>MD writes:
>>in the first place, everybody can see that the "funding" sources of the
>>report prepared by the Justice Department are highly problematic. They
are
>>typical liberal type foundations such as Ford and Soros. As the NY Times
>>article suggests "An unusual feature of the report is that its costs
were
>>underwritten by the Justice Department and several leading foundations:
>>the Ford Foundation; the MacArthur Foundation; the Rockefeller
>>Foundation;[etc.]
>>Basically, these foundations do not give a serious damn about racism in
>>the criminal justice system just as they do not give a damn about human
>>rights violations in any part of the world..
>Does this mean that we should simply throw out all research done with
>similar funding, even if some of it suggests that racism is a serious
>problem in the US justice system?
NO. I was not saying this. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Shuger
does not really think that "racism is serious problem in the US justice
system".He seems to think the figures in the report are over-stated
although the data proves the contrary.Findings include: "Among young
people who have not been sent to a juvenile prison before, blacks are more
than six times as likely as whites to be sentenced by juvenile courts to
prison." And: "Similarly, white youths charged with violent offenses are
incarcerated for an average of 193 days after trial, but blacks are
incarcerated an average of 254 days and Hispanics are incarcerated an
average of 305 days."
If Shuger does not believe in these figures, he can not think racism is
serious issue at all..
I certainly believe that the figures in the report set out important
facts. They do not deeply explain, however, why a big differential gap
exists in the treatment of white and black criminals. This was the point
of civil rights activist Soler (see the article). I am NOT saying that we
should throw out the findings of the justice department.On the contrary, I
am asking, based on their findings, how we can come up with an explanation
of institutional racism. At this point, Shuger is not the proper
reference point to criticize the report. Just as I don't rely on CATO's
critique of affirmative action and the welfare state in the honor of
so called black people (see one of the CATO papers on labor laws),I don't
rely on NEW REPUBLIC journalists (neo-liberals) when they criticize
state reports. Definetely, the capitalist state plays a substantive role
in the institutionalization of racism, but Shuger commits even more racism
than the so called politically correct bureaucrats in his beleif that
blacks are unequally treated because of their cultural preferences--
different people, different cultures, different races, etc..Accordingly,
Shuger ends up rationalizing racism from the standpoint of cultural
theory. (See the sub-cultural experience thesis and the type of crime
associated with blacks in my contribution to Brad's reply).
>I don't think so. Foundation financing leads to a systematic bias in
>research, as has been pointed out many times, but that doesn't mean that
>any specific individual research project should be tossed out.
The point is about *Shuger*, not about the report per se (since
I have not seen the report in details. I just stated its funding)
>Further, there are a lot of biased and ideological papers that don't
>receive foundation financing (at least in economics).
oh really?
>BTW, the only time I've asked for or received foundation funding was for
>my
>first year in graduate school.
cool!
>But we shouldn't spend too much time on Shuger as a person, since
>argument
>_ad hominem_ is a pretty useless activity.
I don't see why you see this argument about Shuger as _ad hominem_. What
he says is pretty clear to me just as it should be clear to you. If you
think his comments about blacks (Brad's example) are excusable, I
disagree with you. Furthermore, his recent comments on the report
concerning statistical clarity do not justify his previous comments.
>>When he implies that there are "law-abiding" whites so their unarrest is
>not a prejudice against blacks but a justice, in my view, he does an
>>obscurantist nonsense. Whites are not arrested or less likely to be
>>arrested because they are law-abiding, Mr Shuger!. They are NOT arrested
>>because of the racist justice system in which black people find
themselves
><racialized and criminalized vis a vis the whites.
>This suggests that whites are never arrested, but I would guess that that
>is not your intended meaning.
I did *not* say whites are _never_ arrested. I meant that blacks are more
likely to be sentenced, according to the report, by courts to prison.
The reasons for that are structural racism, diproportionate treatment of
blacks and discrimination based on "race", not lack of loyalty to the law
as Shuger suggests. In other words, the constructuion of "law abiding
citizen" is racially biased in favor of whites, which is what Shuger does
not WANT to see in accordance with his neo-liberal position..
>I think it's a mistake to point to _only_ the criminal justice system as
>criminalized vis-a-vis the whites. Discrimination and segregation in
>housing, employment, schools, school funding, street-repair, etc.
I never argued otherwise. Racism is a multi-dimensional reality deeply
institutionalized as "prejudice" against other races. It is hidden in
everday practices from court system to personal relationships. We were
discussing only the one dimension of it (the criminal justice
system).This is consistent with the subject matter of the topic.
>>Some studies on racial disparities in crime rates offer similar results
>>too. Turk's study (1971) suggests a link between the structural
position
>>of the "least powerful groups" in society, criminal labeling and unequal
>>treatment. Diana Schully's (feminist, 1994?) study on rape presents even
>>more devastating results such as differentail treatment between white
and
>>black women rape victims. Schully summarizes different case studies
>>on how racism and sexism relate to one another (ie, if rapist is white,
raped
>>is black, or vice versa, or punishment of two rapists if one black and
the
>>other is white, etc..)
>Have you examined the funding sources for Turk and Schully's reports?
To my knowledge, Schully's funding source must be one of those
women research centers.
>He was asking for more statistical clarity.
He was not simply asking for a statistical clarity.He was throwing
subjective comments too. See above...
>I was hoping that someone
>like
>Doug H would try to answer these questions, since he has his fingers on
>all
>sorts of statistical studies and is interested in crime issues.
I can not speak for the person you mention. The issue that needs to be
clarified here is if the racial disparities (figures) in the report are
over-stated. I don't think they are, although I certainly think that
these figures are only part of the solution to the problem. They do not
themselves explain the realities of institutional racism, which is what
the department of justice systematically ignores. Shuger ignores _too_ by
reducing the problem of racism to choices of cultural or sub-cultural
groups, leaving aside the structural impacts of criminal practices on
blacks.
I agree with the rest of your comments on liberals and conservatives..
Let's forget about Shuger. he is not really worth! (but he is a dangerous
obscurantist too)..
Mine Doyran
SUNY/Albany
