

• A motion to provoke a probation is "a document that says you did something wrong while on probation."

• "In all four study sites, black probationers experienced probation revocation at significantly higher rates than white and Hispanic probationers. Revocation rates for black probationers in our study samples ranged from 55 percent higher than that of white probationers in Dallas County to over 100 percent higher in Multnomah County." (page 3)

• When Controlling for Nonracial and Nonethnic Characteristics the study found that "In every study site, black probationers had substantially and statistically significant higher odds of revocation than white or Hispanic probationers. The odds of revocation for white probationers were between 18 and 39 percent lower than for their black counterparts after controlling for available factors." (page 4).

Research from the Boston Law College Review finds that while black and white offenders of severe felonies receive similar sentences, white offenders are 25% more likely to have their principal initial charge dropped or reduced to a lesser crime than similarly situated black offenders, white defendants who face initial felony charges are less likely than similarly situated black defendants to be convicted of a felony, white defendants initially charged with misdemeanors are more likely than similarly situated black defendants to be convicted for crimes carrying no possible incarceration or not being convicted at all, and white offenders with no prior convictions received charge reductions signifgantly more often than black offenders with no prior convictions.

• "Similarly situated" here referring to white and black offenders who are of the same age and gender with the same prior convictions who were charged with the same crime (and same severity of that crime) and had the same type of trial (adjudicated by a bench or jury). Such data came from the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) case management system. This is expanded upon on pages 22 and 27 of the text. 

• After controlling for certain variables - a defendant's age, gender, criminal history, type of crime, severity of crime, type of trial (adjudicated by a bench or jury) the research finds that "Black defendants receive on average sentences that are 1.23 months longer than white defendants, a difference that is statistically significant and represents 32.6 percent of the average sentence in this sample of cases (3.77 months)."

  • Specifically, black offenders convicted of at least one felony offense receive prison sentences 3.19 months longer than similarly situated white offenders and black offenders in cases involving misdemeanors receive prison sentences 0.44 months longer than similarly situated white offenders. 

    • "Black defendants convicted of at least one felony offense receive prison sentences that are 3.19 months higher than those received by white defendants, a difference that represents 30.9 of the average felony sentence in the sample. Although the difference in sentences received by black and white defendants in cases involving misdemeanor convictions, 0.44 months, is small in magnitude, it represents 45.4 percent of the average sentence in the misdemeanors sample."

• Looking specifically at incarceration rates for felony and misdemeanor charges, black offenders more likely to be incarcerated than similarly situated white offenders: "Black defendants are generally 15.1 percentage points more likely than white defendants to be incarcerated, a difference that represents 35.6 percent of the average incarceration rate in the data."

  • "In cases involving felony convictions, black defendants are 10.2 percentage points more likely than white defendants to be incarcerated, a difference that represents 24.3 percent of the average incarceration rate for felonies.  In misdemeanor cases, the rate of incarceration for black defendants is 17.1 percentage points higher than that of white defendants, a difference representing 40.1 percent of the average incarceration rate for misdemeanor convictions."

  • "The results presented above show that black defendants are incarcerated at higher rates than white defendants and that the former also receive longer prison and jail sentences."

• Specifics on white offenders' charges being dropped or amended to a lesser charge more often than black offenders: In cases in which a defendant was initially charged with a crime that carries a potential jail or prison sentence "white defendants see their top charge dropped or amended to a lesser charge in 45.40% of the cases, while the charge reduction rate for black defendants is considerably lower, 35.98%. The difference between these two groups of defendants, 9.42 percentage points, is not only statistically significant, but is also of considerable magnitude - white defendants are over 25% more likely see their top charge dropped or amended to a lesser one than black defendants." In cases where defendants were initially charged with a less severe felony offense "white defendants received a charge reduction 49.83% of the time while black defendants received a charge reduction 39.87% of the time."

  • Focusing only on misdemeanor cases, "white defendants are 45.10% more likely than black defendants to see their top charge dropped or amended to a lesser one" and "white defendants are74.72% more likely than black defendants to see all misdemeanor charges carrying a potential imprisonment sentence dropped, dismissed or amended to lesser charges."

    • "not only are black defendants originally charged with misdemeanors more likely to be convicted of a misdemeanor than white defendants, but conditional on a misdemeanor conviction these black defendants are more likely to be punished by incarceration than white defendants."

  • Focusing only on felony cases, "white defendants receive charge reductions 5.99% more often than black defendants, a difference which is relative small, though still statistically significant," and "white defendants see their felony charges dropped or amended into a misdemeanor charge 14.56 % more often than black defendants."

  • Based on data from misdemeanor and felony cases the research suggests that "white defendants are more likely to be treated more favorably than black defendants in cases that involve low-level felonies, those “nearer” to the misdemeanor level."

    • Interestingly in cases with more severe or serious initial felony charges there is no disparity between white and black defendants. 

  • For defendants with no prior convictions "White defendants charged with misdemeanors are more likely than black defendants to be ultimately convicted of crimes carrying no potential incarceration or have their charges dismissed. 200 Similarly, white defendants charged with felonies are more likely than black defendants to be convicted of a misdemeanor or lesser charge."

• White defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions 63.91% of the time while black defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions 50.66% of the time: "White defendants with no prior convictions receive charge reductions in 63.91% of the cases, 13.25 percentage points higher than the rate of charge reductions for black defendants with no prior convictions, 50.66%. In other words, white defendants with no prior convictions are over 25 percent more likely than black defendants to receive a charge reduction."

  • White defendants with no prior convictions who are charged with a misdemeanor are "33.06% more likely than similarly situated black defendant to see their top charges dropped or amended" and "46.27% more likely than black defendants to have all misdemeanor charges carrying a potential sentence dropped or amended to charges that carry no potential imprisonment."

  • White defendants who no prior charges who are charged with a felony "see their top felony charges reduced 63.67% of the time, while black defendants do so 55.47% of time" and "white defendants see all their felony charges dropped to a misdemeanor or lesser charge (or dropped entirely) in 59.96% of the cases, while for black defendants with no prior criminal history this favorable outcome occurs 48.33% of the time."

  • "there are substantial disparities in the rate of charge reductions received by white and black defendants who have no prior criminal records."

  • White defendants with at least one prior conviction and black defendants with at least one prior conviction see equal odds at receiving charge reductions though. 

• Why all this disparity? - "Prosecutors trying to make optimal decisions may be employing race as a heuristic by, for example, being tougher on more dangerous criminals who would be more likely to recidivate. The use of race as this type of proxy would explain the cross-sectional differences in racial disparities identified earlier For example, defendants with a prior conviction have already proved their likelihood to recidivate, making race a less useful proxy. This could explain why disparities arise in the sample of defendants with no prior convictions (where race serves as a proxy for recidivism) but not in the sample of defendants with prior convictions (where race is a less valuable proxy for recidivism)." Essentially black defendants are perceived as more dangerous or more criminal because they are black: "in cases involving less severe crimes, it is harder to tell ex-ante how dangerous a person might ultimately be. Under these circumstances, a defendant’s race could be more useful to the prosecutor as a proxy of an individual’s latent criminality." A self fulfilling prophecy: black people are more dangerous criminals because they are black.

