The Systemic Racism (Marginalization?) Problem

Being that Affirmative Action has been done with, and existed to address the disparities caused by centuries of ongoing systemic racism, what shall we put in place to address the disparities, gaps, and time stolen by systemic racism?

Those who celebrate the end of Affirmative Action can only tout the constitution and the label of “discrimination” while ignoring nuance and dismissing what led to the need for Affirmative Action to exist. These same individuals can only provide circular logic, echoing the same sentiment of “It should be something legal and constitutional” in order to ignore the critical thinking required to acknowledge the US’s responsibility to address systemic barriers.

Again, if Affirmative Action isn’t the answer, what should we do to bridge the ever present gaps caused by systemic racism? And because similar programs that address people who are disadvantaged because of marginalization will likely follow being shut down, how are we to solve the barriers caused by such marginalization?

Those who can only respond with something along the lines of “Something legal and constitutional” need not reply. This is a thread for nuance and actual critical thinking.

Since the most tangible result of systemic racism has been disparities in wealth, income, and opportunity, establish a government program to grant both a basic guaranteed income to all persons who fall under the poverty line, regardless of color, and a trust fund of $20K to all children of poverty to mature until they reach the age of majority, at which time they can use it any way they wish, to fund education, vocational training, business start-ups, or investment.

Quote by Beffer

Since the most tangible result of systemic racism has been disparities in wealth, income, and opportunity, establish a government program to grant both a basic guaranteed income to all persons who fall under the poverty line, regardless of color, and a trust fund of $20K to all children of poverty to mature until they reach the age of majority, at which time they can use it any way they wish, to fund education, vocational training, business start-ups, or investment.

I like this, especially in light of the fact that things like poverty disproportionately impacts people of color.

This new policy may just be a step in that direction. This policy now allows all foster kids in California to attend any state college for free, and it includes room and board. I hope other states follow suit.

Quote by Ironic

This should help clear some of the inaccuracies. Professor Eric Stewart was busted for fake data, had six studies retracted, and is out of a job, as his University has fired him over claims of extreme negligence.

What inaccuracies have been cleared about systemic racism because one professor was busted for fraud?

If these claims are true, it’s unfortunate that he felt the need to fudge data to support something that’s already been proven by time and existing, credible research. It’s equally unfortunate that he and his data fraud will be treated as the rule versus the exception/anomaly that it is, used by others to say “This guy exaggerated data to make racism/discrimination look worse than what it is, therefore systemic racism isn’t as bad as we thought it is.”

Don’t get me wrong, if true, Professor Eric Stewart’s academic dishonesty and fraud is vile. But it doesn’t negate systemic racism as the problem it currently is.

I also find it interesting that you dug up a thread that hasn't been active in nearly a month (with no prior contributions from you) just to post this instance of fraud in a transparent attempt to discredit systemic racism as a problem. It’d be different if you made any other attempt to engage in the conversation, but no, it’s yet another manufactured “gotcha” moment because you still don’t know how to meaningfully engage in a conversation, especially one about something as serious as systemic racism.

Quote by Ironic

This should help clear some of the inaccuracies. Professor Eric Stewart was busted for fake data, had six studies retracted, and is out of a job, as his University has fired him over claims of extreme negligence.

 

Yeah, I agree with Dani, this is a meaningless gotcha! data point.

My fear is that standards have lurched rightward remarkably quickly. A vocal minority will begin to scream very loudly if the words “systemic racism” are even spoken, so more nuanced argument can never happen in today’s political landscape. Even though I think it’s pretty easy to see the results of systematic racism statistically, in income, crime, education, mortality rates, pretty much across the board.

I think Beffer goes a bit too far with trust funds and basic incomes. But correcting systems where racism can be show to exist (gerrymandered congressional districts, the banning of books about the rights of specific races) is a start.

Quote by Ironic

What I'm getting at is how much confidence can we put in crime trends that include falsified data?

This falsified data had been excluded, as your own article points out.

Quote by Ironic

The falsified data has NOW been excluded. Has confidence in the crime trends that include the falsified studies changed?

His retracted research is not included (and never was) in the overall crime statistics that reflect racial disparities. His research was a distortion of that existing data.

