Race-neutral rhetoric coexists with licensed racial profiling for security and policing

Evidence

But, as I have personally said to police officials, ignoring unflattering evidence will not make it go away. The term “disparity” as typically used by scholars, and as I use it here, means there is some observable difference between the likelihood of a given outcome (e.g., being searched during a traffic stop) for different groups. The term does not convey what causes the difference and is certainly not automatic proof of deliberate racism. In the approach that my collaborators and I take in our research on race and policing, and in our many conversations with the members of law enforcement with whom we partner, finding disparities is not an indictment of racism nor is it the final word, but rather it is the starting point for a dialogue about how to improve policecommunity relations. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 356 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: National security threat perception can abruptly reverse public rejection of racial profiling — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 462; Security registration programs racialize groups by concretizing essentialized categories; Repeated racist discursive strategies harden into commonsense used to justify governing suspect groups — Cyra Akila Choudhury, Racecraft and Identity in the Emergence…, 358 (+10 more)

Broader Connections

• Racial disparity in policing is distinct from proof of racism #complicates (0.80) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 356