• Basically a summary of what this research has found: "Black defendants who are convicted of a crime are more likely than white defendants to be imprisoned and receive sentences that are on average longer than white defendants. Going back one step in the criminal justice process reveals similar disparities. White defendants are generally more likely to have their top charges dropped or amended to a lesser charge than black defendants. As a result, white defendants are more likely than black defendants to see their felony charges dropped or amended to misdemeanor charges and to see their initial misdemeanor charges reduced to charges carrying no potential imprisonment."

• The research concludes with "White defendants are more likely than black defendants to receive a reduction in their principal initial charge. As a result, white defendants who face initial felony charges are more likely than black defendants to end up being convicted of misdemeanors. Similarly, white defendants initially charged with misdemeanors are more likely than black defendants to be convicted for crimes carrying no possible incarceration or not being convicted at all. The disparities in plea bargaining documented in this article appear to be driven by cases in which defendants have no prior convictions and which involve less serious crimes. These cross-sectional patterns in plea-bargaining outcomes suggest that a defendant’s race may be serving as a proxy for his or her likelihood to recidivate and latent criminality."

So basically we see that black defendants are consistently more likely to be incarcerated than similarly situated white defendants, black defendants are consistently more likely to be charged as "repeat" or "habitual" offenders than similarly situated white defendants, black defendants are more likely to have charges which carry mandatory minimum sentences filed against them than similarly situated white defendants, black defendants are consistently being given longer prison sentences and more severe charges than similarly situated white defendants, and black defendants are consistently less likely to have their charges dropped or amended to a lesser one than similarly situated white offenders. By similarly situated I mean black and white defendants on the same gender and age with the same criminal history (in terms of prior convictions) who committed the same crime. This all makes it harder to find a job which keeps black people and the children of these black people in poverty. 

Jury specific stuff

A study from West Virginia University found that the skin tone of a perpetrator affected evidence judgments and signifgantly affected how guilty the perpetrator appeared to be. Essentially, a dark skinned perpetrator of a crime is more likely to be viewed as guilty than a light skinned perpetrator of that same crime with the same available evidence. Participants were given a description of a designed (fake) armed robbery and shown photos from the supposed crime scene in which some participants saw the gunman as a light skinned individual and others saw the gunman as a dark skinned individual. After viewing the images they were informed that the suspect had been arrested and charged with armed robbery. They were then told that they would be asked to evaluate certain pieces of evidence from witnesses who would testify at the robbery trial and then they read and responded to 20 pieces of evidence designed to be ambiguous individually. They were then asked to determine if the defendant was guilt or not guilty

• "The perpetrator's skin tone in the photo significantly affected evidence judgments. Participants who saw the photo of the perpetrator with a dark skin tone judged ambiguous evidence to be significantly more indicative of guilt than participants who saw the photo of a perpetrator with a lighter skin tone."

• "The perpetrator's skin tone also significantly affected judgments of how guilty the defendant was (on a scale of 0-100). Participants who saw a darkerskinned perpetrator judged the defendant as more guilty than participants who saw a lighter-skinned perpetrator. This indicates that simply being primed with darker skin tone not only affected the way participants judged evidence, but also led them to perceive the defendant as more guilty."

• Participants who judged the evidence to be more indicative of guilt were more likely to give a guilty verdict: "The logistic regression analysis confirmed that participants' evidence judgments also predicted their guilty/not guilty verdicts. In addition, scaled 0-100 ratings of the defendant's guilt statistically predicted dichotomous guilty/ not guilty verdict."

• Overall, the study concluded that "simply showing participants a photo of a dark-skinned perpetrator introduced racial bias into a crucial jury function - evaluating evidence," and "these biased evidence judgments mattered; they predicted guilty and not guilty verdicts." The authors also identify that "the evidence-based racial cues likely were implicit in nature and may have activated stereotypes even without the participants' awareness."

Research from the American Psychological Organization found that even in interracial trials without blatant race issues a full white jury was "more likely to demonstrate racial bias against a Black defendant" and "Empirical data suggest that this pattern of bias is not limited to one type of crime or one type of racial issue."

• I cite from the full text with this link since the APA does not offer the full text for free. 

An article from the Quarterly Journal of Economics identifies that between 2000-2010 in Florida "juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member." 

A study from Michigan State University found that between 1990 and 2010, state prosecutors struck (eliminate a potential juror) about twice as many potential black jurors than jurors of any other race.

• "In cases with non-black defendants, the average strike rate was 51.4% against black venire members and 26.8% against all other venire members. In cases with black defendants, the average strike rate was 60.0% against black venire members and 23.1% against other venire members." (page 12)

  • A venire is a panel of prospective jurors

• "Based on the MSU study, the Court found that prosecutors statewide struck 52.6% of eligible black venire members, compared to only 25.7% of all other eligible venire members. The probability of this disparity occurring in a race-neutral jury selection process was less than one in ten trillion." From the Death Penalty Information Center.

• The study’s authors testified the odds of this taking place in a race-neutral context were around 1 in 10 trillion (see item 49 on page 59).

This could partially explain the conviction disparity between black and white men in the criminal justice system: because potential black jurors are struck twice as often as jurors of any other race juries may often be all white and thus convict black defendants more often than white defendants. 

Stop and Searches

An ACLU report which reviewed almost six months of data from DC's police stops and searches - 62,611 total stops made in less than 6 months - looking at race and outcome found that while DC's population is made up of 46.5% black residents and 37.1% white residents, black residents were overwhelmingly more likely to be stopped overall and were more likely to experience stops and searches which didn't lead to a warning, ticket, or arrest (Figure 15).

• The disparity between black and white individuals stopped by police in DC are as follows:

  • Black people are 410% more likely to be stopped by police

  • Black people are 1,465% more likely to be stopped for something which leads to no warning, ticket, or arrest

  • Black people are 3,695%more likely to be searched which results in no warning, ticket, or arrest

    • You can calculate these numbers yourself by using a percentage change calculator here.

• "Not only are Black people stopped more frequently than white people, they also endure more intrusive stops. Overall, Black people made up over 90% of those who experienced a search or pat down of their person or property. As compared to white people who were stopped, Black people who were stopped were more than 6 times as likely to undergo a pat-down or search of their person and 5 times as likely to undergo a pat-down or search of their property. Despite these disparities, the difference between weapons recovered after searches of Black people, as compared to white people, was negligible and not statistically significant—4.6% of white people searched had weapons seized, compared with only 6.4% of Black people who were searched." (page 6)

• "The conclusions in this report support previous assertions that MPD’s stop practices unfairly overpolice the Black community, and that these practices require serious scrutiny and structural change." (page 2)

• "Although more research is needed to determine if the disparities identified in this report arise from racial bias, three points suggest that these trends are more than correlational. First, the vast majority of people who experienced the least justifiable stops were Black. Second, racial disparities exist even in parts of the District where Black people make up a very small share of the residential population. Third, Black people are searched at higher rates than white people, even though searches of Black people and white people result in weapons seizures at nearly equal rates. Taken together, these findings suggest that Black people in D.C. are not being policed fairly." (page 3)

• The data reported here indicates the disproportionate stopping and searching of black people in the DC area extended massively beyond any disproportionate rate of criminality, meaning racial bias and/or racism are why black people are being overpoliced so much here. 

