An open letter, penned by Catholics, was sent out to bishops across the U.S. in late August. “Now it is time to write laws, to write policies, to write sentences”. The letter quoted an original statement from the Knights of Peter Claver in regard to the May death of George Floyd. “The ink has run dry on writing statements”, the letter continued, calling for an end to systemic racism in America.
The Letter on Systemic Racism
The letter, featured in the New York Times, was penned by the Catholic Social Action partnership. “The Catholic faith overflows into society. It is not meant to be kept under a bushel, but is a light on a hill”, said Jacob Hyman, the director of operations for Catholic Social Action.
Involvement in the public square is rooted in the baptismal call, and right and just social action is rooted firmly in the heart of the faith.
The letter asked bishops to collectively pray for an end to Systemic Racism. It highlighted two unique feast days for the church this year. The feast of St. Moses the Black fell on August 28th, the day of the March on Washington for black life. The feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus fell on Juneteenth, a long-celebrated holiday of the emancipation proclamation by African American Texans.
The letter also contained its own unique litany for the end of racism. The litany called on intercession from saints such as Moses and Zipphorah, St. Philip the Evangelist, St. Moses the Black, St. Martin Deporres, and Fr. Augustus Tolton. The litany called on the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe to reflect the diversity and universality of the Catholic faith.
The African American Perspective
The letter had a swift response from leaders and influencers in the Catholic Church. Among the many signatories included African American leaders such as EWTN’s Gloria Purvis and the Knights of Peter Claver’s national treasurer Ricky Sassau. Many African American leaders felt that it was of urgent imminence that action is taken from priests to educate their parishioners about racism. “We are saddened to see how many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are oblivious, skeptical, and even hard-hearted against the cry for racial justice in our politics, economics, and culture” read the letter. It highlighted the frustration that many African American Catholics are facing in light of the recent civil unrest.
“Being pro-life is synonymous to the Catholic Faith”, said Ricky Sassau. Being the treasurer of the largest African American lay organization in the church, he resonated strongly with the letter.
Racism is a pro-life issue and needs to be brought to the church’s attention. People support a system that supports them, but black Catholics support the Church, and the Church shies away from topics of black Catholics. It affects people’s everyday lives and their sense of belonging.
When asked why she was a formal signatory for the letter EWTN’s Gloria Purvis responded
It wasn’t just the letter, but also my experiences. I see the divide. We can not tolerate brutality and violence and claim to defend the sacredness of human life.
In many ways, Mrs. Purvis has experienced pushback for speaking out against systemic racism and emphasizing that racism is a pro-life issue. She is also involved in starting a spiritual reparations movement within the Church. “No one ever goes to the site where Emmett Till was murdered and prays”, Mrs. Purvis said.
Racism is Pro-Life
Jacob Hyman mirrored Mr. Sassau and Mrs. Purvis’ statements about racism being pro-life when he paralleled the sacramental life to being pro-life.
“The sacramental life begins at baptism” he stated. “With baptism, we continue to live into our faith. We don’t stop there. The pro-life movement shouldn’t only stop at abortion, but realize that it applies to every stage of a person’s life”.
The consistency of the pro-life message is in accord with the strong words of Pope Francis when he said “You cannot be Pro-life and be racist”. Similarly, Fr. Bryan Massingale, a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University shared paralleling sentiments.
A Step in the Right Direction
The Knights of Peter Claver reported that they saw over 46 bishops respond to the letter. Bishops across the US are arranging ecumenical gatherings, courses on racism, and arranging more homies on the topic to be preached to the laity. In addition, the Catholic Social Action partnerships bridged the deep gap in the church between Traditional Catholics and those who don’t identify with the movement. The organization’s efforts are paying off well to plant seeds of hope and healing in the US church.
Joel Mcmichael, writer and signatory of the letter noted that “things tend to become one-sided, labeled as trad or progressive. But the letter beautifully captured the melding of the faith”. Joel grew up in the south and encouraged others to be open. ” Consider looking through the lens of love and hear what the church has taught. Be active in spiritual reparations and penance”.
Meditating on the Theological Virtues
One way that Catholics can pray about racism and implement holy seeds in their lives in relation to the topic is to view racism through the lens of the theological virtues when meditating in prayer. The three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are the foundation for Christian moral activity. They are the root of the other human virtues, including justice (CCC 1812-1813). They are directly related to God and are infused by him into the faithful in order that we may grow in them and merit eternal life.
In faith, we can pray and believe that God is working in his church and in this nation to heal the divide of racism. In hope, as we look toward the eternal kingdom of God we can pray that Christ will put to rest any doubt in our hearts towards the dignity of the human person. In charity, we can empathize and show passion. In our love for God and his holiness, we can look at our brothers and sisters from all walks of life and see that they are made in the image of God, and love them as neighbors.
Footnotes:
https://catholicphilly.com/2020/06/news/world-news/pope-prays-for-u-s-calls-racism-a-pro-life-issue/
31 thoughts on “U.S. Catholics Pen Open Letter About Systemic Racism”
Perhaps this is the heart of the matter: Pretend I have a swimming pool company, and discover that not only are there many drownings, but also 85% of the victims are Catholics. Likewise, i own a food delivery service, and many are choking to death – mostly Catholics. Should my company be deemed unlawful to continue? No blame is being assigned. It is simply a precaution.
Neither the product or service was conceived maliciously…unlike abortion, but it is really not relevant to any discussion for the continuation of these companies.
Some begin to argue that it is not “faithism” but instead due to the fish fries or not enough sleep on Sundays, or both. Unfortunately there are nefarious groups that claim to be Anti-Faithism, so nobody is willing to have an honest discussion about the issue due to the lack of trust.
I am willing to entertain any creative ideas that can get rid us of abortion. Yes every idea has its downside but this idea was put forth by Justice Thomas of the SCOTUS.
Hello, again –
My apologies to all for the lengthy discussions – but as Ms. Huddleston points out so well, its rare to have a meaningful and respectful discussion with someone from a very different point of view (but from a mindset of Christian charity!).
Ms Huddleston – I’ll briefly touch on a couple of your points, but at the end of this is where I think we get to the meat of the coconut, as they say. And you can count on it that we’re united in prayer!
