Hello again, and welcome back to my blog! In this post, I will be reflecting on the fourth chapter of Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow. Specifically, I will be discussing how she structures her argument in this chapter. Thanks for joining me!
"The Color of Justice," in my opinion, is the most powerful section of text that I've read so far. I think this is due to the fact that it exposes the blatant neglect on the part of our judicial branch of government. Alexander details the ways in which people of color are denied protection from discriminatory adversities with regard to how they interact with law enforcement.
This section is highly related to the War on Drugs, which I discussed extensively in my last post, so if you're new to my blog I recommend you stop reading this post and head on over to Part I: Click Here!
In "The Color of Justice," Alexander argues that the Criminal Justice system as a whole is intrinsically discriminatory. She supports this argument with two main claims:
Her first claim regarding the choice law enforcement has in who they stop is supported by the notion of implicit bias. Implicit bias in the context of this book refers to the innate association one makes based on skin color.
During my English class, my classmates and I took an implicit bias test to reveal any implicit bias of our own. You can take this same test by clicking Here, and selecting "Race IAT." This test revealed that numerous students in my class had an implicit bias against people of color: an example of society’s influence and innate preference of White people over any minority.
Alexander explains that implicit bias, which is still very much an issue in 2019, can be attributed in part to the media's excessive portrayal of African-American drug users.
She writes:
"Early in the 1980s, the typical cocaine-related story focused on white recreational users who snorted the drug in its powder form . . . By 1985, however, as the War on Drugs moved into high gear, this frame was supplanted by a new 'siege paradigm,' in which transgressors were poor, nonwhite users and dealers of crack cocaine. . . A predictable 'us against them' frame was used in the news stories, with 'us' being white, suburban America, and 'them' being black Americans." (105)
Alexander reveals that by unequally representing African-American crack-cocaine users, the media has created an association with people of color and drug crime. This association, a form of implicit bias, results in police officers targeting African-Americans at a much higher rate than their White counterparts. By detailing this bias, Alexander exposes the discriminatory practices that occur every day across the United States.
Her second claim that the courts deny people of color protection from discrimination is argued through the use of two specific supreme court cases: McCleskey v. Kemp, and Armstrong v. United States.
In her discussion of McCleskey v. Kemp, Alexander demonstrates that the Supreme Court refuses to formally acknowledge the discriminatory nature of our criminal justice system, and instead decrees an effectively insurmountable standard of evidence suggesting racial bias in order to utilize the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment (110-111). Alexander ultimately uses McCleskey v. Kemp to illustrate the negligence of the Supreme court regarding the protection of any non-white American from discrimination.
Alexander uses Armstrong v. United States to expand on the notion that prosecutors, an integral part of our criminal justice system, employ selective prosecution, and have the full legal authority to do so. This case set a precedent ensuring that:
“defendants who suspect racial bias on the part of prosecutors are trapped in a classic catch-22. In order to state a claim of selective prosecution, they are required to offer in advance the very evidence that generally can be obtained only through discovery of the prosecutor’s files.” (117)
This case exemplifies the deeply rooted discrimination of the American government, and supports Alexander’s argument that the courts prevent persons of color from receiving any protection from discrimination in the criminal justice system.
Alexander’s argument follows Inductive reasoning, she claims:
Statement 1: Implicit bias determines who law enforcement targets.
Statement 2: The judicial branch of government, a part of our criminal
justice system, does not afford protection from discriminatory practices
including instances described in Statement 1.
Conclusion: Our criminal justice system preserves systematic racism.
"The Color of Justice," in my opinion, is the most powerful section of text that I've read so far. I think this is due to the fact that it exposes the blatant neglect on the part of our judicial branch of government. Alexander details the ways in which people of color are denied protection from discriminatory adversities with regard to how they interact with law enforcement.
This section is highly related to the War on Drugs, which I discussed extensively in my last post, so if you're new to my blog I recommend you stop reading this post and head on over to Part I: Click Here!
In "The Color of Justice," Alexander argues that the Criminal Justice system as a whole is intrinsically discriminatory. She supports this argument with two main claims:
Police officers employ discriminatory practices in selecting who they engage with.
&
Our judicial branch of government will ostracize anyone who claims the criminal justice system is discriminatory.
Her first claim regarding the choice law enforcement has in who they stop is supported by the notion of implicit bias. Implicit bias in the context of this book refers to the innate association one makes based on skin color.
During my English class, my classmates and I took an implicit bias test to reveal any implicit bias of our own. You can take this same test by clicking Here, and selecting "Race IAT." This test revealed that numerous students in my class had an implicit bias against people of color: an example of society’s influence and innate preference of White people over any minority.
