Thanks, Khytie, for posting so many moving and thought-provoking pieces for us to consider as we conclude the course and look to the future of race and race relations in America. In class, I expressed criticism of Anderson’s discussion of integration, claiming that while certainly expressing ideals (as Khytie explains is the purpose of non-ideal theory), it was not practical (was not able to be implemented in an imperfect world). In my response paper, I expressed this critique in more detail, pointing out the ways in which current (and generalized) race relations might prevent people from taking action to implement the idealized world of open and considerate conversations and interactions Anderson presents in The Imperative of Integration. As I consider the role of Afrofuturism, however, in allowing the opportunity to imagine creative new solutions that defy the bounds of society, I realize how close-minded my critiques may have been. Certainly, when the bounds and norms of society as it is are oppressive and restrict the flourishing of human life of non-white people, it is necessary to imagine solutions that push these bounds and norms – as Anderson and practitioners of Afrofuturism do. While I know very little about the sociology of social movements, I am aware of the colloquial debate about whether working within the system or working to transform the system is most effective in creating positive social change. I do not pretend to have evidence for either method, but, again, I think that there is value in looking to push the boundaries of what is considered possible. My question remains, though, how we can use these dreams and creative solutions to create real change for real people right now? Will creating change for these people detract from the ideal solution Anderson and others present? Is it possible for those in power to buy into this ideal? While looking forward is important, I also think it is critical to look at what is happening right now and what can be done right now to benefit others. Whether these two things are mutually exclusive is beyond my knowledge.

Given Khytie’s helpful expansion on the meaning and implications of non-ideal theory, I am even more convinced than before that The Imperative of Integration was the most fitting work to conclude the course discussion. Anderson’s work advocates for social change toward a specific ideal form of a just society while also recognizing the unjust circumstances in which she operates. As students of and advocates for black communities, this seems like only effective method, broadly speaking, to begin addressing the issues of racial inequality that we have discussed throughout our course.

Looking forward, it seems important to continue acknowledging our imperfect circumstances as we work toward equality, because that acknowledgement requires a skepticism of our strides toward racial progress. Beyond Anderson, this skepticism has been central to many of the works we have read in the course. Pattillo analyzes how black middle class communities are still affected by the disadvantages of poverty. Tyson highlights the persistence and consequences of racially charged academic tracking in “racially integrated” schools. The persistent questioning of social advances toward racial equality, inherent to Anderson’s non-ideal theoretical approach and critical to many of the core messages of our coursework, is one of my primary take-aways from the course.

To take liberty on analyzing Janelle Monae’s lyrics, it seems that in academic study and policymaking around racial inequality, it is imperative to remember that the racial construct inherently disadvantages those identified as black. Therefore, even as we look toward specific visions of racial equity (afro-futuristic or otherwise), it is important to recognize that with each advance, our racial progress is still “in a bind” of flawed circumstances—circumstances that we must continue to criticize if we should continue to progress.

The structures that perpetuate racism are very real and are relatively concrete. If this is true, what is the purpose of political philosophy? Political philosophy operates in a world that is unrealistic and finds absolute solutions that aren’t actually practical in the real world. This line of thinking may raise the question of why have any types of philosophy at all, but I’ll focus on political philosophy for the purpose of this post. It might make more sense to focus on actual political policy since that could actually create actionable ideas for application in reality. However, there may be a certain purpose to political philosophy in that actual goals that would be ideally reached in the real world are mapped out.

In The Imperative of Integration, Anderson takes a stance that is political pseudo-philosophy. This is characterized by the fact that she takes a more non-ideal approach than would be taken by someone writing a piece of political philosophy and by the fact that even though it is more realistic than political philosophy, it is still not incredibly practical. As mentioned in class, this could be so that he book isn’t evaluated to the level of a piece of political philosophy, but it leaves Anderson in somewhat of a limbo. Not quite ideal enough and not quite practical enough. However, it could be argued that she strikes a balance between the two that yields some of the benefits of both (but also probably has the inconveniences of both as well).