In your discussion of medical access, you again point to disparities of outcomes for certain minorities with a blanket statement that “the system is built against them”. In terms of structural problems in the “system” you point to issues that were resolved decades ago, as you say – these issues “persisted into the civil rights era”, do any of those laws or policies (Jim Crow laws and the like) exist today? The answer is “no”. There is nothing on the books, that you’ve pointed to so far, that explicitly discriminates against minorities. You repeatedly point to differences in outcomes – that is a very complex issue that in no way supports “systemic racism” in the sense of your definition, such that you can point to a specific current “structure” that intentionally discriminates against minorities. Do we need better health care in our inner cities (in particular) – sure. But I fail to see where the label “systemic racism” advances that cause.
Regarding hip-hop, that was just a side point –just one cultural factor to consider. But while we’re on it – yes, I’m aware that whites are probably the majority consumers (I personally don’t think anyone should be consuming it, but that’s another matter!). But are whites “proportionately” greater? And what about from, say 1980-2010, when we saw much of the disproportionate rise in minority incarceration, weren’t minorities particularly disproportionate consumers of hip-hop culture during that period? These are complicated cultural issues Ms. Huddleston. On a side note – you repeatedly use the rhetorical conceits of assuming people of an opposing view point will be surprised by the facts and asking people to open our intellect – I understand you probably encounter very, shall we say, emotional opposition – but please don’t paint us all with the same brush – which would be negative stereotyping, would it not? Or, would it just be your very human instinct (part of your God-given intellect) of pattern recognition? Being human is so messy! 😊
Getting to the NAS report – I first pointed to their statement “the committee’s review of the literature justifies the conclusion that racial bias and discrimination are not the primary causes of disparities in sentencing decision or rate of imprisonment” – that says they do not find “systemic racism”. I then pointed to the statement that they found “credible evidence that black defendants are treated differently” – this is at the heart of things. This just shows that we have a stunningly complex mess on our hands. The NAS certainly didn’t know what to make of it – because they were looking from a secular lens- not a lens of faith and reason that recognizes the fallen nature of man. Again, this get’s back to Mr. Van Son’s excellent article – does racism factor in? Of course it does. So does greed, ego, pride, vanity, sloth – just about every evil and vice (other than maybe gluttony). That isn’t systemic racism. That’s systemic humanity.
Now we get to the heart of it – which is why these lengthy dialogues are fruitful. I stated “you can’t legislate morality”. You took me to task on this – that I am “outside of church teaching … that it is the responsibility of the state to mandate moral and just laws and practices.” I couldn’t agree more with that last part – in fact I’ll go beyond it – it is the responsibility of all good citizens and the Church to advocate for moral and just laws. Human beings deserve moral legislation. But, you can’t legislate morality. Do you appreciate the difference? This is the point of John Adam’s famous quote that “our constitution was made for a moral and religious people” – that’s the right order. You can’t create laws to make people moral. We have to be moral and then we can create moral laws. Jesus put it this way – “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s…” The government isn’t in the moral formation business – God is.
It is Marxist utopian thinking (always condemned by the Church) that somehow the government can make everything turn out equally for everyone (whatever that even means). Marx didn’t believe in morals, but you seem to have extrapolated his thinking to posit that we can come up with government policies that will also make people moral (i.e. legislate morality) – and that simply will never happen.
Ms. Huddleston – all government can do is create laws and policies that treat everyone equally. After that, this all plays out at the human level. Are some judges racist? I suspect so. Are they systemically racist? No. Are inner cities a mess and do minorities have disproportionately negative outcomes – yes. Are there “systemically” racist laws and policies on the books that cause this? No. At least – I have yet to see you or anyone else point to one (again – you raise valid points and we can have reasonable discussions about the prudential judgement of things such as sentencing laws and whether prisoners should be paid a competitive wage when working for a for-profit company – absolutely! – but those are not issues of systemic racism).
Thanks, as always, and God bless –
Steve
So does greed, ego, pride, vanity, sloth – just about every evil and vice (other than maybe gluttony). That isn’t systemic racism. That’s systemic humanity.
Yes. The notion of systemic racism strikes at the heart of (what appears to be: I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran) Catholic teaching: the doctrine of original sin, and of the redemptive power of the blood Jesus Christ.
All men are guilty of sin, so teaches the Church: but not of the sin of racism. Only white people can commit this one. Moreover all white people are racist because of the power of systemic racism. Don’t let Miss Brianna wriggle out with her claims of power structures and oppression. She will never agree that an oppressed-in-America middle-aged Marxist Chinese woman immediatly becomes a racist when she steps off the plane in Peking. Systemic Racism replaces original sin. It replaces the things of God with those of men.
How did we get an 8th cardinal sin? Surely any of the ills of whatever is meant by racism can be addressed entirely by the seven? Systemic racism trumps envy: “Why do THOSE people” get better results than me? racism? Systemic racism trumps pride: “I’m better because I’m BIPOC. You have to kneel to me and kiss my feet!” It trumps greed and sloth: “You gotta let me break and loot, ’cause reparations. Gimmee!” And worst of all it trumps charity: “I got every right to hate you ‘cos you’re WHITE; and then follows the hellish response: “Fine. I’ll hate you all (blacks) right back.” Satan laughs.
Finally, even if we were to grant Miss Brianna her 8th sin, surely the blood of Christ would redeem that as well? Nope. There’s no confession, no sacrament, no penance that will cleanse you. It never ends. Ask Miss Brianna what a world without racism would look like. I expect any good Catholic could tell you what a world without pride would look like (humble people everywhere!)
Miss Brianna lives in a termite-ridden house that is being threatened by a flood tide.
The Catholic Church, like every Church on earth is under fire by the powers of this world. Look at who is on board with (some) BLM and who drive the idea of critical race theory and “systemic racism”: Nike, Amazon, the entire DNC power structure, Hollywood, mass media. All of whom have been caught with their pants down (in some cases literally) sexually abusing men, women, and children. There is as much if not more Systemic pedophism than racism.