Another study, this one from Stanford University researchers, analyzed 9.5 million traffic stops in North Carolina and found that blacks and latinos were more likely to be searched than whites: 5.4 percent, 4.1 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively (Figure 16). However, while blacks and latinos were stopped and searched at a higher rate than whites, searches of white motorists were the most likely to reveal contraband: 32% of whites stopped revealed contraband while 29% of black stops and 19% of hispanic stops revealed contraband. They study also infers that the search thresholds for blacks and hispanics is lower than the search threshold for whites, meaning the bar for stopping and searching black and hispanics is much lower than the bar for white drivers. That is to say, the law treat black people and hispanic people differently than white people. 

• "Relative to white drivers, the benchmark test (comparing search rates) finds discrimination against blacks and Hispanics, while the outcome test (comparing hit rates) finds discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and Asians." (page 9).

• "In nearly all the departments we consider, the inferred search thresholds for black and Hispanic drivers are lower than for whites, suggestive of discrimination against these groups." (page 10)

Another study, this one focusing on the city of Nashville, found that between 2011 and 2015, black drivers in Nashville’s Davidson County were pulled over at a rate of 1,122 stops per 1,000 drivers, so on average, more than once per black driver, meaning that black drivers are stopped 1.6x more than white drivers. Additionally, the study found that black drivers were much more likely than white drivers to be stopped multiple times per year. Despite black people being searched way more often, searches of white drivers were more likely to turn up contraband.

• "Although black drivers make up 27.6% of the total driving age population, they make up 39.3% of all stops. White drivers were stopped, on average, 683 per 1,000 white drivers. Black drivers are stopped 1.6 times the rate of white drivers." (page 34)

• "Black drivers are up to 5 times more likely than white drivers to be stopped multiple times in a year, showing a disproportionate burden of policing on black communities" (page 38)

  • "In 2015-2016, the rate for black drivers being stopped 2-5 times was 113% higher than the rate for white drivers." (page 39)

  • "Black drivers are 374% more likely than white drivers to be stopped 6-10 times in a year, and 364% more likely than white drivers to be stopped more than 10 times in a year." (page 39)

• "Discretionary searches of white drivers result in the discovery of incriminating evidence more often than discretionary searches of black and Hispanic drivers." (page 56)

  •  In 2015 ~67% of probable cause searches of whites were successful while ~53% of probable cause searches of blacks were successful and 55% of probable cause searches of Hispanics were successful (Figure 17).

  • "the white-black disparity in probable cause search accuracy has grown over the past five years, from a 5% difference in 2011 to almost 15% in 2015." (page 56)

  • Despite the fact that MNPD conducts discretionary (probable cause and consent based) searches of black and Hispanic drivers at rates significantly higher than white drivers, searches of white drivers are far more likely to result in incriminating evidence than searches of black and Hispanic drivers." (page 56)

Lastly, this large study from Nature Human Behavior journal (here it is in pdf format) which "analysed a dataset detailing nearly 100million traffic stops carried out by 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police departments over almost a decade"  found that black drivers are stopped more than white drivers on average, evidence of racial bias and discrimination in stop and searches, and that the bar for searching black and hispanic drivers’ cars is significantly lower than the bar for white drivers.

• "Relative to their share of the residential population, we found that black drivers were, on average, stopped more often than white drivers. In particular, among state patrol stops, the annual per-capita stop rate for black drivers was 0.10 compared to 0.07 for white drivers; and among municipal police stops, the annual per-capita stop rate for black drivers was 0.20 compared to 0.14 for white drivers."

• The authors bring up this idea of the veil-of-darkness test - a method that "starts from the idea that officers who engage in racial profiling are less able to identify a driver’s race after dark than during the day. As a result, if officers are discriminating against black drivers—all else being equal—one would expect black drivers to comprise a smaller share of stopped drivers at night, when a veil-of-darkness masks their race." They put this theory to the test, they looked at the demographic composition of drivers stopped by state patrol at various times of day, looking at them in 15 minute increments - "stops occurring in a specific 15-min window (for example, 19:00–19:15)" - and found that "For each time period, the plot shows a marked drop in the proportion of drivers stopped after dusk who are black, suggestive of discrimination in stop decisions."

  • Figure 2 in the study shows this data and the authors conclude that For all three depicted time windows, black drivers comprise a smaller share of stopped drivers after dark, when a veil of darkness masks their race, suggestive of racial profiling." This can be seen in Figure 18 below.

  • Even after accounting for "the extent that driver behaviour changes throughout the year," which could "suggest discrimination where there is none," the study finds that "In all cases, we found qualitatively similarly results that are suggestive of racial bias against black drivers in stop decisions."

• The study identifies that, while black and hispanic drivers are stopped more often than white drivers, white drivers are more likely to have contraband. Aggregating across state patrol stops, contraband was found in 32% of searches of white drivers, 24.3% of hispanic drivers, and 29.4% of black drivers. Aggregating across municipal police departments, contraband was found in 18.2% of searches of white drivers, 11% of hispanic drivers, and 13.9% of black drivers. 

• This study also looks at the threshold test, similar to the Stanford study. "The threshold test has been proposed as a more robust means for detecting discrimination," and, "aims to estimate race-specific probability thresholds above which officers search drivers." The test is important because, "Even if two race groups have the same observed hit rate, the threshold test may find that one group is searched on the basis of less evidence, indicative of discrimination." After applying this threshold test the authors concluded that, "the threshold test provides evidence of racial bias in search decisions."

  • In their threshold test, the authors identify that "the inferred threshold for white drivers is 10.0% compared to 5.0 and 4.6% for black and Hispanic drivers, respectively." That is to say, the bar for searching black and hispanic drivers' cars is much lower than it is for white drivers - the law does not treat everyone equally. The authors say "the estimated gaps in search thresholds between white and non-white drivers are large and statistically significant."

    • "Compared to by-location hit rates, the threshold test more strongly suggests discrimination against black drivers, particularly for municipal stop."

    • "the threshold test finds that the bar for searching black drivers is lower than that for white drivers"

• Ultimately, the study concludes that "Our analysis provides evidence that decisions about whom to stop and, subsequently, whom to search are biased against black and Hispanic drivers."

Drug Arrests

A Justice Policy Institute study found that although White & Black Americans admit to using and selling illicit drugs at similar rates - 13% of white Americans used drugs and 10% of black Americans used drugs and 17% of white Americans sold drugs and 13% of black Americans sold drugs (page 6) - black Americans are much more likely to go to prison for a drug offense. In 2002, black Americans were incarcerated for drug offenses at 9.4x the rate of white Americans (Figure 19). 

• "Despite the fact that white drug users outnumber black users by a factor of five there were more than twice as many African Americans (62,087) as whites (28,314) admitted to prison for drug offenses from large-population counties in 2002." (page 10).

• This disproportional incarceration of black drug users leads to "reduced employment rates, reduced family income and stability, high rates of homelessness, reduced number of citizens who are eligible to vote, increased foster care placements and the associated risk of psychological and educational problems for children, and reduced health and well being among women in the community." (page 18).