This thread is about addressing the problem of systemic racism/marginalization in the US (and the world where relevant). Please refrain from derailing this thread by attempting to generalize one researcher's retracted false data to existing crime statistics. Thank you.

Quote by Dani

I also find it interesting that you dug up a thread that hasn't been active in nearly a month (with no prior contributions from you) just to post this instance of fraud in a transparent attempt to discredit systemic racism as a problem. It’d be different if you made any other attempt to engage in the conversation, but no, it’s yet another manufactured “gotcha” moment because you still don’t know how to meaningfully engage in a conversation, especially one about something as serious as systemic racism.

This professor resigned in March of this year. The right winger sites were ALL OVER IT at the time. There are numerous articles from the usual MAGA locations all amplifying the desired message - Proof that systemic racism either does not exist or it's not as bad as it's being reported.

Not ironically, Ironic has scoured the internet for at least 5 months looking for this story to appear on a site like MSNBC, the liberal's kingdom. It helps to imply that even MSNBC - by dint of publishing some moron's opinion - because it's on MSNBC - it might make it more mainstream!

Thanks Ironic. You've really proved that systemic racism doesn't exist, isn't a problem at all and is largely a figment of non-caucasians minds.

Quote by WellMadeMale

This professor resigned in March of this year. The right winger sites were ALL OVER IT at the time. There are numerous articles from the usual MAGA locations all amplifying the desired message - Proof that systemic racism either does not exist or it's not as bad as it's being reported.

Not ironically, Ironic has scoured the internet for at least 5 months looking for this story to appear on a site like MSNBC, the liberal's kingdom. It helps to imply that even MSNBC - by dint of publishing some moron's opinion - because it's on MSNBC - it might make it more mainstream!

Thanks Ironic. You've really proved that systemic racism doesn't exist, isn't a problem at all and is largely a figment of non-caucasians minds.

I think this speaks to a new approach to dealing with systemic racism: Discredit its existence so the burden of dealing with it goes away (and those who benefit from it don't have to relinquish those benefits). The problem with this approach is that its dishonesty is exacerbated by generalizing exceptions as some sort of norm. Also, if we focus on the semantics of retracted research articles and crime rates, then the systemic racism conversation goes away.

Quote by Ironic

Nobody's done that in this thread.

Ironic, I am done playing this game with you of you latching onto some arbitrary non-point and driving it into the ground until you destroy a thread by avoiding and deviating far from the topic at hand. I have deleted more than 12 posts of yours in this thread alone as part of an hours-long tantrum you've been having as a result of removing your attempts to derail this thread. None of your posts in this thread have been about systemic racism. You posted a link to an article about a professor engaging in data fraud regarding his research about criminal injustice. When others posted their views about how said article did not undermine the issue of systemic racism, you made attempts to make this thread about the article instead of systemic racism.

You were told to remain on topic, yet you persisted, and tried to pick apart posts in an attempt to get someone to engage you in a conversation that has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread, a behavior that has been made clear is unacceptable in the Think Tank per the "Forum Rules" thread at the top of the Think Tank. I have locked several threads as a direct result of you engaging in this behavior.

This will be my last time asking you to stop.

One approach woukd be to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Quote by Chryses
Rights

So do you want states to be able to deprive citizens of their life, liberty and property without due process of law?

Or is that you want to revoke the citizenship of the descendents of the former slaves,

Quote by Chryses

What an odd thing to say!

As the thread's focus seems to be how to work around the recent SCOTUS ruling that racially discriminatory Affirmative Action programs violated the Fourteenth Amendment, then one approach would be to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Have you read the Fourteenth Amendment?

Quote by Chryses

What an odd thing to say!

As the thread's focus seems to be how to work around the recent SCOTUS ruling that racially discriminatory Affirmative Action programs violated the Fourteenth Amendment, then one approach would be to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Ok you win, affirmative action was sooooo racist.

Ok cool, so how would you go about fixing the problem of old white guys deliberately not hiring minorities or women despite their qualifications?

Top

Skip to main content

The U.S. National Archives Home

Menu

Search

Milestone Documents

Home > 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)

Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, June 16, 1866; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog

View Transcript

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.

Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

Another equally important provision was the statement that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the federal and state governments.