Miss Brianna desperately wants the Catholic Church to play footsie with worldly powers. To jump onto the bandwagon led by evil men who do evil things for fun and profit. Who destroy homes, families, lives (and more black lives, by the way, than white, asian or hispanic; though they’re working hard on “fixing” that gap).
Surely by now the Catholic Church has learned that letting the world evangelize it leads to a holocaust of the innocents?
O.G.Hobbit – that’s a great name!
Inventing an 8th capital sin is an interesting way of looking at it. Yes – the lack of recognition of God’s sovereignty and our wretchedness is at the heart of this. And yes – the only one laughing at all of this is satan. He’s such a jerk.
With that – let’s be charitable to Ms. Huddleston. It seems to me that she is searching for the highest good in how to respond to all of this. Not to say that we don’t have very serious disagreements about that and so we need to speak plainly, as we all have…
Hello Steve!
I do appreciate the difference in points that you’re making! I’ve come to find that we may agree more than we disagree, but we have been misunderstanding each other. Furthermore, thanks for being a great example of a charitable and empathetic Christian to others on this thread so boldly! I will say that I definitely see the light of Christ in you!
Now to get to the heart of it as you mentioned. I think because we have previously seen legislation passed on a historical count we are always usually inclined to believe that in order for racism to be systemic, there has to be legislation. This is the case sometimes, but not always. To answer your question however, I do think that a refusal of the amendments may constitute as legislation that doesn’t necessarily endorse systemic racism but allows for it to happen. However, id like to invite you to consider what I believe to be an example of systemic racism that isn’t necessarily attached to any laws or jurisprudence. Have you studied the opioid epidemic in contrast to the crack epidemic? I’d like to note a few things about this. In the crack epidemic, we saw the CIA admit that they intentionally planted crack into African American neighborhoods(I can provide a link if that interests you). And then we saw politicians crack down on the war on drugs and treat it like a crime instead of like a public health crisis (number of arrests in African Americans goes up, presidential campaigns use war on drugs to paint black people as criminals) and use law and order against the war on drugs in order to fuel campaigns. However with the current opioid epidemic (which is vastly more dangerous and larger than the crack epidemic) we don’t see anyone marketing the opioid epidemic as a war on drugs, no presidents using the opioid epidemic as a political tool of law and order (but we do see our current president list is as a public health crisis and promise to provide relief and assistance in those areas) and the major stark difference is that the crack epidemic was mainly black people while the opioid epidemic is white people by and large. The crack epidemic was used as a tool to campaign politically among other reasons, and its a shame that we didn’t treat the crack epidemic the same way we treat the opioid epidemic. Now, there is research in this area (again I can link the journals if you are interested) that show that the majority of people who die as a result of or are addicted to opioids are non African Americans. Researches dove into the medical field to see why, and found that doctors who prescribe these things tend to have an implicit bias and resonate more with people who look like them. As a result this causes a disparate outcome in the recipients, addicts, and deaths related to opioids. In that example the disparity is a direct result of an implicit bias due to race.
About the Marxist comment (which I agree that it is always against church teaching, especially due to its roots in philosophical materialism) I think a lot of people assume that the call to racial justice is one of equal economic outcomes as implied in Marxism, but that does miss the mark. For African Americans, racial justice isn’t equal about equal outcomes but a cry for the recognition of human dignity, to stop being stereotyped, brutalized, and misrepresented in the media, among other things. In that aspect it’s not about equal economical outcomes but about being treated with the dignity that a human person deserves.
I think if we examine things through that lens it can make leeway for more dialogue with people.
In Christ,
Briana!
Hi Ms. Huddleton –
First, thank you for your kind words. I’m not as good as I should be with affirmations (I come from hardy German stock…) – rest assured it is reciprocal. Indeed, may we all be looking to see Christ in everyone God places before us. And I’m sorry for my slow response – I’m working under multiple deadlines – but I’m sure you have your exigencies of life as well.
On to business.
That crack-opioid comparison. I don’t doubt statistics of disparate outcome. As far as systemic racism – that is a different matter. The two events (crack v opioid) occurred at different points in national history. Who’s to say we wouldn’t have responded to the opioid issue as a war on crime if it had started in the 80’s? And, was there a difference in criminality in the two instances? Was there a difference in community response? There are probably a dozen other critical sociological factors to consider that have nothing to do with genuine racism. As far as, “Researches dove into the medical field to see why, and found that doctors who prescribe these things tend to have an implicit bias and resonate more with people who look like them.” First, it’s difficult to do behavioral studies well. But let’s say it is a rigorous study and is reliable to the extent of identifying an implicit bias (seriously – you have to be so careful with these things – as with our simple example of hiphop culture – a few statistics do not conclusions and causality make). What does that mean? I suppose it’s intended to mean that a white doctor is more sympathetic to a white patient and will over-prescribe pain meds to them. What of it? The root problem is over-prescribing medication. If you’re implying that this shows a sort of reverse systemic racism – that, on average, a white person will “resonate” more with another white person, and a black person with another black person and an Asian person with another Asian person – again, that’s systemic humanity – are you proposing to change that by law or policy? Honestly, what is the “anti-resonating” law? And resonating more with one group does not mean that you will cause actual negative discriminatory outcomes to another group – this is not a zero-sum game. Getting to the root of the issue – how about we just get doctors to not over-prescribe medications?
Moving on to Marxist comment. I was not jumping to the conclusion that a person advocating for social justice is a Marxist. My point was that, by your own words, you are seeking to legislate morality. You are seeking laws and policies that will force people to do what that you think they ought to do. That is morality enforced by police power. I see this as a type of “moral Marxism” – you’re trying to force everyone to be equal in goodness (however you want to define that). That is simply impossible (and the stuff of creepy Orwellian movies).
By the way – this is akin to the theme in the Lord of the Rings (OvergrownHobbit can tell us all about it!) – when both Gandalf and Galadriel are offered the ring and they are strong enough to refuse because even though they would start from noble intentions, they would ultimately be turned to evil. Tolkien was wielding the full power of allegory in those scenes. He was showing us a deep truth about the effect of power on human beings and why the Church emphasizes subsidiarity.