• "The results of this study indicate that the severely disproportionate impact of drug imprisonment on African Americans is related directly to the level of African American representation in local counties, and therefore to the persistent ways in which our local communities are stratified by race. This relationship between African American representation and drug imprisonment persists even after controlling for region, crime, and important economic and labor market indicators in our multiple variable analysis," so a reason why black communities are more likely to be impoverished is because of this over-policing. "Other research has indicated that the relationship between the size of the African American population and punitive criminal justice outcomes is continuing to grow over time," so the larger a black community gets, the more policing is done and the larger the disproportional effect it has on the community (page 19).

A study from the Journal of Drug Issues found that while black and white people in New Haven, CT use drugs at very similar rates, white individuals were more likely to have a drug problem, that black and white people sell drugs at a similar rate but black people are more likely to be charged with possession and sales, and that while white people were convicted for drug related crimes more than black people, black people received more sentences and longer sentences. 

• "Blacks and Whites report similar rates of any drug use in the six months before their most recent criminal justice event (90% of Blacks and 89% of Whites)...Thirty-seven percent of Blacks and 13% of Whites reported experiencing no drug problems in the month before their most recent criminal justice event. Twenty percent of Blacks and 51% of Whites reported experiencing a drug problem all thirty days in the month before the most recent criminal justice event." This shows that more white people had a drug problem in the month prior to their most recent criminal justice event and more white people had a drug problem on all of the days in the month prior to their most recent criminal justice event. "Though almost equal percentages of Blacks and Whites in our study reported using drugs in the thirty days before their most recent criminal justice event, Blacks reported experiencing significantly fewer drug problems."

• "Second, Blacks were more likely to be charged with possession and sales, while Whites were more likely to be charged for illegal activity related to drug use, such as stealing to support their drug habit. Yet, Whites and Blacks in our study both reported the same degree of drug sales." The study identifies that since black individuals are more likely to receive charges explicitly drug related, they are "more likely to suffer the collateral consequences specifically associated with drug charges, such as exclusion from certain forms of financial aid, housing benefits, and job screening scrutiny." So even though white and black individuals use and sell drugs at similar rates, black people get charged more with drug sales and possession, leading to consequences which keep them down. Essentially, white drug offenders get less serious charges than black offenders "even after adjusting for other sociodemographic factors."

• "Blacks were convicted significantly fewer times than Whites (8.43 vs 11.29 times), but they had significantly more sentences resulting in incarceration than Whites (9.09 vs 6.15) and significantly longer last sentences than Whites (1.74 vs .71 years)." 

In a US Sentencing Project letter to the United Nations, the organization stated that "more than one in four people arrested for drug law violations in 2015 was black, although drug use rates do not differ substantially by race and ethnicity and drug users generally purchase drugs from people of the same race or ethnicity," citing 2015 crime statistics reported by the FBI, a massive paper from The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, and a US Department of Justice paper.

• Table 16 in the US Department of Justice paper shows that drug users generally purchase drugs from people of the same race and ethnicity (Figure 20). "it is likely that there is an interaction between the race of the buyer and the race of the main source" (page 15). "it is evident that a tendency to buy disproportionately from a person of the same race existed in most sites for most racial groups" (page 16).

A 2017 paper from the National Registry for Exonerations found that black people and white people use drugs at the same rate but black individuals are 5x more likely to go to prison for drug possession and innocent black people are 12x more likely to be convicted of a drug crime than innocent white people. 

• "The best national evidence on drug use shows that African Americans and whites use illegal drugs at about the same rate. Nonetheless, African Americans are about five times as likely to go to prison for drug possession as whites—and judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about 12 times more likely to be convicted of drug crimes than innocent white people." (page iii).

An analysis of data on the drug war from the Vera Institute of Justice found that "the risk of incarceration in the federal system for someone who uses drugs monthly and is black is more than seven times that of his or her white counterpart." (Figure 13).

Miscellaneous 

Studies have shown that police officers are quicker to shoot black suspects in video game simulations. 

A study entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination" produced a set of realistic resumes which only major difference was the name used. Resumes with typically "white" sounding names like Emily, Greg, Todd, Anne, Jill, Neil, etc... received more callbacks than resumes with typically "black" sounding names like Lakisha, Jamal, Tyrone, Aisha, Kenya, Kareem, etc... The study concluded that "African-Americans face differential treatment when searching for jobs and this may still be a factor in why they do poorly in the labor market. Job applicants with African-American names get far fewer callbacks for each resume they send out. Equally importantly, applicants with African-American names find it hard to overcome this hurdle in callbacks by improving their observable skills or credentials." Essentially, the more "black" your name sounds the harder it is for you to find a job.

A report written by former FBI agent Michael German notes that over the years, police links to militias and white supremacist groups have been uncovered in multiple states and that the government's response to combat this issue has been insufficient. Remember how acting head of the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf said that white supremacist are the "most persistent and lethal" internal "threat" to the US? Guess the police are a part of that as well. 

Despite stating that Trump is "fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals," the Trump administration has condemned and is in the process of defunding any training or program that attempts to identify and analyze instances such as these, calling them un-American propaganda in a memo. Saying that you're committed to treating everybody fair and equal and then labeling programs which explore how people may not be treated fair and equal as undercutting core American values sends a very mixed message. 

Subconscious Bias

Even disregarding forms of overt racism, subconscious bias has been demonstrated by a number of studies and undoubtedly affects others forms of discrimination against black people. 

• A study from the University of Alabama which showed photos of capital inmates to entry-level criminal justice students and then asked for them to evaluate the trustworthiness of the faces found that students rated the dark skin pictures as less trustworthy when they were shown after light skin pictures. 

  • "When a light skin photograph preceded a dark skin photograph, a lower rating of trustworthiness was found for the dark skin photograph." (page 41)

• A study from the American Psychological Association tested 176 white police officers, mostly males, in large urban areas to determine levels of prejudice and uncomcsious dehumanization of black people and 264 mostly white, female undergraduates from US universities and found that...

  • "Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association."

  • In regards to the police officers studied, "Researchers reviewed police officers’ personnel records to determine use of force while on duty and found that those who dehumanized blacks were more likely to have used force against a black child in custody than officers who did not dehumanize blacks."

  • In regards to the undergraduates studied research found that "The students judged children up to 9 years old as equally innocent regardless of race, but considered black children significantly less innocent than other children in every age group beginning at age 10, the researchers found," and, "The students were also shown photographs alongside descriptions of various crimes and asked to assess the age and innocence of white, black or Latino boys ages 10 to 17. The students overestimated the age of blacks by an average of 4.5 years and found them more culpable than whites or Latinos, particularly when the boys were matched with serious crimes, the study found. Researchers used questionnaires to assess the participants’ prejudice and dehumanization of blacks. They found that participants who implicitly associated blacks with apes thought the black children were older and less innocent."

  • Study co-author Matthew Jackson, PhD stated that, “The evidence shows that perceptions of the essential nature of children can be affected by race, and for black children, this can mean they lose the protection afforded by assumed childhood innocence well before they become adults."