On June 16, 1866, the House Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the states. On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.

Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio, the primary author of the first section of the 14th Amendment, intended that the amendment also nationalize the Bill of Rights by making it binding

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This thread does not exist to debate Affirmative Action. It is about ways to address the issue of systemic racism/marginalization. If you want to converse about anything that doesn't have to do with addressing systemic racism/marginalization, then start another thread. Please and thank you.

If SCOTUS abolished Affirmative Action, how many other laws not specifically written into the US Constitution that protects against racism in action, can be overturned? This particular SCOTUS with a rightwing conservative bent has certainly not shown interest in protecting the rights of minorities.

Could a new wave toward systematic racism and marginalization be on the horizon?

Certainly, the political pendulum swings in one direction then the next over periods of time.

Quote by Buz

If SCOTUS abolished Affirmative Action, how many other laws not specifically written into the US Constitution that protects against racism in action, can be overturned? This particular SCOTUS with a rightwing conservative bent has certainly not shown interest in protecting the rights of minorities.

Could a new wave toward systematic racism and marginalization be on the horizon?

Certainly, the political pendulum swings in one direction then the next over periods of time.

So what ideas do you have regarding addressing the problem of systemic racism & marginalization?

Quote by Dani

So what ideas do you have regarding addressing the problem of systemic racism & marginalization?

To start, a total rework and reestablshment of Affirmative Action, searching out its weaknesses to create a much more effective plan.

Making sure laws that prohibit discrimination stay on the books.

A total new concept of government low income housing, which has trapped generations of minorities. Establishing individual family home neighborhoods with police precincts, fire departments, grocery stores, etc. and quality schools. And especially affordable rent to own programs for the families.

Single moms get trapped in the welfare system. If they work to pay for post secondary education, they are usually financially penalized. I've seen this first hand at feeding ministries for the poor and homeless. Serious changed should be made to rectify this.

These are just beginning ideas.

Other ideas l have will not be popular with some, so I'm not going to go through that here.

But we need much more positive action from business, civic organizations, churches, and any people and organizations interested in improving racial and ethnic problems, so we have true and equal opportunity for all, with bigotry erased from our society.

Quote by Chryses

I’m not at all persuaded that standards have lurched rightward, quickly or not. What are these standards? What criteria are you using to determine the direction, degree, or speed of the changes you sense have lurched?

 

As our politicians are predisposed to accommodate squeaky wheels, a vocal minority will vigorously agitate against any change they dislike, and “systemic racism” is merely one topic among many. That should not prevent people who wish to know more about this issue from thoughtful discussion. Unfortunately, some want to avoid thoughtful discussion, seemingly on every topic. The efforts by the Oxford Student Union in re Professor Stock serves as an example.

 

We have all read that the inferences drawn from data depend on the data selected for analysis and the statistical analysis performed. The saying “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” is often attributed to PM Disraeli and comes to mind. The inferences drawn by Professor Stewart serve as an example.

 

This is not to say racism, systemic or otherwise, has not, does not, or will not exist, for it has, does, and will for the foreseeable future. It does mean, however, those who have already decided on the results they wish to secure can usually, with sufficient effort, produce those results.

 

If you can accept the above, I am open to and am interested in discussing the systems where racism can be shown to exist, what would be useful measures of racism to trigger corrective action, and what those corrective actions might be.

Per the last sentence of your statement, are you only willing to discuss ways to address systemic racism & marginalization with those who accept/agree with what you said prior to this last sentence? If this is the case, you need not participate in this thread with such conditions.

Quote by Chryses

To which do you take exception?

You've ignored my question, the answer to which will dictate how/if I proceed engaging you further in this topic.

I'll ask again: Per the last sentence of your (previous) statement, are you only willing to discuss ways to address systemic racism & marginalization with those who accept/agree with what you said prior to this last sentence? If this is the case, you need not participate in this thread with such conditions.

Tax the rich.

Get big money out of politics.

Tax the rich.

Stop treating corporations as citizens.

Tax the rich.

Make a stop to gerrymandering, do away with the electoral college and any other first past the post system, so every vote carries the same weight.

Tax the rich.

No special privileges for religious institutions (tax the rich).

Tax the rich.

Invest in poor communities.