I’m not down-playing the disparate outcomes. Not at all. And my heart aches for that. All of the families in this country that are torn apart. Kids whose lives are completely derailed because they never experience love and encouragement. The rampant immorality and inhumanity (two sides of the same coin). Everyone at each other’s throats when we should be united in purpose under God. If you can find bad policies and fix them – by all means, do. Bravo! But, once again, government action won’t address the root cause, because the root cause is fallen humanity. You can’t fix that by “giving to Caesar” (trying to make government a moral authority). You fix that by “giving to God” (turning the country back to Him). Unless and until people of faith get in the trenches and lift up our marginalized brothers and sisters, the problems will persist.
Thank you, Gene Van Son. You completely obliterated the remarkably fallacious and largely unjust writings of B. Huddleston that not only violate the fallacies you point out, they also contain numerous straw man arguments that are disingenuous in ignoring the best arguments in opposition to her positions. This is also a violation of basic justice, but such is par for the course for those who engage in what you have rightly identified as the Impervious Argument fallacy. They really do not want to engage the issue fairly; they just want to present their limited views and declare them to be fair and righteous when they are not even close to being so. And, as always, these self-righteous people always make it a point to lecture others to accept their narratives and ‘work on being better’ without even recognizing their own biases and bigotry in doing so.
All of these people (as well as others) could benefit immensely from the works of people like Larry Elder, Candace Owens, Heather MacDonald, Robert Woodson, and Shelby Steele to name just a few (only MacDonald is white, but she is a true scholar involving these issues and provides data and stats that expose the lies regarding the silliness of the systemic racism claim), but instead of doing so, they will label such people as hard-hearted and racists or set up more straw man arguments in opposition, or in the case of Elder, Owens, Woodson, and Steele, they are Uncle Toms or aren’t sufficiently ‘woke’ enough to recognize the malevolent claim of systemic racism that is used by race hustlers and useful idiots to help tear the country apart.
Hello DV,
I’m sorry to hear that you think my writing on the African American struggle are unjust. Can you elaborate on how they are unjust to you? I’m also sorry to hear that you think I’m disingenuous and self righteous because I choose to report on these things. Since we’ve never actually had an interaction before, maybe with this being our first one we can change that! You and I are on the same team. We both have zeal for the truth and for the dignity of human life. I do write about abortion as well as systemic racism because they are both pro life issues, and they affect people’s every day well being from the womb to the tomb.
Can you also elaborate on some strawman arguments I’ve made? So far in either of my articles I’ve made on systemic racism I don’t think I’ve even listed anyone’s argument in order to misrepresent it. I’ve just talked out the struggles African Americans face. In order for something to be a strawman you need to deduce someone’s argument inaccurately and argue against it. I haven’t argued from anyone’s point of view except that of the African American experience and I do t think I’ve deduced it illogically since I’ve relied solidly on historical facts, historical laws, and statistics. Maybe you can explain to me how I’ve committed the strawman fallacy from your point of view.
Thanks for your time!
Assuming “systemic racism” is a valid current concept, how can it not include the destruction of poor families, disproportionally black, in the aftermath of the “Great Society” bureaucratic welfare state social experimentation of the mid 60’s? How can it not include the bigotry of low expectations whereby academic standards are lowered to accommodate underqualified individuals who would not warrant a second look if not for their race?
Certainly chattel slavery and Jim Crow were clear examples of systemic racism. Both are attributable to the Democratic Party which has never had to accept responsibility for the wrongs for which they alone are responsible. Any vestiges of racism we see today can be laid at the doorstep of the Democratic Party. It belies the notion that we are seeking a meaningful and honest discussion of race if we fail to take that history into account and assign blame where it is due.
Anyone who does serious research known that the things you listed also are included as one of the many examples of systemic racism. I can send you some links of Black Catholics talking about it actually, if you are interested.
Now, when talking about democrats and republicans to truly understand systemic racism through a political lens you would need to understand that historically both the republicans and the democrats played a part in exploiting the African American community. Yes, both parties democrat and Republican. I can reference some historical works on this. It’s also a historical fact that in the 1960s a large majority of democratic voters switched over to the Republican Party.
“It’s also a historical fact that in the 1960s a large majority of Democratic voters switched over to the Republican Party.”
Yes, Ms.Huddleston. The Democratic Party did the right thing — pushing through badly needed Civil Rights laws — and as a result segregationist whites switched to the Republican Party which welcomed them. African Americans fled the Republican Party, for parallel reasons. This is why AA’s now vote overwhelmingly Democratic and why the Republican Party is virtually all-white. This is the foundational truth of the last 50 years as far as our current two party system is concerned.
Your information is not correct. The Republican Party was responsible for getting Civil Rights Legislation passed. Check the numbers — 80% of Republicans in the House voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while only 63% of Democrats for it. In the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for it vs. 69% of Democrats.
As You Like It II.vii.28
I have neither the time nor inclination to write a lengthy missive as some have done here but I will note that pity parties rarely accomplish anything of note. Once legal barriers have been removed, it becomes incumbent upon the aggrieved to act. The world simply does not step back and make anyone whole though lawyers would have us believe that is the case. Sounds a bit harsh but that is the way of things. If one really wants to help, as one liberal sociologist once said, “it may be time for some benign neglect.” This would allow the formerly disadvantaged the opportunity to seek their own path to success as they wish.
I agree. Furthermore, continuously focusing on racism perpetuates it.
Why don’t we apply that same logic to abortion? Are anti abortion activists throwing a pity party for the babies who are killed in the womb?
Does protesting abortion, bringing awareness about abortion, or speaking about abortion further perpetuate abortion? In that case I guess we better stop talking about abortion since if we talk about it, more people will get them?
If it’s unacceptable to think this way about abortion, why is it acceptable for either of you to think this way about African Americans?
Briana: Last time I checked, adults of all backgrounds had considerably more control over their lives than the pre-born. When making a point, it’s best to stick directly to the matter at hand. It helps validate your position.
That isn’t what I said. I asked you if anti-abortion activists are throwing pity parties for the unborn. It helps to present my views clearly first before attempting to argue against them. The fact of the matter is, saying African Americans are throwing a pity party by writing about the injustices they face is the same as saying anti-abortion activists are throwing pity parties for the unborn by trying to bring awareness to abortion. Both systemic racism and abortion are grave pro-life evils. If you don’t degrade one party for their activism, you shouldn’t degrade the other, especially as a Christian.
