Boston University Catholic chaplain forced out of his position after email to Catholics there suggesting that the killing of George Floyd was not an a

[Hodos]

I agree, those are probably not the best examples. But I think you still understand what I’m saying–you have some impulse to do something, and by recognizing that impulse, you can consciously try to control it. Over-eating? Anorexia? Fear of dogs? The criticism of certain examples may be valid, but it doesn’t invalidate the concept.

No, I understand what you mean, I just completely reject the argument for several reasons. The first being, I don’t think criminality is based on thoughts, it is based on what you do. I might have lustful thoughts, but that doesn’t make me a rapist. Second, I don’t think it is useful. If someone has biases and prejudices that they make decisions not to act upon, they aren’t a racist. And calling them a racist removes the incentive to not act them out. If I purposefully don’t act upon bad thoughts or prejudices because I recognize them as bad, but you still call me a racist, then what’s the point of not acting them out? The entire idea you are forwarding is logically inconsistent, and is not pragmatic for teaching people to act as they ought toward one another.

 

[StudentMI]

It has more to do with what another called the pop psychology of your argument. You’re redefining the word it seems to the point that everyone is a racist and can do nothing to help it. I might be misunderstanding but that seems like a redefinition.

 

[Polak]

Having read the email, I’m one of the people who didn’t see anything that bad in it. Agreed that perhaps he didn’t need to mention Floyd’s criminal record, particularly at such a sensitive time, but he clearly wrote after that, that this doesn’t justify him being killed.

His asking people not to jump to conclusions that Floyd died because of racism or that the police are racist in general, is totally fair.

It’s possible that the quote was taken out of context? I don’t see a link to what the priest actually wrote.

The full email was posted by @Tis_Bearself somewhere in the first dozen replies or so.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

It is redefining of the use of the word racism. And trying to convince people of “implicit racism”, insisting that everyone acknowledges their racism, is beyond tone deaf. It’s counterproductive.

Let’s talk “counterproductive” for a minute. Let’s say I am the white chief of police of a large city. Someone accuses me of “racism.” And I respond: “I am not and never have been a racist! My deputy chief is black! We have the same proportion of black officers as blacks in the general population! I have never discriminated against anyone because of their race!” And let’s say for the sake of argument that this is all true. But then I go home to my all-white neighborhood, where my children go to an all-white school. When I go on vacation I go to…let’s say Norway. I eat at restaurants owned by whites and staffed by whites. When we have friends over, they are all white. None of this is “wrong.” To a large extent it’s normal. But it sure does suggest a preference for white people–let’s call it “implicit racism” just for fun. Now the question is, does this leak over into how you do your job? Do you use the same words to describe black criminals that you use for white criminals? Do you promote people on purely objective criteria? Do you concentrate on crimes more apt to be committed by one race rather than another? Does your police force treat every traffic stop the same way–are white folks more apt to get a warning and black folks a ticket? Is backup called at the same rate for white and black drivers? We could go on and on.

My point is that saying “I’m not racist” only applies to extrinsic racism. Blatant racism. In-your-face racism. Whatever you want to call it. Now the police chief could easily say to himself, “Not being blatantly and openly racist is not enough. Our department needs to make sure we’re treating everyone exactly the same way, regardless of race.” And then you could go on to address all the questions I raised in the previous paragraph. If a policeman calls a black criminal “an animal” but never says that about a white criminal, he needs to be reprimanded. You could make objective rules about calling for backup. And so on. THAT would be productive.

And using a phrase–implicit racism–that has been around for 60 years is not “new.” And it’s not a re-definition, as I keep saying and you keep denying.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You’re redefining the word it seems to the point that everyone is a racist and can do nothing to help it. I might be misunderstanding but that seems like a redefinition.

Wow. Deja vu. I can only repeat things so many times… “Everyone is a racist.” Absolutely–you’ve got it! But NOT in the sense YOU mean. I suspect you mean that being a “racist” means that you actively discriminate against people of a different race or ethnic group. And certainly that exists. But are you denying that people have a preference for their own race or ethnic group–not just consciously, but unconsciously? If you are, I think you are wrong, and there is all sorts of evidence to show that. Just pick up a newspaper or watch TV.

