Macaulay Honors College Seminar 4 | Professor Robin Rogers

Author: Isaac Gordon

Mental Rather than Institutional

Humans have the tendency to label and name things in order to explain them without actually providing any concrete evidence. We use terms and definitions to create categories and divides. Demographic terms do the same, and I am of the opinion that most racial conflicts are the product of how different peoples’ minds are nurtured and their biases created, rather than some inherent bias in the current systems of America.

Walter E. Williams, an African-American Economics professor at George Mason University told the CQ Reader that, “Many times, people use the term when they can’t find a racist, a lot of times they can’t show you a live breathing individual or company, so now they call it institutionalized racism.” People who tend to blame situations on “institutionalized racism” do so because they feel a lurking injustice but cannot explain it with hard evidence that the ones involved are acting out of malice for a race. The thing is, if one actually takes a look at the systems they’ll find that there are an arguably exorbitant amount of opportunities exclusively for black American; opportunities to work to help a marginalized race be as loud and included as white Americans. Furthermore, the CQ Reader pointed out that there are a record number of black Americans in top positions throughout law, law enforcement, and other governmental related positions. There are no laws that state, “if the defendant is white do X and if the defendant is black do Y”.

What makes the system and this country “institutionally racist” is the mind-frames the different members of society are raised to have. White youths are taught to be suspicious of black youths in many situations and then even an educated and seemingly non-racist individual in his/her adulthood looks at black Americans with an initial apprehension and distrust, which may affect all of his/her actions. Black youth in low-income neighborhoods are taught by their parents to fear and hate the police, usually as an attempted scare tactic to make them behave, and that turns into a distrust of the authorities that there to help. When many schools attempt to educate students on racial divides, they tend to push the implicit message that the African-American community should be pitied and treated and guided like a race of children. This leads to individuals looking down on an entire race. So even when the streets scream with the rage-filled cries of injustice, outsiders look in and say, “Yes this is sad, but why do they act so immature? You never see a white riot.”

This idea that an entire race needs special treatment to justify past wronging to them is racist. The idea that we need programs to help the broken black neighborhoods because of pity is racist. We, as a country, need to take the minority neighborhoods, and bring them up to the level of the rest of society because they are humans; not because they are black. No dilapidated schools and roads that in disrepair and getting worse every day. We need to eliminate the mindset that we are different because our skin is different. Yes, extra work needs to be done to even out the playing field, but that doesn’t help until we eliminate that inherent bias in people’s minds. We need to stop teaching our children that there are divides between us all, and start teaching them that everyone around them is human and that everyone should be treated with the same respect. We eliminate the perceived institutional racism only when we eliminate the mental racism nurtured in many. We don’t need to acknowledge the divide, we need to close the divide.

Pull Out the Roots

While reading “Fighting Gangs” in Urban Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher Eighth Edition it occurred to me that no tactic employed by the courts or law enforcement has effectively reduced gangs and gang related crimes long term. Any good tactic reduced gang related violence for a short term, but, as the chapter points out, although gang violence has decreased, gang related crimes are still on the rise, evolved and adapted for the 21st century. Perhaps the real way to eliminate gang crime would be to look at the cause of gang membership, and prevent gangs from growing.

Information from the chapter has indicated that the bulk of gang members are older adolescents and young adults. Additionally, it would seem that the motivating factors to join a gang all basically stem from a lack of good social and economic standing and no where else to turn to. When different ethnicities created gangs, it was in response to an environment they found to be against them. Organizing into a gang gives a group the ability to draw territory boundaries, and enforce their will in their neighborhood. Rather than be the victims of society, these people are rising up in their own way.

Like law enforcement issues, it would seem the best way to prevent the expansion of crime is to provide neighborhoods with a properly functioning education system, and affordable living. How to do that is out of my depth, but it is clear that as more youth feel rejected and oppressed by their environment, more youth will take matters into their own hands. And not in a way that benefits the society they hate.

Racial Profiling

(Note to the Reader: Based on the language presented in the Racial Profiling section of the Eighth Edition of Urban Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher,  crime in this article refers to blue collar crime such as burglary or other property crimes, theft crimes, sex crimes, assault, and drug crimes.)

It is without any doubt that racial profiling exists throughout the American law enforcement agencies. I’ve seen it myself around my neighborhood. But one’s view on the quantity in which racial profiling exists can change based on the lens one uses. There are different statistics one can use to define the un-balanced ratio  between whites stopped by law enforcement and minorities stopped by law enforcement. By changing the data lens, one will still see that racial profiling is prevalent, but may be more in tune to why that is and what are better ways to manage it.

In the Racial Profiling section of the Eighth Edition of Urban Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher, Heather McDonald is quoted saying, “Police actions continue to be measure against population ratios instead of crime ratios. The relevant measure is not overall population ratios but where crime is happening and where officers are more likely to be encountering criminal forces.” One cannot compare arrests to population for a simple, logical, and mathematical reason: there is no basis to say that crime occurs at an equal rate, or at an equal magnitude, among demographics. With that in mind, a ratio made from arrest and crime data, one could argue, will more accurately represent the levels of racial profiling within law enforcement.