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2r3rjh

Our class discussion and reading The Hidden Cost of Being African American caused me to think of the Chris Rock video that I included above. In this video, he talks about the difference between rich and wealthy. Perhaps the most striking example that he gives is: “Shaq is rich. The white man that signs his check is wealthy”. While Chris Rock is joking since he says all of this in comedy show, it is funny because it is true. It is difficult for black people in this country to accrue wealth, stemming from when the black community had no wealth.

Chris Rock also speaks beyond the power structure of wealth by commenting on how it is enduring. He says “Wealth is passed down from generation to generation. You can’t get rid of wealth. Rich is some sh*t you can lose with a crazy summer and a drug habit”. Wealth is powerful because it is something that is long lasting. Also, wealth builds on itself and allows for future generations to amass more of it. There is a saying that “money is power”, but it may be more accurate to say that wealth is power.

I enjoyed watching the footage of Shapiro speaking at the symposium at Brown, and I think he brought up some interesting points that complemented his text we were assigned. One thing that stuck with me as I continued watching, were his opening words on how the issue of the wealth gap is really something that only recently has been on the minds of the general public. He speaks with optimism as he points out that he’s been working more and more with “not just researchers and academics” but “community organizers and advocates and locally based community organizations across the country” as well. He also mentions how even up to two years ago, no one was speaking about this issue at all and now there’s a whole symposium. He credits some of this general awareness of the problem to President Obama speaking at the the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and saying, “we’ve made great economic progress between the races but the racial wealth gap is still growing” because these words helped steer public conversation and give the movement legitimacy.

My concern however, is how are we going to address the general cultural view on wealth and this gap? Even now that there’s this symposium and a whole body of academic work on the wealth gap, wealth/income/money are all topics that tend to bring out the defensive worst in all of us. I fear that real change cannot be achieved unless there’s a fundamental shift towards transparency and openness in discussing wealth. With the fizzle out of the anti 1% protesters and the political determination to not alienate those with these campaign donation funds, I’m not very optimistic about the future of this conversation moving forward.

Thomas Shapiro’s The Hidden Cost of Being African American poses a persuasive and moving argument, using both qualitative and quantitative evidence to paint a vivid image of racial wealth inequality and its dire consequences for life outcomes of non-white individuals. He claims that asset policy would mitigate some of these negative consequences, insisting that the way policies treat the assets of white and non-white individuals must be addressed before true racial equality can be achieved. In the video Khytie posted, Shapiro acknowledges the slim chances of such policy reform being enacted, stating, “It’s a question of political will.” This statement reflected my exact thoughts as I was reading his book. Is there anyone in power who is willing to change the policies that, in very subtle and scary ways, benefit them and perpetuate their privilege? Beyond this, how likely is it that those who benefit from inheritance and current asset policies will be willing to take a critical eye to how their wealth-related privileges reflect others’ oppression? Will they accept Shapiro’s argument? Will they find ways to justify their behaviors and privileges? History and current thoughts about wealth indicate that the answer to this last question is “yes.”

In his conclusion, Shapiro notes that Americans tend to have entrenched thoughts that the ability to pass on privileges and opportunities onto one’s children is an inviolable right. I use my father as an example of this attitude – he believes that if one works hard and is successful, one should be able to use this success to benefit his or her children. This ties back to the American Dream ideology – where the idea that hard work pays off in the land of opportunity is a foundational belief for many people in power in America. Not only does this ideology make sense of people’s success in a validating way, but it also serves as a explanation and justification for why some people do not make it. While Shapiro’s book provides concrete and persuasive evidence that the American Dream is a falsehood, I think it is hard for people to translate an intellectual understanding that the American Dream is not real into practical action that reduces one’s own privilege. This is apparent in the article Quinn mentioned in class – people may recognize that the way society is set up is unfair, but they are unwilling to sacrifice the ways in which they benefit from this set-up (like private, high-quality education) in order to ameliorate social inequality. With this knowledge, how can we expect that people will be willing to level the wealth playing field? What kind of ideological and political change is necessary for an intellectual understanding of social inequality to become translated into practical action and policies that actually address it? Perhaps this is a pessimistic view of the future of racial inequality in America, and it certainly is derived from Marxist ways of thinking. But throughout my reading of The Hidden Cost I found myself wondering how our unequal society could possibly rearrange its policies and structures to get rid of this pervasive, subtle form of racial inequality that is grounded in American Dream ideology and provides concrete and lasting benefits to those in power and their families.

