Feedback: “We Are Not Way Past” Systemic Racism
Feedback: “We Are Not Way Past” Systemic Racism
I DISAGREE with Tom Stahl’s (LAW’82) assertion that this country is “a long way past any systemic racism” (“Feedback,” Fall 2022).
First, his rationale is based on court decisions.
Well, if court decisions end “isms,” such as racism, then there should be no ageism against older job applicants, no prejudice against pregnant women in general or in the STEM fields, and all qualified resumes should receive an approximate number of callbacks from employers.
I mention the above scenarios because I’m a career counselor who deals extensively with older job applicants and others who have encountered discrimination during their job searches.
If our country and society are past systemic racism, then perhaps Mr. Stahl can explain:
- Why the average household worth of a Greater Boston Black family is only $8.
- Why résumés that can be identified as coming from Blacks receive fewer contacts from employers than resumes from whites.
- How a house, first appraised with a Black owner for $472,000, could be appraised a short time later for $750,000 when presented as being owned by a white person.
- Why I can be excused from a traffic ticket for being nice to police, while so many Black people wind up being shot.
Even if I were to agree with Mr. Stahl’s definition of the term “systemic racism,” I would still assert his definition and examples apply only to the federal government. Racism is still pervasive in many places at the local and state levels. Furthermore, thanks to recent US Supreme Court decisions, many “isms” are harder to prove. I can envision this current court reinstating “separate but equal.”
We are not “way past” it.
Ed Lawrence (Questrom’79,’82)
Natick, Mass.
I was pleased to see that my “Feedback” column offering (Spring–Summer 2022) motivated Tom Stahl to join the conversation about systemic racism in the US. I applaud his desire to develop a clear definition. Unfortunately, his conclusion that “institutional practices” do not continue to enforce racism in our society overlooks the facts.
By virtually every marker of opportunity and impact, people of color—and Black people in particular—endure significantly greater negative effects than white people. Compare salary rates, educational opportunities, health measures, and employment rates, to name a few, and it is clear that policy and practice favors white people.
If, as Stahl suggests, systemic racism does not exist in this country, why then did/do Black people get sicker and have higher mortality rates in general and from COVID than white people? And why are there so few Black people in such institutions as the US Senate? And why is it that more Black people are violently assaulted and killed by white police officers than vice versa? Surely these can’t all be coincidental! Finally, the fact that some structures have been established to address discrimination, and that selected court precedent extends that effort, is hardly proof that we are “a long way past any systemic racism.”
I encourage Tom and anyone else interested in understanding how even historical systems continue to enforce racism to watch 13th, a powerful documentary linking slavery to mass incarceration of people of color to the continued challenges and oppression experienced by Black people in the US.
Scott Cotenoff (LAW’84)
Walnut Creek, Calif.
I did not know whether to laugh or cry over the assertion by Tom Stahl in which he said, “Systemic racism is an organized structure of laws, rules, regulations, and institutional practices that enforce racism through the entire society. We have none of that today.” Seriously? I will grant that we have come a long way in cleaning up our racist laws, but it is nonsense to think that rules, regulations, and institutional practices that punish or impede people based on the color of their skin have been eliminated from our society.
It’s hard to know where to begin, since so many areas could be mentioned, but I’ll focus on one key aspect of American life: our criminal justice system. Since BU is an educational institution, I’ll suggest that Mr. Stahl (and anyone who might believe his assertion) get educated by reading several newly published books: Dan Canon’s Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates a Permanent Criminal Class, Carissa Byrne Hessick’s Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal, and M. Chris Fabricant’s Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System. These books definitively show that our criminal justice system remains racist to its core.
Jeanne Yocum (COM’78)
Durham, N.C.
Does Tom Stahl’s missive engage in some verbal sleight of hand?
Those of us living in Greater Boston in the 1970s cannot forget the endless discussions of de facto segregation, even in the absence of de jure segregation. It is precisely the latter Mr. Stahl addresses, ignoring the former. Was systemic racism not the cause of segregation in Boston’s public schools, and was it not systemic racism that made Judge Garrity the most reviled man in Boston in 1974?