When one changes the data used to determine these ratios, racial profiling is still evidently prevalent, however, there is a little more logic to it. It makes more sense to stop a Mexican near the border than a white man in suspicion of smuggling. But what could be a more efficient way to determine who to stop?

Something I would suggest is training officers in body language to help better spot suspicious individuals. In Israel, police and soldiers are taught how to spot dangerous individuals based on how those individuals carry themselves, walk, look around, etc. While American law enforcement isn’t necessarily dealing with terror threats, or even violence at all in some cases, these skills still transfer over. Most people who commit a crime, especially anyone in middle of committing a crime, will stand out from the crowd to a trained eye. And perhaps, with training the eyes of the law enforcement, we can help lower the number of instances where cops stop an individual solely because of race.

Who Needs High School Anyway?

“In 11th grade I dropped out of my religious high school due to my lack of interest in the religion and disagreements with the faculty. I then took it upon myself to study and take the GEDs, which I luckily passed, while at the same time taking 2 classes a semester at QCC as a non-matriculated student. Due to my weakness in math, I have taken and finally completed remedial math and now am taking College Algebra. If I can succeed at passing that, I will be able to transfer to Queens College and have a normal four-year college experience. This is a unique situation I am in and has led to me being surrounded by peers two to three years my senior when I hang out at Queens College Seeing freshman come in who are older than me is interesting, to say the least. It is surreal and slightly euphoric having two years of college experience when many people two years older than me have none. It just goes to show what a waste high school can be.”
(Flushing, Queens)

To Keep the Future Clean, We Need the EPA

 

In Seminar 3, “Science of New York City”, we learnt a lot about how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has worked to improve water quality across the nation. In addition to solving water pollution issues, the EPA creates and enforces regulations for any type of pollution. Prof. Gregory O’Mullan made it clear that there are many economic hurdles the EPA and local governments must jump over to make environmental change possible, and until this CQ reading, I always thought that he was just referring to money that is needed to make changes – nothing is free after all. I never thought about the economic impacts EPA mandated changes may take on different industries, the energy industry in particular.

While I agree that it is seemingly unfair to impose restrictions that would make sectors of the energy industry obsolete, time has proven that all old technology must make way for new technology in the face of innovation and public progress. So although coal companies have been, and will continue, to lose business as we switch to more efficient and sustainable energy resources, it is necessary so that we as a society can move into a bright future.

With that in mind, President Trump’s proposed budget cuts to the EPA (as well as other organizations) brings some scary pictures to mind. As previously mentioned, one of the problems the EPA faces when attempting to enact environmental policies and cleanups is a lack of funs in local governments. By cutting the EPA budget, it will become harder to preform

New York City: 1973 vs. 2013 Source: EPA Documerica “Then and Now Challenge”

environmental studies and clean up superfund sites – locations so polluted the federal government needs to step in to support clean-up efforts. Take a look at the photo on the right. That is New York City before regulations to prevent smog were in effect, and over 30 years after those regulations took effect. Do you want to see our amazing city go back to the way it was? What is the point of bolstering our military budget if all we have to protect is an American cesspool of pollution? Before we take our efforts across the sea, let us create and maintain a home worth living in.

Real Relationships Lead to Real Stories

Interviewing someone to learn about them can be a daunting and uncomfortable task for both the interviewer and interviewee. By creating a warm, open, and honest environment while taking steps to build rapport, a real relationship will develop, and you will find that the interviewee will begin to “sing”, as Dr. Elizabeth Tunstall puts it.

The key to a successful interview starts with treating the interviewee as one would treat any person they wish to build a relationship with. Make them feel comfortable with some light silliness, compliments, and  show true excitement to hear them talk. Brandon Stanton of Humans of New York told the Harvard Political Review that one should focus on the individual and try best to tell their story; not some bigger one. Once the person in front of you, the interviewer, is just another friend, you can hear the realness of their stories and how it makes them who they are, rather than how it fits into your larger story.

Some of the most valuable insight from these two videos, I think, are the pitfalls one can run into when interviewing. There are two I’d like to highlight. Pre-constructed answers from the interviewee and poor response/seqways from the interviewer. Brandon often encounters responses that the interviewee thinks he/she should be saying, rather that the straight up honest story. Encourage people to dig deeper and steer them away from those pre-constructed answers. Thats where the stories are. When in that zone of comfort, one can get push further. Once you get your interviewee in a place of comfort and honesty, you need to engage them but more importantly keep yourself engaged. Staying engaged is one of the hardest thing to do, and during the clip where Jeremy Alexis kept says “that’s interesting” I realized that in past interviews I have done the same thing myself. It’s a proper phrase to use, but perhaps when using it one should follow with a related question to show there is genuine interest.

Again, a successful interview starts with a real relationship. Understanding what the person has gone threw on a real level, when possible, will make all the difference in your narrative perspective, as well as it improve your relationship.  I particularly liked the rock climbing example, and I noticed that the more successful interview clips involved physical action. One interviewer tried on different pairs of jeans. Be a participate observer, rather than a fly on the wall.

Between “Getting People to Talk: An Ethnography & Interviewing Primer” and “On the Record: Humans of New York Interview”, I can say I have a better understanding of how to interview someone for a narrative piece. Both videos were thorough and clear in their messages, and I look forward to putting them into action.