Hello, again, Ms. Huddleston –
Thank you for your thoughtful response! This is more headway than I’ve encountered elsewhere.
We’ll work from your definition of systemic racism that ties it to a “structure”.
In your example, up to the civil rights movement you pointed to clear institutional (e.g. structural) sources of racism. Then you come to this statement “if the same things happened from emancipation until the civil rights era, is it illogical to think 40 years later it could still be happening in some way shape or form of another?” And from there out you mostly give examples of disparate outcomes (higher incarceration rates, etc). I don’t question any of that, and I wouldn’t wish for it, it’s not clear what “structure” is responsible for those outcomes. Really, it’s not in the least. Is it the structure of the criminal justice system? Is it the structure of the so-called “hip hop” culture? Is it the structure of the welfare system? Is it the lack of structure in inner city families? Is it the structure of sin that exists in each one of us – and is no longer socially constrained by Christian principles?
See, for example, the National Academy of Science study on the increase incarceration rates (“The Growth of Incarceration’). They agree that incarcerations rates are extraordinarily high. They also state, “the committee’s review of the literature justifies the conclusion that racial bias and discrimination are not the primary causes of disparities in sentencing decision or rate of imprisonment.” But they also note that “while there is not convincing evidence of widespread racial bias in sentencing there is… credible evidence that black defendants are treated differently.”
They go on to discuss the tremendous complexity of trying to discern any clear policy conclusions of all of this.
Now that was specific to incarceration rates – but you can find similar confounding data and analysis on most aspects of criminal justice. So what are we to make of it? Is this “systemic racism” or is it a very complex, multi-factorial mess of a fallen world that also includes some racism (I think this is the point that Gene Van Son was making)?
Now, that said, if you are going to focus on any area of society where legal/policy changes could make a big impact (other than abortion as you also note), I agree the criminal justice system is a great place to start. But I doubt there is much one-sized fits all low hanging fruit to be found. This involves serious work addressing meaningful deterrents, proportionality in sentencing and so on. If that’s what you and BLM supporters are promoting (carefully considered, targeted actions), I say, more power to you!
Is that what you’re proposing? In every area of society where “systemic racism” is alleged – to carefully (and prayerfully) study the issue and propose targeted responses?
Because that does not seem to be what the mainstream BLM movement is looking for. That seems focused on wielding “systemic racism” as a cudgel to invoke sweeping societal transformation – like “defunding the police”.
And I’ll maintain the ultimate root cause is beyond the reach of government. You can’t legislate morality. By all means – get fairer sentencing and all of those things – but it will only go so far. Like whack-a-mole. You solve one problem, another will appear. Unless and until we get to the root of the problem – returning to our nation to Christ – mortifying ourselves, staying close to God and bringing Christ to the marginalized. We do that – all the rest of this mess takes care of itself.
Thank, again – Steve
Hi Steve!
Thanks again for your thoughtful, charitable and empathetic response. I’ve found dialoguing with you to be a rather pleasant experience. You and I can probably agree that when it comes to this topic, coming from opposite sides of the spectrum on this subject tends to bear unfruitful conversation and uncharitable arguments. I appreciate that it doesn’t have to come to that with our discussion. We are both presenting our cases in a clear headed, logical fashion. Empathy for one another in this conversation has taken us a long way. Now, to address your comment:
“ Unless and until we get to the root of the problem – returning to our nation to Christ – mortifying ourselves, staying close to God and bringing Christ to the marginalized. We do that – all the rest of this mess takes care of itself.”
I definitely agree with this! I think if our nation turned back to Christ wholeheartedly then we would see these issues disappear! So we definitely agree there. Now onto addressing the rest of your comment.
Although I did list disparate outcomes, I didn’t list those only. For example we can look at the southern strategy and law and order politics and how those are a direct attack on African Americans. That isn’t necessarily disparate outcomes. However, I’m not going to say that disparate outcomes don’t point to systemic racism, because they often do. If we examine the healthcare disparity, we find that black people die at a higher rate from diseases that are usually preventable with medical treatment. Someone could object to it and say “maybe it’s because a large portion of African Americans live in poor inner city environments” and say that it’s a relation to poverty and not necessarily racism. I encounter this often. However, we would need to step further into our intellect and examine our American History. From the very dawn of the history of the emancipation proclamation black people, black men in particular had a harder time finding jobs in a system set up for their failure. This persisted into the civil rights era where there were laws enacted to discriminate in employment, lending, housing. This caused African Americans to travel in droves and migrate to northern states to find jobs and some sort of living. If we are being genuine hearted and genuine in our intellect, it’s obvious that trying to find a job in a system built against you will lead to poverty. This is the reason of the poverty percentages in African American communities. These are the reasons why African Americans die at higher rates because they cannot afford healthcare. It’s the result of a system built against them. Many people will point to wealthy African Americans and say it can’t be against them, but that simply isn’t true. It only simply means they persisted in a system that was built against them. Our history accounts for many disparities today, that should always be taken into account. I would like to recommend some a video for you to watch. It’s a study done on racial disparities in medicine. Before you watch it, I ask that you first pray, and ask for God to further that gift of empathy that you have. Here is the video.
https://youtu.be/Lz9PddgYYic
To answer your questions about the structures of certain systems: you pointed to criminal justice, hip hop culture, and welfare. Great points. Yes, I would definitely say the criminal justice reflects but an aspect of needed reform in economics. Did you know that in the hip hop industry the majority of listeners are non African Americans? And the majority of writers of hip hop songs are also non African American. Did you know also that the majority of welfare recipients are white and not African American? I think addressing these types of stereotypes goes a long way in confronting the way African Americans have been viewed for a long time in America.
I would like to ask what you think this means: “while there is not convincing evidence of widespread racial bias in sentencing there is… credible evidence that black defendants are treated differently.” In what ways were they treated differently? Was harsher sentencing for similar crimes ruled out as not being a way in which they were treated differently?