Karoline Tyson noted that young children she interviewed rarely mentioned race, at least with adults in school settings. Conversations about race are seldom initiated in elementary school classrooms, and the researchers themselves avoided bringing up race with younger students unless the students they interviewed broached the subject. By and large, these students made no mention of race: one student described his classmates by “nearly every physical characteristic but race.” Until middle school or later, these students avoid discussing race.

I wondered what might result in this silence on the topic. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with the subject in general. Perhaps they view race as inappropriate for discussing with in-school authorities because they never see it discussed in this setting. Perhaps they lack the vocabulary to discuss it. Or perhaps, for some, neighborhoods and schools were so racially segregated that differences were rarely visible among students’ peers – as was the case at my elementary school.

Regardless of the cause, it seems that an unwillingness to even acknowledge racial differences (at least among teachers and school administrators, if they are fearful of starting conversations with young students) have prevented authorities from recognizing the biases inherent in the system and in their own judgments of students. Du Bois’s observations about the importance of recognizing unconscious prejudices are particularly salient here: the tacit perpetuation of racism in schools has serious consequences for students’ academic self-concepts and feelings of belonging or alienation in school, and ultimately contributes to racial achievement gaps.

Integration Interrupted and Aboubacar Ndiaye’s article “Black Boys Have an Easier Time Fitting in at Suburban Schools than Black Girls” both highlight the importance of making school a place where black students feel like they belong. Tyson writes about how the institutional and social association of whiteness with academic achievement can contribute to negative academic and social outcomes for black students, and points out in Chapter Three that students who have a strong sense of self and who feel as though academic achievement is a part of their identity are better able to resist ‘oppositional culture’ and continue doing well in school. Ndiaye notes that white suburban students are more socially accepting of black boys than black girls, creating better social outcomes for black boys. In both these works, students’ identities are such that school validates who they are and tangibly rewards their identities (although it may not reward all parts of their individual identities). Du Bois also highlights this in his essay “Does the Negro Need Separate Schools?”, pointing out that white schools will not accept and value black children or their culture.

This trend reminded me of Lisa Delpit’s book Other People’s Children, which advocates for a restructured and rethought approach to teaching non-white children (specifically, black children and Native Alaskan children). Part of her argument states that the cultural disconnect between white-led public schools and white teachers creates an unwelcoming and oppressive environment for black children. She talks about how good teaching means teachers create spaces and curricula that value AAVE and African-American history and culture just as it does so for white students and their culture. While Du Bois’s essay discusses the teacher’s role in reproducing demeaning spaces, the other works we read glossed over this point (though Integration Interrupted talks about racist interactions between teachers and black students, Tyson doesn’t explore the individual interactions and elements of teaching that produce racial inequality – though she could have if she had explored how students get placed in gifted programs). I think that studying the individual interactions between teachers, curriculum, and black students can give more insight into how black students are treated in a school setting. According to the above sources, the way that students feel and their sense of belonging have a huge impact on how they perform in school. It is important to study their experiences in school in a deep way – like Delpit did – to understand exactly where these feelings come from and how they are influenced by institutional actors like teachers.

Among people who are educated on the subject or simply can read statistics, there is little disagreement on how black students under-achieve in the classroom in comparison to their white counterparts, even when controlling for socio-economic circumstance. However, there is a debate about whether culture or structure has a larger effect on black success in schools. I think that culture has a way of informing the structure. Specifically, in this instance I think that the “acting white” slur contributes to causing structural inequities. It can also be said that the structure is informing the culture and is the reason some black students say others “act white”.