Alexander explains that implicit bias, which is still very much an issue in 2019, can be attributed in part to the media's excessive portrayal of African-American drug users.
She writes:
"Early in the 1980s, the typical cocaine-related story focused on white recreational users who snorted the drug in its powder form . . . By 1985, however, as the War on Drugs moved into high gear, this frame was supplanted by a new 'siege paradigm,' in which transgressors were poor, nonwhite users and dealers of crack cocaine. . . A predictable 'us against them' frame was used in the news stories, with 'us' being white, suburban America, and 'them' being black Americans." (105)
Alexander reveals that by unequally representing African-American crack-cocaine users, the media has created an association with people of color and drug crime. This association, a form of implicit bias, results in police officers targeting African-Americans at a much higher rate than their White counterparts. By detailing this bias, Alexander exposes the discriminatory practices that occur every day across the United States.
Her second claim that the courts deny people of color protection from discrimination is argued through the use of two specific supreme court cases: McCleskey v. Kemp, and Armstrong v. United States.
In her discussion of McCleskey v. Kemp, Alexander demonstrates that the Supreme Court refuses to formally acknowledge the discriminatory nature of our criminal justice system, and instead decrees an effectively insurmountable standard of evidence suggesting racial bias in order to utilize the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment (110-111). Alexander ultimately uses McCleskey v. Kemp to illustrate the negligence of the Supreme court regarding the protection of any non-white American from discrimination.
Alexander uses Armstrong v. United States to expand on the notion that prosecutors, an integral part of our criminal justice system, employ selective prosecution, and have the full legal authority to do so. This case set a precedent ensuring that:
“defendants who suspect racial bias on the part of prosecutors are trapped in a classic catch-22. In order to state a claim of selective prosecution, they are required to offer in advance the very evidence that generally can be obtained only through discovery of the prosecutor’s files.” (117)
This case exemplifies the deeply rooted discrimination of the American government, and supports Alexander’s argument that the courts prevent persons of color from receiving any protection from discrimination in the criminal justice system.
Alexander’s argument follows Inductive reasoning, she claims:
Statement 1: Implicit bias determines who law enforcement targets.
Statement 2: The judicial branch of government, a part of our criminal
justice system, does not afford protection from discriminatory practices
including instances described in Statement 1.
Conclusion: Our criminal justice system preserves systematic racism.
I completely agree with you that this chapter was the most powerful so far! I found this chapter far more persuasive because Alexander acknowledged implicit bias which I personally feel plays a larger role in racial discrimination than overt racism.
ReplyDeleteAgain I totally agree with the first of Alexander's claims that you mentioned, however I am not sure that I got the second from the reading. It could be that I am interpreting it wrong, but I didn't really think that she was saying that the court ostracized people who claimed the court was discriminatory. I got from it that the court was actively maintaining a system of law enforcement that operated on racial bias. We could be saying the same thing, but at least to me, the word ostracized seems like a personal attack. Actually thinking back on it, I think we are saying the same thing so never mind.
I really liked the way you included the deductive/socratic reasoning at the end with the premise 1, premise 2, conclusion. I thought that was a unique and really effective way at showing how she structures her argument. I also found it visually appealing because it broke up large chunks of text. I need to remember that next time because my first two posts are like mini, informal essays, which I can imagine is no fun to read. You do a great job of keeping your audience engaged throughout the post. I enjoyed reading it and am looking forward to reading the rest of your posts!
Hi Georgia,
DeleteThank you for another response! Regarding my second claim, I interpreted Alexander’s argument as that the criminal justice system passively ostracized African-Americans. Their discriminatory actions weren’t conscious decisions, but they were still ultimately responsible for upholding racist processes that resulted in people of color facing significant disadvantages. Due to these advantages they were barred from following societal norms or achieving an adequate quality of life; the discriminatory adversities they lived with condemned them to exclusion from leading a comfortable life. Thanks again for commenting and I look forward to further discussions!
Colby,
ReplyDeleteI haven't even read this book (yet-now I'd like to!), but I, too, feel like this will be the most powerful text I will read. Your elaborate yet brief breakdown of this section gives insight to people who haven't read the book what it's about and just how powerful and well-written it is. I agree with Georgia (^) about the way you structured this post in smaller sections, as it kept me engaged and interested throughout reading.
Keep it up!
Colby,
ReplyDeleteYou've done a nice job discussing the style and structure of the arguments Alexander makes, using strong specific examples to support your ideas.