To argue that those conditions no longer exist is to defy logic and common sense. Consider the differential treatment by police of Kyle Rittenhouse and Philando Castile, George Floyd and the killers of Ahmaud Arbery. Finally, I would refer interested parties to a never-refuted 2003 working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?”
William Politt (MET’82)
Weare, N.H.
I was shocked to read the feedback piece which claimed that systemic racism ceases to exist in the United States of America. This is quite literally a false statement and should not have been published by Bostonia magazine for its inaccuracy.
By the definition that the author of the comment used, it is proven, even by research conducted by Boston University faculty and alumni, that systemic racism currently exists in uneven and discriminatory access to housing, employment, education, healthcare, wealth accumulation, and on and on and on. Publication of misinformation like the feedback comment from Mr. Stahl allows those that deny the realities of systemic racism to proceed comfortably with their discriminatory policies and practices with the belief that we have moved on to a postracial society.
I am very disappointed in the publication and the University that espouses its antiracist positions would publish a comment like this, which is the same as representing it as truth. Please consider the damage you endorse and the setbacks you might promote by printing in black and white that racism no longer exists in the country.
Richard Souto (Sargent’92)
New Paltz, N.Y.
In the Fall 2022 issue “Feedback” section, a lawyer declared that systemic racism is a thing of the past.
Of course not. There are seven major federal buildings and courthouses in the US named after Confederate leaders and openly racist politicians. THAT is systemic racism.
According to a study done by Education Week, about 340 schools in 20 states bear the names of Confederate figures. THAT is systemic racism.
There are geographic features that honor people who presided over Native American slaughters. THAT is systemic racism.
There are 10 major military installations named after Confederate military leaders. THAT is systemic racism.
ALL Confederate leaders were—and still are—enemies of the United States. They are traitors. They and their followers murdered American citizens, yet for 77 years we have allowed them to be honored and glorified, with almost nary a peep. That SCREAMS systemic racism.
Yet we allow people to honor Confederate leaders. If that is okay, why don’t we have a Fort Erwin Rommel, a Yamamoto Naval Base, a Tojo University, a Himmler US Courthouse?
Sure, people are making an effort to erase things that have existed for generations. But anything that is allowed to exist or persist, whether by design, ignorance, or laziness, is systemic.
Glenn Troester (COM’68)
Loveland, Colo.
An Important Case Omitted
I read the review of major 2022 US Supreme Court cases in the Fall 2022 issue (“Guns, God, Abortion, and Affirmative Action: How the US Supreme Court’s Historic Decisions in 2022 Will Impact Americans for Generations to Come”) and was disappointed by the omission of a discussion on the court’s changes to Miranda rights in Vega v. Tekoh. Like most of the media outlets, School of Law [faculty] failed to discuss this major criminal law reform and the related impact to come for minorities. I found better coverage in Esquire magazine.
Mishael Azam (LAW’01)
Cherry Hill, N.J.
Irked by the Term “Latinx”
I realize that it is difficult to navigate preferences of identification for entire ethnic, racial, or gender groups (“If Hispanics Hate the Term ‘Latinx,’ Why Is It Still Used?”). However, I felt compelled to point out my own view on the term as a Latino and BU alum, as I keep seeing the term used in BU publications. I have also read how the term is largely unpopular among Hispanics in multiple national surveys.
I do not identify with the term Latinx. In short, after 45 years of people not of my same culture deciding what my “label” is—from Latin, Hispanic, Mexican American—I’ve personally made the decision to not accept, nor support the term. A fundamental part of why I consider myself Latino is the Spanish language itself, and Latinx makes no grammatical sense in Spanish. While the term certainly may originate from noble intentions and is meant to be a term of inclusivity, in disregarding what the Latino culture and root language already was, it does the opposite. It originates from an English-speaking country that disregards how Latin Americans see themselves.
Again, I realize that non-Latino/Latinas may have difficulty understanding this, and it is impossible to cater to everyone’s preferences. However, I cannot help being irked every time I see this label that is intended to identify me. Further, it is personally more irritating when I see it coming from my own alma mater.
Jesse Arteaga (MET’17)
Monterey, Calif.
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.