Black students who tell other black students that they are white because of their academic prowess affect the will of black students who want and capable of academic excellence. This can cause a systematic shift by encouraging black kids not to take the most difficult classes, and this would help create the structural inequity, among other causes. Also, it is possible that the fact that white students are much more prevalent in higher-level classes causes the “acting white” slur to exist. Black students mostly see white kids in those classes and therefore want associate academic success with whiteness. This leads them to call some fellow black students white and further perpetuates the system as the black students who are called white continued to be discouraged.

A lot of the points that DuBois brought up in his essay are still very valid today, especially regarding the disparagement a lot of HBCUs receive in comparison to more elite (i.e. whiter, older, richer) institutions. Between Integration Interrupted and “Does the Negro Need Separate Schools” a lot of the arguments that are pro-HBCU are represented. Black students face a lot of obstacles while attending majority white schools; teacher bias, racial insensitivity, and a general lack of support, and these are all issues that would be lessened by attendance at an HBCU. When another incident makes headlines in a few months, this debate will come back to life again I’m sure. Every single year that I’ve been here, there has been a racial incident on campus. The Affirmative Action article by Sarah Siskand, Zimmerman’s Trial, and most recently the defacing of African American professor’s portraits at HLS. Student activism towards these events has been met with mixed reactions from a majority white student populace. Allies are vocal, but a lot of students feel discomfort and irritation over what they see as needless divisions on campus and aggressive flyers and posters. With the recent events at Yale, Mizzou, and predominantly white institutions nationwide, the classic HBCU vs. PWI is on the minds of a lot of students again. The readings from last week were an interesting supplement to real life happenings.

Studying the black family seems like tricky business to me. Walter Allen explores this in “The Search for Applicable Theories of Black Family Life,” noting the “tendency to impose ethnocentric values on the analysis.” (1) While he explored the implications of different objective and subjective frameworks through which to study black family life in the 1970s, it seems that this domain of study continues to be made murky and complex by the judgments (implicit and explicit) that are the foundation for studies of the black family.

With perhaps the exception of “Romantic Unions in an Era of Uncertainty,” all of the articles we read used the social norm-based definition of a “good” family structure: a heterosexual married couple raising children together in the same home. The studies to do not seem to be asking the questions like “What are the dynamics, norms, values, and behaviors that mark black family life?” but “Why don’t black families ‘live up to’ the norms set by society for family life?” In other words, the focus is, from the start, on why black families are different from the (white-set) norm, rather than looking at the black family as an independent institution that, like other groups of people, tries to make meaning and prosperity out of a certain set of circumstances. (As an aside, studying “black families” seems to be an instance of homogenizing the black community and failing to recognize the sub-communities and differences between individuals and groups. This, I think, contributes to the ‘culture’ argument by painting the black community with one brush.) While there are some elements of the ‘norm’ that could be considered objectively beneficial to individuals, like economic and emotional stability, it is unclear whether some of the benefits that come with the ‘traditional’ family structure are ‘good’ because that is what is rewarded by our society or whether it actually makes for objectively favorable conditions. I agree with Allen that the “cultural variant” subjective approach is probably best in that it is most separate from the “ethnocentric” lens that colors so many studies of black family life and reinforces harmful and inaccurate stereotypes of members of the black community. The question, then, is how to deviate from the norm of asking and answering comparative questions about black families and to move toward asking ‘cultural variant’ questions that objectively evaluate the processes of making and maintaining a family in the black community.

I really enjoyed Patrick Sharkey’s Stuck In Place this week because it really gave a lot of food for thought. I took a sociology course last year on Money, Work and Social Life that was offered for joint credit with the Economics department, and some of the people in my class were definitely there for more of an ec perspective than a sociological one. In section, someone suggested (with total seriousness) that the focus on black advancement is pointless because black families make more today than they ever have in the past…

The ways black economic advancement is used to discredit the need for social programs and assistance is always crazy to me, because so much work still needs to be done. On that note, I really liked that Sharkey directly addressed the ways in which black economic advancement has actually been incorrectly pumped up due to immigration. Indisputably, there has absolutely been large economic progress made, but this cannot distract from the large work that still lies ahead.