• A study from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, found that "the percentage young black men in a neighborhood is positively associated with perceptions of the neighborhood crime level, even after controlling for two measures of crime rates and other neighborhood characteristics. This supports the view that stereotypes are influencing perceptions of neighborhood crime levels." That is to say that people perceived a neighborhood to have a higher crime level when there were black men living in that neighborhood. 

Housing

Historically, housing discrimination was big against black people, and the effects of such have carried on into the present day. 

• A study from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development which analyzed “trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in both rental and sales market” since the 1970s found that "when well-qualified minority homeseekers contact housing providers to inquire about recently advertised housing units, they generally are just as likely as equally qualified white homeseekers to get an appointment and learn about at least one available housing unit. However, when differences in treatment occur, white homeseekers are more likely to be favored than minorities. Most important, minority homeseekers are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than whites."

• The realtors code of ethics stated that "A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in that neighborhood," meaning that realtors could openly discriminate against black people. Apparently that line was not fully repealed until 1974. This article covers the discrimination in slightly more detail and provides this example (zoom in on number 16) as evidence of how blatant the discrimination was and you can read more about that specific case here. 

Job Seeking and Hiring

Black individuals have less access to good jobs than whites, and experience a disproportionate amount of job hiring discrimination compared to whites.

• One study of “every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos” from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found here has been no change in hiring discrimination against blacks since 1989 and that white Americans are more likely to get call backs than equally qualified black Americans.

  • "Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result."

  • "Do we find evidence of change over time in rates of hiring discrimination? With respect to African Americans, the answer is no."

  • The data collected shows "no clear change over time in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans."

  • "On average, white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans (95% confidence interval of 25–47% more), based on random-effects meta-analysis of data since 1989, representing a substantial degree of direct discrimination."

• A study entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination" produced a set of realistic resumes which only major difference was the name used. Resumes with typically "white" sounding names like Emily, Greg, Todd, Anne, Jill, Neil, etc... received more callbacks than resumes with typically "black" sounding names like Lakisha, Jamal, Tyrone, Aisha, Kenya, Kareem, etc... 

  • The study concluded that "African-Americans face differential treatment when searching for jobs and this may still be a factor in why they do poorly in the labor market. Job applicants with African-American names get far fewer callbacks for each resume they send out. Equally importantly, applicants with African-American names find it hard to overcome this hurdle in callbacks by improving their observable skills or credentials." Essentially, the more "black" your name sounds the harder it is for you to find a job.

  • The study also finds that applicants with higher quality resumes receive more callbacks (duh) but white applicants with higher quality resumes experience more of an increase in callbacks than black applicants with higher quality resumes. With a higher quality resumes white applicants see their chances of getting a callback increase by 30% (11% compared to 8.5%) while black applicants with higher quality resumes see their chances of getting a callback increase by just 8% (6.7% compared to 6.2%). This means that white applicants with low quality resumes have a better chance at getting a callback for an interview than black applicants with high quality resumes. 

• A study from the Economic Bureau of Research found that "Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. This would suggest either employer prejudice or employer perception that race signals lower productivity."

• A Forbes article details that minorities who "whiten" their resumes are more likely to get jobs.

  •  "Employer callbacks for resumes that were whitened fared much better in the application pile than those that included ethnic information, even though the qualifications listed were identical. Twenty-five percent of black candidates received callbacks from their whitened resumes, while only 10% got calls when they left ethnic details intact," and "employers claiming to be pro-diversity discriminated against resumes with racial references just as much as employers who didn’t mention diversity at all in their job ads."

• A research article from the Social Problems Journal finds that white ex-inmates wages grow faster than wages of black ex-inmates: "after release, wages grow at a 21 percent slower rate for black compared to white ex-inmates. Blacks also enjoy fewer wage returns to work history compared to their white counterparts." There is a widening wealth gap between black and white ex-inmates.

  • "blacks consistently earn lower hourly wages than whites before and after incarceration."

  • "Black wages increase, on average, about 21 percent slower than whites each quarter after release."

  • This gap exists even after controlling for certain variables: "Even after controlling for key determinants of wages (education, age, industry of employment, work history, and employment instability) in our initial models, black inmates still earn about 10 percent less than white inmates."

• A report done by two professors from Princeton's department of sociology, finds that "employers view minority job applicants as essentially equivalent to whites just out of prison."

  • White applicants with a felony conviction do just as well, if not better, in job searches than black applicants with no criminal background. 

    • "Despite the fact that these applicants presented equivalent credentials and applied for exactly the same jobs, race appears to overtake all else in determining employment opportunities."

  • The findings of the report "suggest that blacks are only slightly more than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants."

• A study from Georgetown University found that white people have a disproportionate level of access to good jobs regardless of education attainment and white people also get higher earning in jobs than black people and latinos, regardless of education attainment. Essentially, white workers are more likely to have a good job - jobs that pay at least $35,000 per year, at least $45,000 for workers age 45 and older, and $65,000 in median earnings in 2016 - at every level of education and make more money in the same job than black people or latinos it seems like just because they are white. This disparity leads to a gap in annual earnings. 

  • "even when they have the same level of educational attainment, Black workers and Latino workers have lower earnings than White workers. In 2016, median earnings for good jobs on the high school pathway were $56,000 for White workers, compared to $50,000 for both Black and Latino workers. Median earnings for good jobs on the middle-skills pathway were $60,000 for White workers, compared to $53,000 for Black workers and $55,000 for Latino workers. Median earnings for good jobs on the bachelor’s degree pathway were $75,000 for White workers, compared to $65,000 for both Black and Latino workers." (page 28)

  • The study concluded, "due to their historical educational and economic privileges, White workers started with a disproportionate advantage in education, and they have continued to maintain that advantage. This, along with persistent multifaceted discrimination against Black and Latino workers, has led to greater access to good jobs for White workers relative to Black and Latino workers. Thereby, even as Black and Latino workers made progress in educational attainment, the good jobs gaps between Black and Latino workers and White workers remain." (page 30)

• Data from the PEW Research center shows that college educated black men earn 20% less than college educated white men: "College-educated black and Hispanic men earn roughly 80% the hourly wages of white college educated men ($25 and $26 vs. $32, respectively).” College educated white women also make more than college educated black women and latino women, though the gap isn't as big as the gap between black men and white men. 

• Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics also shows that white men, as well as asian men, have much higher median earnings than black and latino men working in "working full time in management, professional, and related occupations." The difference in median weekly earnings between asian and white men? - $204. The difference inmedian weekly earnings between white and black men? - $359. Keep in mind these are people working in the same type of profession. The Bureau also notes that "the earnings disparity across the major race and ethnicity groups for men holds for nearly all major occupational groups."

• A report published by CNN found that "black men with a bachelor's degree or more and who had 11 to 20 years of work experience made 27.2% less than whites with the same level of education and experience," and "black women with a bachelor's degree or more and 11 to 20 years of work experience were paid 10.6% less than white women."

• The result of all this discrimination black people face when looking for a job? - The black unemployment rate is roughly twice as high as the white unemployment rate, regardless of educational attainment, as per an Economic Policy Institute Report. This can be seen below in Figure 23. 

Education

• A research article published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal found that black students receive more severe punishments for the same misbehaviors of white students and 

  • "black students are disciplined more frequently and more severely for the same misbehaviors as White students” regardless of the rate at white and black misbehavior," and “principals endorsed more severe discipline for Black students compared with White students." See Figure 11.