/Is this “systemic racism” or is it a very complex, multi-factorial mess of a fallen world that also includes some racism (I think this is the point that Gene Van Son was making)?/
Why can’t it be both? I don’t think they have to be pitted against each other. We can say that systemic racism IS indeed a very complex, multi factorial mess of a fallen world . I don’t see why it should be excluded, they’re synonymous. That is my point.
/This involves serious work addressing meaningful deterrents, proportionality in sentencing and so on. If that’s what you and BLM supporters are promoting (carefully considered, targeted actions), I say, more power to you!/
I’m glad you agree. Ask the majority of peaceful BLM protestors and they’ll tell you that is exactly their goal. That’s exactly what Mr. Sassau and Mrs. Purvis are essentially saying. It’s essentially what I’m saying. In these systems that disproportionately affect African Americans, reform is needed so that they are no longer disproportionately affected.
When it comes to defunding the police, I prefer to say “reforming the police” we don’t have to do away with our policing system. But we should reform the areas of policing in which African Americans are disproportionately affected. There is an image of an unarmed woman in 1960s Birmingham where there was an officer standing on her neck. Literally standing. This woman was peacefully protesting. George Floyd was completely unarmed (whether he was on drugs is besides the point of the brutality he faced) and the officer knelt on his neck. African Americans have a long history with police brutality. During the civil rights era small black children were attached and bitten by dogs at peaceful protests. All one needs to do is simply pull up footage of the brutality that African Americans faced to see that its largely unchanging. Unarmed Black people are still being brutalized by police. This is why the protestors are angry, and that is a righteous anger. I don’t condone violence or looting but a righteous anger is a godly anger, and when secular movements move in such a way to protest over the dignity of the human person it shows that we are all made in the image of God. We all have him written on our hearts, and many people from all walks of life realize that, and that reflect the truth of the Imago Dei in that way.
/And I’ll maintain the ultimate root cause is beyond the reach of government. You can’t legislate morality./
That is maintaining a position outside of church teaching. The church teaches that it is the responsibility of the state to mandate moral and just laws and practices.
Steve, as you read this response, I ask that you join me in prayer that we may continue to empathize with each other and to understand each other better. Thanks so much for your response!
Racism is when one race is treated differently from another race. If Black prisoners are paid $0.12/Hr, are Whites or Asians getting paid more? Are Whites offered plea-bargains by Prosecutors too? Some answer that Whites are treated differently because they benefit from a so-called “White Privilege”, but that’s malarkey – God has no virtue of “super-justice”. There is only justice and injustice.
Yes, it is true that Abortion Clinics are located in Black neighborhoods 80% of the time, but is that the fault of White folk? No, that is the fault of some very sick people. Is it an injustice? You bet it is! Many White folk would love to put those responsible behind bars…or at least offer them a plea-bargain. I believe your examples (both here and previously) are oversimplifications.
I’ve sat on a Jury for a Black man accused of rape. In the end, he was found “not-guilty” (because there is no “innocent” verdict). The evidence against him was that he “admitted to it to the Police”! Of course then the video camera was not working and the audio tape was lost…etc. Despite this disturbing fiasco, I believe most of us thought he was innocent, but not everyone of course. His chances of being convicted were zero. I’m glad he did not plea-bargain.
I understand the problem with plea-bargains. I would entertain any ideas you suggest happen instead. I believe the jury selection process is fair, however I am told the biggest bias is due to Blacks not being registered voters. Again, is that the fault of Whites?
Hi Christopher,
My response never said that black prisoners are being treated more immoral than white or Asian prisoners. I never even insinuated that, actually. My argument to be specific was that our modern prison system is a cash crop to corporations, and black men are imprisoned at a higher rate than any other race. This has nothing to do with how they’re being treated in prison as a comparison by race. As far as I know, the working/living conditions for most prisons are the same regardless of race. That’s not what we are talking about, we are talking about the rate at which one race is imprisoned at a disproportionate rate over the others despite being a lower percentage of the population, and we are relying on objective, historical evidence to vindicate that position, because that’s exactly what historical, objective evidence has told vindicated.
I prefer not to get into the discussion of what privileged, and no one is saying it’s “white peoples faults.” As Christians we all have a duty to make sure that our brothers and sisters of color aren’t facing injustices. We can do so without pointing the finger and blaming anyone.
OK. Understood. In that case, I would expand on that and say that any product or service could be deemed unlawful based upon a highly disproportionate detriment to any group of our population – regardless of whether that product or service was conceived maliciously.
For me, the kink in the text doe not go to the open letter. Can you provide a link to the text of the actual letter? Thank you. Guy, Texas
Hello Guy!
Hope TX is treating you well! I’m ready for some cooler weather! Here is the link to the letter!
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/tradistae/pages/11/attachments/original/1595522482/Open_Letter_to_US_Bishops_on_the_March_for_Black_Life_v2.pdf?1595522482
Dear Ms Huddleston –
You begin with a statement calling for laws and policies to address systemic racism.
I have two serious concerns that I hope you can respond to – seriously, I appreciate that you’re here in this forum and I value your perspective on this.
First – It’s been asked again and again, and I have yet to see an answer from anyone, so can you please give a clear definition of systemic racism and current examples of systemic racism in action? This is different than quoting data about financial disparities. There are many potential reasons for such disparities. How exactly do you and others connect the dots to come to the conclusion that systemic racism is the root cause?
Without that line of logic, how can you craft laws and policies? And, what are you thinking the laws and policies should be?
Second – this leads to the question, why are people determined that the answer must be “laws and policies”? Why does it have to be a big-government solution? I understand the default answer is because the problem is “systemic” – but that just brings us back to my first concern. It seems “systemic” is being used as a wedge to force government mandated laws and policies.
Big-government laws and policies should be the be solution of last resort (look at the nightmare results of the inner city central planning of the 60’s and 70’s). There’s no doubt we have a real problem with people being marginalized in many different ways – and the Church should absolutely be reaching out to them. But not as lobbyists – rather as boots on the ground reaching out to the marginalized in our communities. Please explain to me why I don’t hear bishops and cardinals calling for that kind of action and conversion? And if all these wealthy corporations and silicon valley moguls and Hollywood elites are as interested in justice and equality as they say – I would expect they would put their money and time where their mouth is and get behind the Church and pitch in.