Tax the rich.

Make sure everyone has access to proper education.

Tax the rich.

Make sure everyone has access to proper health care.

Tax the rich.

Implement not just a basic income, but a universal basic income, so all the privileged white folks can't claim 'discrimination'.

And finally: tax the rich.

Intelligent and open minded dialogue with a real heart and love for all people is badly needed in western society. There are seeds for real change, acceptance, and equality if we don't succumb to the evil forces of bigotry. But it is an ongoing and difficult struggle - a war for justice.

Quote by Chryses

What I have posted is, of course, not the only (your word, not mine) basis for a discussion on this topic. My question to you is are you willing to discuss the issue at all?

Take part in the discussion and quit playing games, or go to another thread.

There are real possibilities to this topic.

Thanks

Quote by Chryses

I am not playing games.

You have identified some possibilities. I would like to do the same.

One must be permitted to post what one has to say in order to participate in a discussion.

It’s been made clear that this thread is about addressing systemic racism and marginalization, therefore all posts about addressing systemic racism and marginalization are welcome. It’s not that hard.

Quote by Chryses

What I have posted is, of course, not the only (your word, not mine) basis for a discussion on this topic. My question to you is are you willing to discuss the issue at all?

You still have not answered the question I posed to you regarding whether or not you’re only willing to engage in the topic of the thread once one has demonstrated they meet the criteria you laid out (accepting your views). Since you have avoided this question a second time, I accept that you won’t answer and will move on.

To answer your question, yes, I’m willing to discuss the issue, hence me starting a thread about the issue.

I wonder how long it will be before the rightwing, racist majority on The US Supreme Court rules against FEMA funds for disaster victims, claiming it is discriminatory,

Quote by Dani
This thread is about addressing the problem of systemic racism/marginalization in the US (and the world where relevant).

Well part of me is loath to go where angels fear to tread ... foreigners and all that.

But the idea of marginalization (systemic racism seems to raise hackles so I shall avoid that term) or inter-generational cycles of disadvantage is well accepted and not intellectually controversial.

Public policy by its very nature means making service provision choices - choices in social policy, economic policy, defence procurement etc. My specialty is health, in Australia nearly all health is funded through taxation and provided free. Yet, through triage and policies around elective and non-elective surgery. treatment is (I think reasonably appropriately) allocated.

Now we know for sure that those cycles of disadvantage result in poorer health outcomes in specific communities (rural aboriginal for instance, but also other urban communities.) To make a difference to those communities and raise their life outcomes towards those of other Australians there has to be specific actions taken that reflect cultural language and location factors. It would be unconscionable to use a one size fits all approach when outcomes currently are not one size fits all.

While health policy matters, education policy is also key. Call it what you like (affirmative action, common sense) but the focus should be on enabling those caught in cycles of disadvantage to break out of that disadvantage. Reading recovery programmes for instance should be targeted at those communities (and if you want to call that discrimination, then its unambiguously a form of 'good' discrimination.) Specific pathways to post school training should be illuminated by public policy (and the private voluntary sector too) for these groups. For it is axiomatic that we all benefit from improving these groups life outcomes.

This isn't an area where there is an international consensus on the nature of the 'perfect policies.' I think all of us should be alive to ideas the world over.

A racially blind solution to a racially driven problem makes no sense.

Quote by noll

A racially blind solution to a racially driven problem makes no sense.

You don't understand. Imagine them saying that while crossing their fingers behind their backs.

Or like you know when I ask, I won't say who exactly, but like imagine I ask someone what their favorite crayon is or cock or something, and when they get all mad I asked that, I act all innocent like, "dude it's just a question, I am just trying to make conversation geez..." It's like that but with something serious like racism.

Quote by Magical_felix

You don't understand. Imagine them saying that while crossing their fingers behind their backs.

Or like you know when I ask, I won't say who exactly, but like imagine I ask someone what their favorite crayon is or cock or something, and when they get all mad I asked that, I act all innocent like, "dude it's just a question, I am just trying to make conversation geez..." It's like that but with something serious like racism.

Because, again, if the focus is on "racially blind" solutions, then there doesn't have to be accountability for the systemic racism. Can't fix a problem for which there's no accountability/acknowledgement.