  • "In the classroom, Black students are disciplined more frequently and more severely for the same misbehaviors as White students."

  • "Principals endorsed more severe discipline for Black students compared with White students across two time points. Further, this discipline severity was explained through Black students being more likely to be labeled a troublemaker than White students."

• A sizable study done by the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights found that a quarter of high schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino students do not offer Algebra II; a third of these schools do not offer chemistry and only 57% of black students had access to a full range of math and science courses compared to 71% of white students (Figure 22). 

  • "A quarter of high schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino students do not offer Algebra II; a third of these schools do not offer chemistry." (page 1)

• This Harvard study found that: "Nearly a thousand officer-involved killings occur each year in the United States. This paper documents the large, racially-disparate impacts of these events on the educational and psychological well-being of public high school students in a large, urban school district. Exploiting hyper-local variation in how close students live to a killing, I find that exposure to police violence leads to persistent decreases in GPA, increased incidence of emotional disturbance and lower rates of high school completion and college enrollment. These effects are driven entirely by black and Hispanic students in response to police killings of other minorities and are largest for incidents involving unarmed suspects."

• A large EdBuild study found that in both high income and low income situations, more money is spent on white students than on non white students (Figure 12). Additionally, non white school districts get $23 billion less funding that white school districts in total despite the fact that nonwhite school districts serve almost 10x as many students as white school districts. 

  • "White districts enroll just over 1,500 students—half the size of the national average, and nonwhite districts serve over 10,000 students—three times more than that average."

  • "For every student enrolled, the average nonwhite school district receives $2,226 less than a white school district."

  • It should be noted that school funding is an issue in general - the study identifies that "Poor-white school districts receive about $150 less per student than the national average—an injustice all to itself. Yet they are still receiving nearly $1,500 more than poor-nonwhite school districts" - but minorities such as the black population are disproportionately effected by a lack of school funding. 

  • The study can be found in pdf form with sources and methods here

Was America really built off the backs of slaves? Short answer: a fair amount of it was, yes. Trump has even acknowledged this, saying "African-Americans built this nation. You built this nation. You know you're just starting to get real credit for that, okay?"

Long answer (is provided by a report from the Economic History Association which draws from many different works):

Economic Value of Slaves

Slaves themselves, not considering the amount of work they did and the products they produced for the US to export and such, could fetch up to $2,000 (which is $51,000 in today's money) meaning that just buying or selling a slave would have contributed to America's economy. 

• "The average price of a slave, regardless of age, sex, or condition, rose from approximately $400 in 1850 to nearly $800 by 1860. During the late 1850s, prime male field hands aged eighteen to thirty cost on the average $1,200, and skilled slaves such as blacksmiths often were valued at more than $2,000."

Roger Ransom of the University of California, Riverside has estimated that from 1805 - 1860 the total value of slaves in America went from $350 million to $3 trillion: "In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion." (Figure 3). 

• Additionally, the value of slaves was always rising: "Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly."

Prior to the Civil War, the incomes of white Americans (even white Americans which did not own slaves) were anywhere from 40% - 17% from the enslavement of black people, as cited in a report from the ECA's report which draws from Gerald Gunderson's "The Origin of the American Civil War." The nationwide average was 25.9%, meaning enslaved black people accounted for a fourth of white American's income (Figure 2 at the bottom of the page).

Cotton Production

Of the11 states which made up the Confederacy, 40% of the population were slaves and these slaves made up more than half of the agricultural labor: "In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states." In regions which mainly produced cotton, slave labor was of great importance and in these seven states where most cotton was grown about half of the population were slaves. Through 1815-1860, cotton shipments accounted for more than half the value of all exports from the United States: "By the mid 1830s, cotton shipments accounted for more than half the value of all exports from the United States." Thus it can be determined that black slaves, who again made up half of the population in regions which produced cotton, were responsible for half of the early US exports. Since slaves made up more than half of the agricultural population it can be determined that slaves alone were responsible for 25% of the early US exports. Additionally, the South produced 75% of the world's cotton, meaning the work of black slaves alone accounted for 37% of the entire world's cotton supply (remember, they make up more than half of agricultural workers). There is also a very clear similarity between the trends in the export of cotton and the rising value of the slave population, as Figure 3 and Figure 4 show down below. The income generated by cotton in the south was a "major impetus for growth not only in the South, but in the rest of the economy as well." A lot of the textile production and clothing choices we have today are thanks to slave labor, as the Economic History Association identifies that "The low price of raw cotton produced by slave labor in the American South enabled textile manufacturers — both in the United States and in Britain — to expand production and provide benefits to consumers through a declining cost of textile products." Routinely, the South would sell 70% of their raw cotton to the North and buy the North’s manufactured cotton goods at a higher capital. So the whole reason why US citizens had clothing was thanks to black slaves. This comes from his work "The Economic Growth of the United States, 1790–1860." 

Importance of Cotton (and therefore slave labor) to the US Economy

In 1858 US senator James Henry Hammond declared "cotton is king!" in a fairly famous speech in which he said that the southern states could do very well without the northern states, but the north would collapse without the south. He also opposed the idea of abolition in this same speech since he, the south, the north, and America as a whole were profiting so much off the work of slaves. After the Civil War and slaves were emancipated, cotton crop output fell dramatically and the per capita income of whites, which had been $125 in 1857 fell to $80 by 1879. So, just through cotton, the effect black slaves had on the American economy and the white American cannot be understated. 

• Excerpt from his speech: "The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton. I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years to come, it would be an immense advantage to her. I am not so sure but that after three total years' abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and better prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enterprise. What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, but this is certain: England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South. No, you dare not make war on cotton. No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king!"

• "The loss of income was particularly hard on white Southerners; per capita income of whites in 1857 had been $125; in 1879 it was just over $80."

TL;DR - Having "white privilege" basically means that white people and their white ancestors have never been outright enslaved, oppressed, or discriminated against in America, nor has their status as a human person ever been questioned. They and their ancestors have been able to enjoy the rights of the Constitution since the country's inception and face little to no hardships in their lives as a result of their race/skin color and there were never laws or legislature enacted which specifically targeted them in an effort to disadvantage them. And because of this, white people have an immediate unfair advantage in life over other groups (namely, black people) from birth because they are benefitting from the effects of past and current discrimination against minority groups. Today's white people are privileged because they were born into a country where people who looked like them have always been treated with respect and had numerous opportunities available to them while people who don't look like them have only recently been treated with respect by some parts of the country and have only recently received limited access to those same opportunities. 

In addition to the data presented above that shows white Americans get treated far better than similarly situated black Americans by practically every facet of the criminal justice system, there is another aspect to what could be considered "white privilege." Essentially, white Americans have been able to enjoy all the freedoms, rights, and privileges of the US constitution for far longer than black Americans. This has given white Americans a massive "head start" in acquiring wealth, education, land, establishing businesses, deciding the direction of the country and government in general, and more. Thus, today's white Americans are beneficiaries of this "head start" that came at the cost of massive amounts of racism and discrimination towards black people. White Americans are privileged today not necessarily because of the legal rights they have but because of the discrimination, they don't face in the criminal justice system and because of the unfair advantage created for them in the past. White Americans are privileged the same way the children of a billionaire like Jeff Bezos are privileged over middle class and poor children. Obviously, this doesn't mean today's white Americans are bad people or that they need to apologize for being white. What it does mean, or should imply, is that white people should be aware of this unfair advantage they have which they haven't earned. 

