Resolved: Institutional Racism is Significantly Present in America

In this round, I’ll be addressing the Con’s rebuttals one by one to show they don’t adequately refute my evidence. Definition of "institutional racism:" Con states: “I do have good reason to change your definition; you are not providing the correct definition according to your own source” Readers: If you click the link I’ve provided (http://civilliberty.about.com...), you’ll notice the word “Definition” followed by my definition of institutional racism. As Con said, he gets his definition by clicking the hyperlink of the words “institutional racism,” which leads to a different page, with a different definition, written by a different author. This definition is equally valid, however, Con cannot reject my definition in favor of another valid definition. Rather, he must first prove my definition is invalid. “What is Institutional Racism” Source Con states: “The author for your first source "What is Institutional Racism?" is CLEARLY HEAVILY BIASED” Since Con has failed to back his allegations of bias with any expert opinion, I’ve provided a guide from Anoka-Ramsey Community College that gives objective criteria for evaluating bias in a source/argument [1]. This guide sums up bias as "a one-sided, usually emotion-driven, approach to an issue, that lacks respectful regard to opposing views." So, while people tend to try to show bias by attacking an author's worldview/background, this is insufficient; a source cannot be dismissed as biased unless the author's argument is proven illogical. Below, I address Con's points by number: 1.) Professor Randall 's support for Hillary Clinton in no way means she's biased. Con is implying that having any political ideology or beliefs whatsoever makes an author unreliable. If this were true, no author or source could ever be impartial. 2.) Neither Randall nor her chart suggest that "if you are not black there is no way for you to not be racist." Con forgets we're talking about institutional racism, and as such must make a distinction, as the author does, between an institution's effect on blacks and the beliefs of people involved in the institution. When Randall says non-racist institutions are "very rare," she means most institutions have a net negative effect on the black community, NOT that the people controlling these institutions are always prejudiced. According to Randall's chart, even an institution controlled entirely by blacks could be racist if it impacts the black community negatively. Such an institution would be "reluctant racist:" discrimination, but no prejudice. 3.) Con has not shown this author to be "racist." Believing that most social institutions impact the black community negatively is in no way a "racist" point of view. EDUCATION ACLU Lawsuit Con states : "The lawsuits cite the fault not with the educational institution or state, but instead with the following:" 1.) First, the correct name of the lawsuit is Williams v. State of California, since Eliezer Williams was the plaintiff represented by ACLU lawyers. Second, the lawsuit [2] does not say illegal immigration is responsible for bad conditions in schools. Rather, it blames the state's inadequate funding. The settlement involved forcing the state to provide additional funding. Con's numbers regarding immigration may or may not be true, but they don't negate the significant degree of institutional racism seen in the Williams case. 2.) Unfortunately, Con seems to have confused Luther Burbank Middle School in San Francisco, CA (the subject of the Williams case) with Luther Burbank School District in San Jose, CA. Con's San Jose Mercury News article about administrator fraud/waste concerns the latter, and as such, is irrelevant to my assertion. 3.) In Williams v. State of California, the problem was NOT a "minority run school board," as Con claims, but inadequate state funding. During the settlement, the state admitted the funding issue and took steps to rectify it. Here, Con alleges that my source [3] actually says minority children are over-represented in special education rather than under-represented. This is blatantly false. Readers should note the article's title: "Minorities are Disproportionately Underrepresented in Special Education: Longitudinal Evidence Across Five Disability Conditions." Con's quote from the article is intentionally taken out of context to suggest that it is the article's claim, when in reality it's a myth the article seeks to debunk. 2.) As for minorities being suspended and expelled at disproportionate rates, the researchers in said study [4] believe the racial disparity is indicative of harsher discipline policies for minorities. Unless you think minorities all over the country are more likely to break school rules than whites (and can provide evidence for this), prejudice is the most reasonable explanation for the race-based disparity. A quote from the Huffington Post article to support this [5]: "If you look at kids in the same district in the same school, there is no data that African American kids are actually engaging in more severe behaviors that lead to a higher percentage of expulsions and suspensions." 5b) This Huffington Post article does NOT mention fraud/waste as a cause of problems with teacher experience and subject access. However, fraud and waste that disproportionately harms minority students is classic institutional racism, regardless of whether it's done by minorities (which, I might add, you haven't proven). Remember, institutional racism has to do less with the intent of a behavior and more with the outcome. BUSINESS Minorities Face Severe Hiring Discrimination First Source 1.) Con's claims my cited article "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal" by Marianne Bertrand is an "opinion piece." Once again, an entirely baseless assertion. First, Con self-defines the term "opinion piece," citing no source for his definition. Second, the article in question is based on empirical research and concrete data, so by no means is it "opinion." Third, the research was NOT done by "one single person." As stated in the article, Bertrand was assisted by Sendhil Mullainathan, a researcher from MIT. 2) Con CAN discuss/dispute the research findings because all methodology and results are stated in the source I provided. Second Source 2,3) Here is a link to the complete document, although my earlier source did have the significant points [6]. 4) Quote from the document: "Auditors visited the employers, filled out applications, and went as far as they could during that first interview." This very strongly implies the auditors interacted with employers in person. Therefore, race could easily be taken into account. JUSTICE SYSTEM Blacks are Arrested Disproportionately for Drug Crime 1) Sorry Con, but there's a consensus in the academic community that surveys ARE reliable if they adhere to certain standards. According to about.com psychology expert Kendra Cherry, "surveys are generally standardized to ensure they have reliability and validity" [7]. The logic behind thinking surveys are reliable is this: lying, except in certain people (like the mentally ill), is almost always purposeful. Criminals lie in jail to avoid self-incrimination. What reason would someone have to lie on an anonymous survey? c. Sorry about the broken link. I've included a working version of that same link in this argument [8]. Minorities are Profiled by Police 1.) Brooklyn or not, high crime rate or not, it's ridiculous to assume that 93% of Brownsville residents are committing crime. Those numbers are disproportionate to the amount of crime that actually happens in Brownsville, just like stop and frisk rates for whites are disproportionately low compared to the white population and white crime rate. They are absolutely indicative of abuse of the stop and frisk program in a high-minority area. Readers should note that Con has failed to address my other "stop and frisk" statistics. You're correct that my ACLU source ([14] in my round 2 argument) is not a quantitative study and does not involve data. It does, however, discuss the historical context of police profiling using expert opinions and verifiable facts. For example, the article discusses the phenomenon which emerged during the early War on Drugs where police were directly instructed to profile minorities - a policy based in stereotypes which led to over-policing in high-minority areas. Minorities are at a Disadvantage in Court Con has failed to address these points, even though I've provided titles of specific studies, names of sponsoring organizations, and a process of pulling up the studies that should take no more than ten seconds. My assertion remains unrefuted. CONCLUSION I've attacked each of Con's rebuttals and shown each to be an inadequate refutation of my evidence. The resolution continues to be affirmed. Thanks to Con for an enjoyable and thought-provoking debate. Sources [1] http://webs.anokaramsey.edu... [2] http://www.cde.ca.gov... [3] http://www.aera.net... [4] http://eric.ed.gov... [5] http://m.huffpost.com... [6] http://scholar.harvard.edu... [7] http://psychology.about.com... [8] https://www.hrw.org...;