As Jonathan mentioned in his post, a theme Professor Bobo touched on in class this week was the difficulty of proving racial discrimination as an outcome of a process, or at least, the difficulty of receiving reparations or redress for discrimination without also being able to prove intent. I was really fascinated by this idea and how it came to be–when Professor Bobo mentioned it, it sounded exactly like what was legally valid in this country–but also sounded so  wrong. How did this come to be the standard for proving discrimination in our country? It just so happened that my constitutional law class began to look at cases related to race this past week, and so I was actually able to get a better picture of the situation. A 1976 case on federal hiring procedures, Washington v. Davis, led to the court setting a precedent that said that laws resulting in disparate impact for minorities do not meet with strict scrutiny from the court (which is to say that they are largely permissible) unless discriminatory intent can also be proved. From reading Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, I learned that this standard has set us down a path of ignoring and/or legally validating policies and processes that disproportionately affect and hurt African-Americans and other minority community, simply because there is no proof of intent. Alexander specifically discusses this in the context of criminal justice, explaining how and why stop and frisk policies (Terry v. Ohio), disparate sentencing (McCleskey v. Kemp), and biased jury selection (a number of different cases, including one in front of the Court last week) have been legalized by the Supreme Court. This is yet another example of structural racial inequity in the United States, and one that is not often talked about. In school you learn about a number of different Supreme Court cases–the ones that guarantee rights, not take them away. Lack of public awareness about these policies is harmful, perpetuating negative and inaccurate stereotypes and reducing public will for policy change.

I am wondering about the subtitle of Patrick Sharkey’s Stuck In Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. The portion of the title that I have underlined is what intrigues me: is this really the end of progress? Before reading the book, I expected to read about a pessimistic present and future for non-white racial groups, one in which structures and institutions create insurmountable barriers to racial equality. I was prepared to argue with what I assumed would be Sharkey’s conclusion, drawing on points from other texts in this course like Black Citymakers and Renegade Dreams in which agency plays a major role in influencing how these structures and institutions affect blacks’ life chances.

I found, however, that Sharkey does not emphasize any form of “the end of progress toward racial equality” in his book. He certainly focuses on structural barriers that prevent racial equality and specifically highlights the ways in which neighborhood and context are influenced by institutions and social processes, noting how the sum of these parts contribute to racial inequality. He doesn’t, however, note any “end of progress.” His data do not even point to clear-cut discrepancies between blacks and white – there is always a small percentage of a group that does not match the trend, and in some cases this minority is substantial. Further, he suggests solutions to low “contextual mobility,” drawing on evidence from studies and projects already put into place, some of which were had positive outcomes that bettered the life chances of blacks. These initiatives seem to be in direct conflict with his title’s claim of “the end of progress.” While I don’t believe that these small-scale successes are indicative of great progress, given the pervasive forms of racial oppression in our society, they certainly do not indicate “the end” of progress, either. Sharkey goes on to propose durable policy solutions that draw from the micro-success of these initiatives, further implying that racial progress can still happen with social changes. It seems, then, that “the end of racial progress” is not upon us, especially in light of what we’ve read by other authors. This makes me wonder why this was included in the subtitle – to attract readers with an engaging claim, perhaps? I feel that it is not an accurate indicator of what Sharkey’s work contributes to the literature on racial inequality.