White Americans have been able to fully enjoy the privileges (rights) since the nation's inception in 1776 whereas black Americans weren't able to enjoy all the rights granted by the Constitution until 1964 with the passing of the Civil Rights Act which finally, in legal writing at least, meant that black Americans couldn't be treated as second class citizens any longer. Think about that - white Americans had ~200 more years to start businesses, acquire wealth, own property, get educated, vote, dictate the government and general direction of the country, et cetera before black Americans had a legitimate seat at the table. Additionally, many of the white people that immigrated to America weren't necessarily starting with nothing whereas the majority - if not all - black people that ended up in America ended up there against their will with nothing. White Americans today still benefit from this ~200 year head start their ancestors had, the fact that their ancestors were citizens of America when the country was established, the fact that people like them - white Americans - were not ever enslaved en masse in America, the fact that the country they call home was founded by people like them - white Americans - and controlled by people like them - white Americans - for most of its history. Today's white people aren't horrible people simply for being white or having ancestors in a very racist time in American history but they should realize that many of the things they have today are a product of those racist white people in the past and many of the disadvantages black Americans face today are a product of those past white Americans. That's not really fair now is it?

Here are some privileges, or rights, white Americans enjoyed that black Americans did not in early American history: 

• White people were American citizens and were granted all the rights established in the Constitution when America was established. Black people were neither citizens nor granted any such rights when America was established.

• There was no debate as to if white people were people or not. Black people were not considered people, rather they were largely regarded as other people's property. 

• White Americans counted towards America's population. Only 3/5 of a black person counted towards America's population. 

• White Americans were not enslaved en masse, nor taken from their homeland against their will. Black people in America were. 

In America, white people were granted so many things, given so many privileges, before black people were granted the same things. What's the definition of privilege? -  from Dictionary.com: "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people beyond the advantages of most." From Merriam Webster: "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." Throughout much of America's history, white Americans had many privileges, advantages, and rights - right to citizenship, right to vote, right to a trial, right to basically everything the 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment promised, the advantage of not being enslaved en masse, the advantage of not being considered sub human, the advantage of coming to America of one's free will, et cetera - before black Americans and today's white Americans benefit from that privilege. In a sense, they still are privileged because they're benefitting from it. It's stupid to think that this disparity would just go away in ~60 years (as I write this it is 2021, 57 years after the Civil Rights Act). Not only that, but today white Americans still have some privileges over black Americans, as outlined above. Essentially, white Americans are privileged over black Americans because white Americans wrote America's founding documents and controlled the country's government for much of its history, white Americans never had to protest whether or not they should be considered a person, never had to protest whether or not they should be considered a free person, never had to protest for the right to be considered citizens in America, never had to protest to be given the right to vote (yes white women protested to have the right to vote but that was women protesting for women to have the right to vote not white women protesting for specifically white women to have the right to vote), never had to protest against discrimination on account of their race, never had to protest for the same treatment in multiple facets of society as another race, never had to protest to have the same education and opportunities available to them as another race, et cetera. Sure, white people from certain countries may have experienced some of this discrimination (namely Irish people) but that's a small sliver of white people and those white people weren't discriminated against because they were white but because of their country of origin. That's how I interpret the saying "white privilege." White Americans are privileged today not necessarily because of the legal rights they have but because of the discrimination, they don't face in the criminal justice system and because of the unfair advantage created for them in the past. White Americans are privileged the same way the children of a billionaire like Jeff Bezos are privileged over middle class and poor children.

The argument could be made that black Americans began to enjoy these rights in 1864 after slavery was abolished and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution but considering there was still rampant discrimination against black people and things like Jim Crow laws they really were not on equal footing until the Civil Rights Act. Sure, they were on some equal footing in the sense that most black people in America were Americans like most white people in America were Americans but white Americans had the advantage in basically every other facet of life. For example, in 1964, despite both being American citizens, white Americans had so much more wealth, education, and opportunity available to them in comparison to black Americans. Freed slaves had nothing due to the fact that they were slaves their whole lives prior to the abolition of slavery. They didn't just get a job or start a business as you would after being fired from a job or quitting. They had nothing. And we know that if you're born poor you're very likely to stay poor and today America ranks 27th in upward mobility, worldwide, so America not engaging in reparations for slavery is a big reason why black Americans have such little wealth today, why black Americans are more likely to live in low income neighborhoods, why black Americans commit more crime (which is due mainly to that lack of wealth and low income). White people have had hundreds of years to accumulate wealth in America and many came to America of their own free will with established businesses, plans, ideas, jobs lined up, and more. Black people have had 157 - 57 years to accumulate wealth and started with nothing, being brought to this country against their will, while experiencing racism and discrimination even as American citizens. Additionally, expecting racism to be gone just because slavery was abolished would be like expecting violence to no longer exist just because murder was made illegal. There are other ways violence can happen (rape, robbery) just like there are other ways racism can manifest (discrimination).

Also regarding slavery in America: According to Marquette law, in 1776 all 13 states aside from Vermont had abolished slavery. It should be noted that certain states, like Rhode Island and Connecticut, had abolished overseas slave trade in 1774 but still allowed slavery and inter-colony slave trade. Although there was some abolitionist sentiment early in America's history, it wasn't because these Americans viewed black people as equals who should share all the same rights and promises of the Constitution. Rather, it was because they wanted black people to be taken back to Africa and for that to happen slavery had to be abolished so America could end its reliance on slave labor. "I don't want black people in my country" is still a pretty racist sentiment. 

Saying racism doesn't exist because you were never a slave or you never owned slaves is like saying you aren't cursed with Death or sin because you never were in the Garden of Eden. Stuff from the past can effect the present. I was not in the Garden of Eden yet I feel the effects of Original Sin. Today's black people weren't born into slavery but they can still experience racism and the effects of greater racist sentiment in America's past. 

A common criticism of the idea of systemic racism, as exemplified by Ben Shapiro in this YouTube video, is that "shouting systemic racism does not actually combat racism. You have to find individual instances and you have to show me who the racists are." Here Shapiro is framing the question in a way that makes systemic racism impossible to demonstrate since systemic racism suggests that racism is a result of systemic problems rather than the result of a few individuals. Let's apply this "show me the racists" to another systemic problem in the judicial system: the disparity in sentence length between men and women. Studies have found large gaps between the sentences men and women receive, with men often receiving far longer sentences (63% longer to be exact) than women who are convicted of the same crime. Shapiro's line of questioning would suggest that this is not a systemic issue, rather the result of the actions of individuals, and would ask for you to show him the people who discriminate against men. It would be impossible to find evidence of an individual judge explicating stating that they dislike men and purposely sentence men to longer prison sentences than women and even if you did find one example that wouldn't explain the severity of the disparity. The fact that men consistently receive longer sentences than women suggests that either a). the majority of judges and juries are discriminatory towards men or b). there's some systemic issue that results in men consistently receiving longer sentences than women. This issue, like systemic racism, is something that seems to just consistently  keep occurring regardless of the personal beliefs of individuals within the system. 