Again, please give a clear definition and examples of systemic racism, explain the precise laws and polices that will address it – and why that’s better than a response from the Church that gets all of us pitching in with our time, talent and treasure?
Thank you – Steve
Hello Steve!
First, I’d like to thank you for a few things. For one, thanks for being charitable, empathetic, and objective as possible in your questions. That’s exactly the attitude I think is a great example for the church. I would be glad to answer your questions. First, I wanted to make note about something that is essential to understanding my point of view. Disparities in the US can be caused by a number of factors, and I guess it depends on which disparities you are referring to. Among many of these factors, disparities can point to a history of racism. So, we don’t need to shy away from disparities when discussing systemic racism, but we should be asking if these disparities do reflect an issue related to race. The common single denominator in most disparities in the U.S. is race. I don’t want to spend too much time on disparities, but I do want to emphasize that just as much as disparities can be an outcome of simply being poor, disparities can also be race related. One of the first steps in genuinely having this talk is understanding that.
Now, it seems like you’ve had this conversation many times with many people and still leave the conversations feeling unsatisfactory after every conversation on what systemic racism entails, and hopefully we can change that today. Now, to give a definition of systemic racism, it can be defined as a structure (economic, social, etc.) that marginalizes, discriminated against, oppresses, and profits off of a person or people based off of race. Oftentimes systemic racism is the tree in which personally mediated racism and internalized racism shoot from. Now, I will give you an example of historical racism, and then I will give you an example of modern systemic racism as an answer to your first question, and then I will go on to answer your second question.
Now, going by my definition of systemic racism, we can identify this historically as chattel slavery. First, chattel slavery categorized people by race, with African Americans being considered as property and not as human beings. Then, we can see that African American slaves were used as a means for labor and this labor directly contributed to the economic prosperity of the South. Laws were built into the structures of society that allowed a person to own and sell slaves, and to use them as property for labor. We can see how this racism was embedded deep into the economic infrastructure of Southern society.
Now, if we turn to modern day there are two very clear examples of this which you can trace the pattern back directly to chattel slavery all throughout American history. The first of that is the current US prison system. In order to understand my point of view, you would need to stop thinking of a prison the way a civilian in society would think of a prison, and think of it in a way that corporations would think of it. The first question from a corporations point of view would be how can we profit off of the prison system? (Did you know that ALEC- many corporations and lawmakers are partnered together to profit off of the current US prison system?) Now with this understanding we should be viewing the prison system as a cash crop, as that is the way many companies partnered with Alec who hire prisoners for .12 an hr would. Now, we only need to examine the ratification of the 13th amendment and view American history through the lens of the 13th amendment today to connect some dots. One, it should be noted that the 13th amendment grants freedom but allows slavery for those who commit crimes or are implicated as criminals. That means, even today that under the 13th amendment if you are in a prison you have your 13th amendment right taken away and can be treated as a slave. This is exactly what started happening after the ratification of the amendments. When that happened, we saw law makers enact black codes and vagrancy laws which criminalized petty actions such as gestures, being in groups of 3, and joblessness. Being that most African Americans had trouble finding work, it’s safe to say we saw a large number of African Americans go to prison where that 13th amendment right was essentially stripped away. Peonage is the system in which was enacted where anyone could pay off the fine of the imprisoned African American and then that African American would have to pay back the person who paid their prison fee with unpaid labor. This system was intricately designed to keep African Americans oppressed and to continue to profit off of them economically. Now, let’s continue through time. Historically we know that through law and order politics petty crimes for African Americans were heavily criminalized, just think of Rosa Parks who Was arrested for not giving up her bus seat, and think of all of the African Americans who were criminalized and put away during the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King jr was arrested 29 times. As a matter of fact, the civil rights movement was also known among African Americans as the voluntary imprisonment movement, because they would be thrown in jail for practically anything, including simply protesting. We’ve been able to consistently draw a pattern throughout history so far, and ended with the civil rights movement, which was 40 years ago. Now, from the civil rights movement to now is a shorter time than what we’ve covered from the emancipation to the civil rights era. If the same things happened From emancipation until the civil rights era, is it illogical to think 40 years later it could still be happening in some way shape or form of another? Absolutely not. To suggest otherwise would actually be illogical. Would it be logical to think that for 40 years since the birth of the nation African Americans finally aren’t oppressed anymore when they have been for the entire majority of American history? I think it would be if we examine the historical timelines objectively. We’ve come a ways, but not that long of a way. Now today in the US, the US has the largest prison population in the world, and largely due to petty crimes. Can you guess which racial group in the US have made up the majority of prisoners? I don’t have to tell you that it’s african Americans. Now, with that being said have you studied any on the rate of exonerations at which black men are acquitted for crimes they didn’t commit due to advanced DNA testing? It’s a staggering rate really. Have you done any research into the rate of black men that are exonerated and acquitted for crimes they didn’t commit but confessed to committing? 97% of black men exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit took a plea bargain instead of going to trial because they feared that going to trial would incriminate them on charges they didn’t commit for crimes they didn’t commit, and the prison system is perfectly set up and equipped to do that. Now we can draw some parallels here 1) the 13th amendment still allows slavery for prisoners 2) big corporations invest in prisons because they can have mass manufacturing produced by prisoners at little to no pay for prison workers 3) black men are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit. The prison system is a cash crop to US corporations, and someone has to keep up the labor. Who has it always been historically? The same people it is today. This is not mentioning the number of African American men put on death row and then later exonerated after they had already been fed to the system and killed.
