Author: rena pinkhasov

Living in a democratic, “post – racial” society, we still often here the words ‘racism’ and ‘inequality’. Racial gaps within education, employment, and income are prevalent in todays time and in order to address these grievances, the “Black Lives Matter” movement arose, focusing on the injustices in the legal system.

Data and statistics show that white households net worth is more than ten times that of Hispanics and Blacks, more Caucasians earn degrees than African Americans, and that an African American is more likely to go to jail. If there is no segregation and legal racism, then where do these discrepancies come from in a country that screams equal opportunity for all?

In this weeks reading, various explanations were offered to address this racial gap. Some argue that the root is at the homes and black communities with the values and upbringing they have. Others claim that previous enslavement and discriminatory treatment of African Americans is the root of the problem, giving white people a step up to begin with and hindering the upward mobility of blacks. Because of this initial division, blacks today are faced with social and economical inequalities. If this is the case, my question is, when do we draw the line to when the past stops effecting the present generation?

Regardless of the causes, it is important to acknowledge this racial divide and look for solutions to merge the social and economic gap

This weeks reading from Urban Issues shed light on a prevalent issue of gangs and gang violence plaguing NYC. The term ‘gang’ has a pejorative connotation and is associated with violence and criminal activity. The gangs of today are different than the gangs of yesteryear in that the latter formed for protection and fought over “turf” while the latter primarily fights over drugs and the like. This negative view of gangs underlies many of the initiatives that states have recently taken to combat gangs and gang crimes.

There have been a few general strategies in the fight against gangs such as counterinsurgency, prevention of gang formation, and youth engaging activities etc. Law professor, Lawrence Rosenthal advocates for preventative measures in the war against gangs and calls for counterinsurgency and gang injunctions which places restrictions and makes it more difficult for gang members to congregate. This concept of injunctions is a more aggressive and preemptive approach to criminal activity and is similar in approach to last weeks reading regarding racial profiling and the stop and frisk method.  While these approaches can be said to be on the safer side, averting problems before than can arise, opponents argue that this is an abridgment of civil liberties as explained by Caitlin Sanderson, an attorney at ACLU. She argues that our justice system is biased and suspectful of certain races, a separate issue on its own and injunctions not only hurt these youths’ futures long term but could also possibly worsen gang activity by initiating increased internet and technological uses.

While I do believe  that there is a strong basis in preventative measures such as gang injunctions and believe that we shouldn’t wait to fix something only after a problem arises, reading this weeks chapter opened my eyes to the harmful affects of it as well. Sanderson’s proposition of after school programs and early intervention provides for a more welcoming route of preventative policing and can be effective as well. Overall, I think that a combination of Rosenthal’s and Sanderson’s suggestions, with a few tweaks here and there on both sides, can effectively reduce gang activity and crime.

The underlying debate of racial profiling is essentially how much do we sacrifice and compromise on for the sake of national security. Do we scrutinize some people more than others for the sake of our communities and society or do we treat everyone on equal footing regardless of religion, race, gender etc. While the latter sounds more fitting for a democratic country and is certainly more socially acceptable, there is credible evidence that minority groups such as Hispanics and blacks tend to have a higher rate crime than the average white person. Therefore, given the racial disparities in criminal activity, it is logical for police officers/ law enforcers to practice “racial profiling” in order to effectively provide protection for those communities.

I think the real problem of racial profiling is the feelings of distrust and degradation that arise from this type of proactive policing, whether it be between citizens or between police officers and the subjected minorities.  However, this is something that naturally stems from this practice. In a similar vein, law enforcers are faced with the problem of either being called a racists or not protecting the community enough. Moreover, in times of crisis and fear such as the attack on the twin towers, the Orlando shooting etc, community members request more police protection and better security; overall this issue is difficult to know where to draw the line.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that we are one country, built by immigrants, minorities, different religions and cultures, which ultimately built our nation to what it is today. Our differences can divide us or they can open our minds to new ideas and cultures and make us a more accepting nation.