Despite this disconnect between his book and his title, there are some things included in Sharkey’s work and in the article Khytie posted that might confirm a pessimistic Marxist view of racial dynamics today. The structural barriers that Sharkey points to as the source of racial inequality through low levels of contextual mobility indicate that powerful institutions are structured in a way to limit what can be done to reduce and eliminate racial inequality. Sharkey uses this information in discussing potential solutions to racial inequality when he notes that funds are not being used in a way that is beneficial to the black community, but rather harm it in deep and persistent ways. The Center for Justice Mapping highlights this point in its Texas 2005 presentation, when it concludes that “substantial state resources are dedicate to removals, but little on return.” In other words, Texas spends a significant amount of time and money on imprisoning people, but does little to ensure a smooth transition back to their communities and lives. The money is spent in a way that negatively affects blacks’ life chances and does not address the issues that limit life chances (i.e. lack of resources and opportunities). This kind of observation implies that a large upheaval of the ways in which money and resources are allocated is needed to truly bring an end of progress toward racial INequality.

Over the past few weeks, starting with Black Picket Fences, we have gotten a closer look at the roles that gangs play in Black communities across the country. Of course, gangs are portrayed by the mass media as an entirely destructive force, but gangs play multiple roles within these communities. Some of these roles have a positive impact; others have a negative impact. It is well publicized how most gangs take part in the drug-selling business as well as participate in violent crime. However, it is seldom discussed how gangs function as social and support networks both within the gang itself and extending into the community. The people who form these gangs are from the communities and areas where the gang resides and forms its territory. Therefore, they are personally invested in these communities and aren’t purposely trying to destroy them. I’m not going to argue that they don’t cause harm to the communities however. The drug dealing and violent crime are certainly not constructive and are often detrimental. The dual impact of gangs on communities makes it difficult to decipher if gangs are a positive social institution for the communities or a harmful band of criminals. The answer is probably somewhere in between.

Black Picket Fences, Renegade Dreams, and our class discussions have made me think critically about the disconnect between the actual role gangs play in various communities and the popular societal perceptions of this role. Both Pattillo and Ralph made clear that gangs have had various involvements in different neighborhoods, often serving as a voice in political associations, protecting neighborhoods from crime from other groups, maintaining community resources such as parks, and more. This is widely different from the widespread perception of gangs as inciting criminal activity, and promoting a lawless, unproductive lifestyle. Although aspects of these popular notions are true in different degrees with different situations, I think these other aspects of gangs must also be discussed more widely. I tried to find more literature and articles on this issue, and found a few brief pieces, including an opinion piece from the Guardian that spoke about gangs as “tribes”, highlighting their role as a community and as a support system over their criminal activity. It seems that a significant amount of legislation has attempted to eliminate gangs through a number of means, but obviously, this hasn’t been successful, and I don’t think this is realistic. I wonder if there is a set of policies that could be used that would support gangs in their occasional role as community organizers and advocates, and as a support network and brotherhood, while disincentivizing the criminal activities associated with turf maintenance and drug dealing. I think a large piece of this is better controlling drugs in general, which is a war that was met with extremely racialized criminal justice  provisions that have done nothing to eliminate the drug trade, but instead have imprisoned millions of black and Latinx individuals. While this is a large and complex battle, my question is more about gangs themselves. Can they exist somehow without the same level of criminal activity? Is there some worth in some of the actions they take, and can these be incentivized and prioritized over more criminal activities?

Ralph’s work Renegade Dreams was one of the most interesting books I’ve read for this class so far. I shopped his course on race and health, so I had a very loose idea of some of the concepts he brought forth regarding the physical health disparities and unequal access and allelopathic stress. But reading Renegade Dreams made me take a step back and really comprehend that health in these communities is more layered than just physical wellbeing. The “13 shot, 4 dead overnight across the city, what about the 9 who are injured” idea was literally eye opening for me. It had never been something that crossed my mind, and this was one of the many illuminating features of the book.

On that note, I think the video Khytie posted about the Black Guerrilla Family of the Bloods and Crips uniting ties in because of the constant media misrepresentation of gang activity. Ralph really brings to light how strategic and truly organized gangs are, and how they can even be an asset to a community that’s gone underserved by the actual government that should be fulfilling those needs. There’s a mental toll that comes from having an entire body of dehumanizing and brutalizing media propagated perceptions of you and your community, and I think it’s something to keep in mind.