• Also imagine this argument "I hate lead poisoning, but shouting 'the lead water pipes are poisoning people' doesn't help combat lead poisoning. You have to show me individual instances of lead poisoning and we can treat them together. What I find really problematic is the virtue-signaling from the other side saying that there's something wrong with our plumbing system here."

Sometimes idiots will be like "where's the outrage when white people get killed by police?" The answer is pretty simple: there is no outrage from white people. Police brutality only "became a race issue" because black people care about it and are vocal whereas most white people don't care about police brutality. White people seem to be extremely apathetic to white victims, or any victims, of police brutality. Being a white person and asking "where is the outrage when white people get killed by police?" is an incredible self-own considering the answer to that question is largely the fact that white people are incredibly apathetic to police brutality against white people - ask white people why they weren't outraged, why they didn't protest, why they didn't create and/or sign petitions or donate money to a cause. When a black person is a victim of police brutality black people get outraged - they protest, they post about it on social media, they create and/or sign petitions, start GoFundMes, create organizations to combat it - which means there is more news coverage about the victim and the event. When a white person is a victim of police brutality there is hardly any of that so the story just disappears. Where were the protests when the police shoved an elderly white man to the ground and then stepped over his bleeding body, white people? Where were the protests when Tony Timpa, an unarmed man, was killed by police officers who then laughed and joked about it, white people? Where were the protests when Daniel Shaver, an unarmed white man, was shot and killed by police, white people? There were none, going to show that white people are just very apathetic about white victims of police brutality. It's white people's own apathy to white victims of police brutality that makes it seem like people only care about black victims. It isn't like Timpa and Sahver's deaths weren't covered by news outlets - CNN covered Timpa's death and Shaver's death, the New York Times reported on Timpa and Shaver, and Fox News covered Timpa and Shaver. The information was all out there, white people just didn't care. In Shaver's case, a cop even posted on Facebook about how people who were upset over Shaver's death were "idiots." It is also important to note that the police hid body cam footage for Timpa and Shaver - it took three years for them to release the body cam footage in Timpa's case and about a year to release body cam footage in Shaver's case - whereas the death of black victims like George Floyd,  Jacob Blake, and Duane Wright were either filmed by bystanders or the body cam footage was released very soon after. 

Some people like to just bring up various crimes black people have committed, usually ones against white people as a reason why black people are bad (despite the fact white on white violence is a bigger issue than black on white violence). White people do fucked shit too though, take Justin Bennett for example: a 27 year old white man who killed his girlfriend's 3 year old daughter because he got angry after she interrupted him (apparently he was playing a video game). He was charged with second degree murder. In addition to this murder, there is the "Redneck Rave" that took place in a Kentucky park in which there was throat slashing and impalement, resulting in 48 people being charged. The county is 96% white and only 2% black according to census data so it's safe to assume this was mostly white people. With the people that bring up these crimes you'll notice a trend - they typically bring up crimes in which a black man kills a white woman and her child. This is I guess to show that black men are horribly violent people, so the racism they face is deserved and there should be no race mixing and the term the "coal toll" is term these racists use to describe how apparently all white women who are in a relationship with a black man will suffer some form of violence or die by his hand. This is dumb, obviously and here's some crimes white men have committed against their wives and families which shows white people do messed up shit too:

• In 2019, white man Christopher Watt confessed to killing his family, strangling his pregnant wife and then killing his two young daughters. 

• White man Matthew Taylor Coleman killed his children because he feared they had serpent DNA and feared they'd grow into monsters.

• White man David Wayne Priest gunned down his pregnant girlfriend and her toddler son before committing suicide himself. Apparently this was spurred on by an argument. 

• Additionally, white people are far more likely to be killed by a family member - spouse, child, or other - and more likely to be killed by a non family member - boyfriend, girlfriend, friend, or acquaintance - than black people and according to statistics from the Bureau of Justice. This is visualized below in Figure 24. Furthermore, the Bureau found that the number of white people who killed their boyfriend or girlfriend was equal to the number of black people who killed their boyfriend or girlfriend and there were far more white people who killed immediate family members than black people who killed their immediate family members. This is visualized below in Figure 25. 

Some will bring up the facts that slavery existed before the Atlantic slave trade and slavery in America and throughout the history of the world there was more than just white people enslaving black people which is true, but it does not make what happened in America's early history ok. Furthermore, looking specifically at America and its relationship with slavery, it was mainly white people enslaving black people and then justifying it at every turn, treating black people as subhuman. Saying that America shouldn't do things to make up for this simply because slavery existed other places would be like saying “Well my grandpa didn’t invent stealing so it’s ok that he stole $100 million dollars from your grandpa and now I’m rich and you’re poor."

Idiots will say that BLM is a terrorist organization, despite it not being classified as such by the US government. The height of BLM and the protests and riots associated with it was under Trump's tenure as president and he never moved to have his administration or anyone brand it as a terrorist organization. So if BLM truly is a terrorist org then why did Trump never identify it as such or act for the government to label it as such?

Conservatives seem to lack an understanding as to what context is or why it is important when it's convenient for them to do so. There is nothing racist, wrong, or controversial with the phrase "all lives matter" or the idea that all lives matter. However, it does get controversial and seem disingenuous when used almost as a counter to the racism and inequality that black people face in America or to the Black Lives Matter movement. Think of it this way: there is nothing controversial about the phrase "all diseases are bad," but if you were to pugnaciously engage in that rhetoric on World Cancer Day and harass people who have cancer, accusing them of wanting special treatment, then it becomes rude, controversial, and disingenuous. Furthermore, the "all lives matter" phrase became a thing seemingly out of nowhere to combat the Black Lives Matter movement and is seen as belittling the struggles black people have and are facing in America. 

The gist of things like and systemic racism is basically this: America used to have quite a lot of bigoted racist people. While many of these racists are dead and people today are significantly less racist, many of the institutions and systems built or established by these past racists are still in existence today, some with little to no changes. Perhaps we should see how these systems themselves may be having racist or unfair effects/outcomes and amend them.

A very dumbed down allegory 

A very dumbed down allegory for explaining systemic racism: Over 200 years ago, two different cities were built. One had a plumbing system built with lead pipes while the other's plumbing system was built with copper pipes. Over the years both saw changes to certain changes and additions to segments of the system but the majority of each remains in place. Today, activists in the city with lead pipes are claiming that their water is giving them lead poisoning and that the whole system needs to be replaced. Those in the other city tell them that this isn't possible because both cities get their water piped in from the same lake. They also say that calling lead poisoning a systemic issue is just virtue signaling and there are only individual instances of lead poisoning. 

In this allegory, the lake of water represents people in America and the plumbing systems represent the justice system - while they are both water treatment systems there are consistently different outcomes in the quality of water similar to how there are consistently different outcomes for similarly situated white and black defendants. 

I'll admit this is not really the greatest allegory or metaphor and there are probably ones out there better than this, but I just wanted to keep this here so I don't forget it and can come back and workshop it if I ever think of something additional to add or something better in general.