Let me repeat myself yet again: Let’s say you are only aware of African elephants. I come along and say, “Look over here–there is another kind of elephant! Indian elephants!” Am I “re-defining” the word “elephant”? In a sense, yes, because I am I pointing out a piece of reality you weren’t aware of. But am I changing the concept of “elephant”? I’m sure you could still tell the difference between an elephant and a dog.

everyone is a racist and can do nothing to help it

God give me patience. Haven’t you read ANY of my posts? Of course you can do something about it. Step 1: recognize you are implicitly racist (as we all are). Step 2: Try to see how that might affect your actions–note: actions. Step 3: Formulate strategies to make your actions less instinctive (i.e. implicitly racist) and more objective.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I don’t think criminality is based on thoughts, it is based on what you do.

I agree 100%. That is why I keep repeating–maybe you missed this part–that “implicit racism” in itself is normal, natural, and neither good nor bad. It only becomes “bad” when it results in bad actions. So calling you an “implicit racist” is not an insult. It’s like saying “You have two hands.” Yes, you do. So what?

I might have lustful thoughts, but that doesn’t make me a rapist.

Exactly what I have been saying. If you are implicitly racist, that does not mean you translate that into actions that make you explicitly racist.

I don’t think it is useful. If someone has biases and prejudices that they make decisions not to act upon, they aren’t a racist.

Sort of an awkward sentence there…“they make decisions NOT to act on…”? If you wrote exactly what you mean, we again agree 100%. If I know I have a bias or prejudice to watch horror movies, and I know that my friend doesn’t like horror movies, I can make a decision (conscious!) not to suggest to my friend that we go see horror movies all the time. But if I don’t recognize my bias, I’m not going to stop asking my friend to go see horror movies.

And calling them a racist removes the incentive to not act them out.

There is a huge chasm between calling someone a “racist” --by which we commonly mean “explicit racism” and saying that we ALL are implicitly racist–which is not a “bad” thing in itself, as I keep repeating over and over and over and over…

If I purposefully don’t act upon bad thoughts or prejudices because I recognize them as bad, but you still call me a racist,

But I wouldn’t. But if you say “I’m not a racist” but then do subtle, indirect actions that show preference for one race or ethnic group over another, then yes, you’re a racist. But again, there are degrees, just as there are with sexual misconduct. You could hold the hand of someone you’re shaking hands with longer than usual so that it becomes creepy. Or you could rape them. Big difference. So I agree, calling someone “racist” for minor or unconscious actions is over the top. Just like you wouldn’t term someone who holds your hand longer than usual “a sexual predator.” We should be more nuanced in all these terms.

The entire idea you are forwarding is logically inconsistent, and is not pragmatic for teaching people to act as they ought toward one another.

There we disagree 100%. It is entirely consistent, and it is 100% useful and pragmatic.

 

[lagerald24]

Yeah, I’d largely agree with what you said. Implicit bias in a racial context is definitely something that exists, everyone should be able to agree, just as everyone has implicit biases, as I said earlier, lurking in the back of their mind. Like all shadowy phantasms in our mind, they are hard to pin down, identify, and submit to truth and reason, though like all hasty overgeneralizations, they can be overcome to some extent if you have the will to do it. And yeah, we all agree that implicit bias isn’t evil or sinful in itself, sometimes we don’t even realize that it’s there. However, we can all also agree that it is wrong to feed and foster any kind of unjust descriminatory thought/judgment against others, it’s a form of hatred and hurtful falsehood.

I think that most people can agree that the large extent of the American system in our current day is not institutionally racist or descriminatory. We all should also be able to agree that the blatant, systematic racism that once held a place of high prominence in our country still continues to affect American even today. Just because we make something illegal doesn’t cause it all to completely disappear. We can change the letter of the law but we can’t do as much for people’s hearts and minds, though I believe great strides have been taken in such reform, though like all cases of sin and irrationality, we are always in need of personal renovation as individuals and also as groups. By the way, I took that implicit bias test that you posted here earlier. I have to say, it’s kind of interesting. I felt somewhat manipulated, in a way at least, when it had the whole thing about pressing the 2 keys and all. It had you become accustomed to pressing the specific key when you were told to, and pressing the other key when you were supposed to. Then, when they switched the categories, it kinda threw me for a loop, though maybe that was the purpose of the test… I dunno, I’m no expert on that kind of thing.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

By the way, I took that implicit bias test that you posted here earlier. I have to say, it’s kind of interesting.

I’ve taken it too, of course. The result? I “strongly favor” whites. No surprise. As I’ve said, I’m of an older generation (72). I would be interested in seeing the results broken down by age groups. I strongly suspect that the younger you are, the less implicit bias you have.

