Last year, my colleague Ryan Gorman penned an article titled “Individuals — not institutions — perpetuate racism.” The well-intentioned article contends, as its name suggests, that modern institutions are not liable for racism. Rather, the constituents of these organizations are the ones who should be held accountable. Gorman argues, “Just as correlation does not imply causation, discriminatory actions taken by individuals — however horrifying or overt they may be — are not necessarily indicative of the virtues of the institutions they represent.” Though he acknowledges that individuals can be both consciously and subconsciously racist, Gorman’s use of “virtues” suggests an institution can be racist only when its practices are intentionally harmful. Gorman’s argument is understandable but rooted in a misconception of what constitutes “institutional racism.”
In defining “institutional discrimination,” sociologists John Scott and Gordon Marshall write, “A long tradition of studies in sociology has shown that discrimination against some groups in society can result from the majority simply adhering unthinkingly to the existing organizational and institutional rules or social norms. Prejudice, stereotyping, and covert or overt hostility need not be factors in the exploitation of one group by another, or in the unfair distribution of rewards.” By noting that discrimination may come on account of “adhering unthinkingly” to institutional and organizational patterns and without “covert or overt” hostility, Scott and Marshall reveal that a person’s biases do not need to be a factor for racist outcomes. We can see examples of this unintentional institutional racism in court cases involving disparate impact — a legal claim that holds that any policy resulting in a disproportionate “adverse impact” on a protected class is discriminatory.
A recent example is the focus of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., or ICP, filed a suit against the Texas Department of Housing and Community of Affairs, which offered tax credits by way of the federal government, for developers in exchange for building lower-income housing. Since it decides who will receive these tax credits, the Texas government agency will inevitably affect the options available to lower-income people. Unfortunately, as ICP noted, the Texas agency allocated most of these tax credits in poor minority neighborhoods. Consequently, when lower-income, minority families sought housing, they were effectively relegated (and segregated) to lower-income communities.
Sadly, as members of both the left and right should know, lower-income neighborhoods often provide dismal opportunities for families who seek upward mobility. An overwhelming number of studies have shown that residents of lower-income neighborhoods tend to suffer from higher levels of stress that lead to depression, other health disparities, restriction to low-performing schools, lower high school graduation rates, lower college enrollment rates and higher rates of criminal activity. Accordingly, the Texas department’s policy denied families of color equal opportunities, limiting their chances of achieving the American Dream. The policy is effectively racist because it restricted the opportunities of lower-income, minority families. Although it did not intend to have an adverse impact on minority families, in practice, the policy did just that.
Another example is Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center et. al v. HUD and Paul Rainwater, Executive Director of the Louisiana Recovery Authority. In this case, a coalition of New Orleanian housing organizations charged the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, and the Louisiana Recovery Authority with discrimination against black residents. The housing organizations claimed the Road Home program, a federal program aimed at aiding victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, had an adverse effect on minority residents. The Road Home program aided Katrina victims by providing families funding tantamount to the original value of their homes instead of cost of damage. Accordingly, houses in black communities received less funding than those in white communities, even when the houses were identical. This policy intended to help victims, and though it did, the help was discriminatively distributed.
Gorman is right to say the biases of individuals play a large role in sustaining racism in today’s society. However, he is wrong to dismiss the role institutions play on the grounds that racism is “no longer a tenet of any local, state or federal institution.” As the aforementioned court cases have shown, modern institutional discrimination is often unintentional and not rooted in bias. When examining an organization’s policies, we must look beyond the rhetoric used in each policy. We must look at the actual effects policies have on people. After all, good intentions do not always produce good results.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 8 hours agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 19 hours agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
PARTING SHOT: Does this even matter?
By Jacob Tisdale | YesterdayIndividuals and communities can use sports to inspire, to hold space, to heal, to break molds, to change narratives, to honor faith or to come home.