Another clear example of systemic racism is found in the eugenics movement today with abortion as current Eugenics. For my first example I used the 13th amendment loophole to show how laws continually were enacted around it. For this example we rely on the 14th. Historically black women as slaves were told to have as many children as possible during the slave trade that more slaves would be bred. This led to the invention of gynecology along with unethical experiments being performed on African American women’s reproductive organs. The stereotype that black women have babies at a higher rate continued after the emancipation proclamation. Historically we can see the us enact laws that forced African American women to be sterilized in southern states. In the 1950s, the popular eugenicist Margaret Sanger used birth control as a means of eugenics. She was heavily involved in the African American community (Martin Luther King Jr even received the Margaret Sanger award). Today, black babies are disproportionately aborted by African American women. This is not because African American women are more inherently prone to killing their children, but because of the eugenics movement born in the 1950s still deeply affects and devastates the black community today. In order to overcome that, we need to prove with the 14th amendment before the Supreme Court that eugenics is unethical (especially abortion) in that it allows subordination to dominate its worldview. Abortion is allowed through the 14th amendment and if we can use the 14th amendment to prove that Eugenics was a means to which unethically reduce the African American population it roe v wade could be overturned. Americans need to stop thinking of abortion as a reproductive right and think of it as racist Eugenics.
To answer your second question, this seems like somewhat of a false dichotomy. I think it would be great to enact laws but also it would be great to have US church leaders more on board. However, that systemic racism still permeates our country and affects African Americans is a message that US Catholics, include many of the clergy and most especially the laity, aren’t ready to hear. Once they are ready to hear, understand, and overcome then we will see the attitude of the US church shift. But in order for that to happen there needs to be policies enacted through the economy since the oppression is economical. Modification to the 13th, 14, and 15th amendments could very well end a lot of turmoil African Americans are still facing today. I hope this answers some of your questions. I think I’ve presented my case of at least two examples pretty clearly. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Again, thanks for being charitable and objective.
Brianna,
As a rule I don’t comment on articles by other writers here at CS, but since you’ve defined here what you mean by “systemic racism” and are continuing to offer the same arguments you offered in your August 18 essay, in charity I feel compelled to respond.
1) Your statement “The common single denominator in most disparities in the U.S. is race” is a fallacious statement. In logic it is called an “Impervious Argument,” meaning that it is a view that is considered immune from criticism, impervious to any counter-evidence. As such it is a view that claims to be unfalsifiable. This claim alone makes it not rationally credible. Proponents of critical theory (also called critical race theory) often apply this illogical claim to racism. It is also an example of “Begging the Question,” sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point). It is a logical fallacy in which the writer assumes the statement under examination to be true without compelling, verifiable evidence of its truth. You did not provide that evidence because the evidence is not there to be had.
2) The fact that slavery was once a wide spread practice in the past does not support your Aug. 18 thesis statement that institutional/systemic racism exists today. This is another fallacious argument. It is also illogical to claim that 55 years after the passage of extensive civil rights legislation black Americans are still “oppressed” when so much evidence to the contrary exists – a black American sits on the highest court in the land (a second black American should have been appointed but the supposedly un-bigoted “progressives” in this country blocked the appointment); we’ve elected a black President; black American representation in Congress is equal to the percentage of black Americans in the US.; and black Americans hold numerous judgeship’s, mayoral positions, and prestigious positions in business, academia, and at various state and federal government levels. None of this would be possible in a country where systemic racism is prevalent.
3) Your use of the industrial-prison-complex as proof of systemic racism does not work. James Kilgore, a research scholar at the Center for African Studies at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) refuted the claims you make in an article entitled the “The Myth of Prison Slave Labor Camps in the U.S.” [https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/09/the-myth-of-prison-slave-labor-camps-in-the-u-s/]. Your use of the “Police Use of Nonfatal Force, 2002–11” report and the “Demographic Differences in Sentencing: An Update to the 2012 Booker Report” also do not support your contention. Read the conclusions at the each report. Police use of Nonfatal Force: “Complex relationships among variables were not fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive analysis. Causal inferences should not be made based on the results presented.” Booker Report: “These analyses show that some differences exist, and describe the relative size of those differences, in the periods in which the differences were observed. However, the fact that certain sentencing outcomes may be correlated with demographic factors does not mean that the demographic factors caused the outcome.[60] Therefore, the demographic differences in sentencing outcomes revealed by these analyses should not be interpreted as a finding that demographic factors caused those differences. Neither can the analyses presented in this report be used to explain why the observed differences in sentencing outcomes exist.”
4) You also say “Another clear example of systemic racism is found in the eugenics movement today with abortion as current Eugenics.” This is another fallacious statement (Impervious Argument). You then say “Abortion is allowed through the 14th amendment and if we can use the 14th amendment to prove that Eugenics was a means to which unethically reduce the African American population it roe v wade could be overturned.” This is a fallacy known as “An Appeal to Incredulity.” I doubt you could find more than a hand full of jurists who might take such a position. Simply stated, the 14th amendment cannot be used to “prove that Eugenics was a means to which unethically reduce the African American population.” While it is certainly true that Margaret Sanger was a proponent of eugenics and that more black babies are aborted (i.e. murdered) today than white babies, legalized abortion did not come about as a result of systemic racism. It was an outgrowth of the women’s lib movement and a desire on the part of progressive women to divorce the sanctity of marriage and procreation from the pleasures of sex. In short, a means of getting rid of unwanted babies was needed. No doubt eugenicists and proponents of ‘overpopulation’ took great delight in roe v wade but it was the progressive ‘free sex’ crowd that was behind the movement to see abortion legalized. (See also #5.)
5) And finally, your statement that “Modification to the 13th, 14, and 15th amendments could very well end a lot of turmoil African Americans are still facing today” is an opinion without any proof to back it up. The problems surrounding the 3 amendments you cite are not due to the wording of the amendments. They are due to activist judges reading things into the amendments that are simply not there as well as people trying to skirt the law. It took activist judges to find an unstated right to “reproductive rights” and an unstated woman’s right to abortion to make abortion legal. Secular laws and idiotic, illogical, legal decisions are now being used to undermine God’s truths and natural law. Man made laws and policies cannot and will not stop haters from hating. We already have all kinds of laws defining what it legal and what is not but these laws do stop those who are bent on performing illegal activities from carrying them out. Man made laws will not stop a hater from hating any more than they will stop someone like a Unabomber or a John Wayne Gacy. Virtuous behavior comes from belief in God and His truths and a desire to live a life in Christ. This is what is missing in society today.
Hello Gene! Please check your email.
Glad to see this. Thank you.
Thank you, God bless you!