And yes, the law is one thing, but changing behavior is another. I once worked at a place with 90 employees. It was common knowledge that when you turned 50 you had better start looking for a new job. I lasted until 52. Illegal? Yes. Could you “prove” it? Probably not.

Another workplace example of “implicit racism / bias” was another place I worked. Again, about 90 employees. When a visitor came, we would all delight in taking him/her down a certain corridor and then asking “Did you notice anything a bit strange?” Usually they did–the entire corridor was filled with pretty blonde women in their 20’s. The boss of that corridor simply liked to surround himself with pretty young blondes. Illegal? Probably. Did it stop him? No.

Another personal example. Once I applied for a dream job as editor of a scholarly journal. They didn’t even interview me. But they made the big mistake of announcing who they hired on their website and giving their credentials. We both got our BS at the same university. We both got our MAs at the same university. But there the similarities stopped: I had two other MA’s plus all but dissertation for a PhD. The person they hired had absolutely no experience in editing. I had edited books (published by Cambridge U Press no less) and articles by scholars in the field they were hiring for. I had done that for 25+ years. I had been the supervisor of teams of people in several jobs. The person they hired had never supervised anyone. Why did they hire this person? Age…I was 55+, they were 25 or so. Illegal? Yes. I even took it to the EOEC. They were rubbing their hands in delight at having a slam dunk case. But the organization involved claimed they had only 19 full time employees and thus were exempt from the law.

 

[Lucy_1]

I feel so lost. I’m glad Jesus knows what’s going on and what to do, because I am clueless.

 

[lagerald24]

Yes, that is very interesting and thought-provoking, I’ve heard a lot of stories like that, with people being layed-off at work for their age and various other factors. Definitely lots of bias in many places, to be sure.

By the way, I sent that implicit bias test to all my friends, and my African American friend took it and was told that he is moderately in favor of whites… And so, I’m kind of having some little qualms about that specific test, seeing as how it can be somewhat manipulative, especially with the whole keyboard and constantly-switching category thing and all. I don’t know, kind of interesting.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’m of an older generation (72)

I see.

What’s novel to a Boomer is not novel to most everyone else who is younger. Have a nice day.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Agreed that perhaps he didn’t need to mention Floyd’s criminal record, particularly at such a sensitive time

Why does he not have to mention it. 95% of the media has not mentioned one word of it and thank God for at least some smaller sources that report the facts. I would bet the vast majority of those peaceful protesting and rioting have no idea of his criminal past. His past is a fact and while I agree he should not have been murdered, it is relevant because this man is being held up as a Saint.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Step 1: recognize you are implicitly racist (as we all are). Step 2: Try to see how that might affect your actions–note: actions. Step 3: Formulate strategies to make your actions less instinctive (i.e. implicitly racist) and more objective.

Most people are already doing this. Suggesting that people are being racist without noticing it seems silly.

 

[JSAD]

It’s unfortunate . You can’t have a differing opinion. The trial hasn’t even started yet and everyone has made a judgement .

If he said Trump or bush did not lead a virtuous life, he would have been left alone and probably even celebrated

 

[Erikaspirit16]

my African American friend took it and was told that he is moderately in favor of whites…

Yes, that’s common. Malcolm Gladwell (half black–Jamaican) talks about the test in one of his books. He took it multiple times. Each time he had a bias towards whites, no matter how hard he tried. But this is borne out by other studies–for example, what color doll do black children prefer? White ones. And of course it’s built into the English language: white = purity, grace, celebration, light, etc. black = evil, night, black-hearted, dirty, etc. But of course this is the point!

And yes, you can criticize the test on this or that point (and many have). But it has been used for over 20 years and has that huge database of 14.5 million test takers. And it’s similar to many other types of psychological tests that depend on reaction time. So until a better test comes along…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Suggesting that people are being racist without noticing it seems silly.

And that attitude is precisely why people are protesting in the streets.

 

[StudentMI]

And that attitude is precisely why people are protesting in the streets.

Well according to your analysis we’ll probably never see the end of it due to ‘implicit’ racism.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And that attitude is precisely why people are protesting in the streets.

There is more deliberation in making major decisions that merit outrage.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Well according to your analysis we’ll probably never see the end of it due to ‘implicit’ racism.

I think everyone would agree things have improved. Will they improve to the point that implicit racism disappears? Maybe.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There is more deliberation in making major decisions that merit outrage.

No idea what that means. If you’re implying there are other issues to be outraged about, I agree. But if you’re implying this is simply issue #45 in a list of 100 issues, I would disagree. Right now it’s issue #1, and to a lot of people it has always been #1.