What is "Systemic Racism?"

[InTheLight]

I think that you need to prove that is systemic. It could be, but as stated it is just a statistic.

Yes, and a quite damning one.

[snip unrelated stuff]

And there are consequences of past systemic racism. Many of the times CEO's gain a position from reputation (or family reputation), have benefited from educational opportunities, wealth, etc. gained by their parents. But this is not systemic racism. It is the consequence of past systemic racism.

Oh? So tell us when systemic racism was eliminated? In the past 5 years? 10 years?

Fortune 500 companies by and large are not bastions of nepotism. Once they reach a certain size, most smart owners realize they have carried the ball as far as they can and need outside help to keep the company growing. Besides, CEOs are nominated and elected by the board of directors and/or the shareholders.

The burden is on you to explain why only 1% of Fortune 500 companies have black CEOs. That means that only 5 CEOs out of 500 are black. Why is that?

 

[InTheLight]

See this is what liberals do. They take two unrelated stats and pretend that combined they show causation.

Once again the argument becomes, "I'm a liberal." Laughable.

You mean like how Jon took a discussion about the lack of black CEOs and brought up disproportionate black arrests?

 

[JonC]

Yes, and a quite damning one.

[snip unrelated stuff]



Oh? So tell us when systemic racism was eliminated? In the past 5 years? 10 years?

Fortune 500 companies by and large are not bastions of nepotism. Once they reach a certain size, most smart owners realize they have carried the ball as far as they can and need outside help to keep the company growing. Besides, CEOs are nominated and elected by the board of directors and/or the shareholders.

The burden is on you to explain why only 1% of Fortune 500 companies have black CEOs. That means that only 5 CEOs out of 500 are black. Why is that?

You misunderstand me. I do not believe that systemic racism is eliminated.

I am saying that if one is going to cry "racism" then the burden of proof on them is to demonstrate it is in fact racism. You are wrong that racism needs to be assumed until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me. There could be so many reasons. Anyone who narrows it down to one needs to prove their position.



Racism is wrong. It is a sin. It is a crime.

We should not assume a person or entity is guilty and demand that they prove their innocence. That is also wrong.

But what happens (and what you have done) is assume guilt, assume racism, until proven it is not. That is wrong.

 

[InTheLight]

You misunderstand me. I do not believe that systemic racism is eliminated.

I am saying that if one is going to cry "racism" then the burden of proof on them is to demonstrate it is in fact racism. You are wrong that racism needs to be assumed until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me. There could be so many reasons. Anyone who narrows it down to one needs to prove their position.



Racism is wrong. It is a sin. It is a crime.

We should not assume a person or entity is guilty and demand that they prove their innocence. That is also wrong.

But what happens (and what you have done) is assume guilt, assume racism, until proven it is not. That is wrong.

You will never get the board of directors of Fortune 500 companies to admit to being racist. You will never get white people to admit they are racist. Therefore it is impossible to "prove" that it is racism.

Yet, there is that statistic--only 1% of CEOs are blacks.

Why aren't there more black people as CEOs?
Is it because blacks are not qualified? I would say, no, that's not the reason.
So tell us why.

 

[JonC]

Look at it this way, @InTheLight

Racism is wrong. It is a sin. It is a crime.

We should not assume a person or entity is guilty and demand that they prove their innocence. That is also wrong.

But what happens (and what you have done) is assume guilt

You will never get the board of directors of Fortune 500 companies to admit to being racist. You will never get white people to admit they are racist. Therefore it is impossible to "prove" that it is racism.

Yet, there is that statistic--only 1% of CEOs are blacks.

Why aren't there more black people as CEOs?
Is it because blacks are not qualified? I would say, no, that's not the reason.
So tell us why.

I do not believe that blacks who seek to be CEO's are not qualified. I'm sure most are. That said, I cannot say if they are MORE qualified. And neither can you.

In interviews I am suspect that there are some, perhaps many, who would give an advantage to someone who is white. This is racism BUT this is not systemic racism.

The only thing I can say with certainty is the claim that only 1% of CEO's are black is because of systemic racism is itself a racist statement.

There are so many reasons this could be - to include qualifications (people choose the BEST qualified among qualified candidates), individual conscious racism (the persons in power deliberately choose a white CEO), individual unconsious racism (a choice made because those in power identify with the person chosen because they are "like them"), consequences of past systemic racism (an unequal dispersing of resources like housing, education, etc.), the disadvantage of culture (a culture that values anti-establishment mentalities)....just to name a few.

What is missing? Systemic racism.

The problem cannot be systemic without it being proven. We cannot correct an issue if the issue is just an assumption.

 

[JonC]

A side note, @InTheLight

While you may not be able to prove racism (no one is arguing racism does not exist) you CAN prove systemic racism.

A company that has a policy of hiring a black man among qualified candidates because the man is black is practicing systemic racism . It is systemic because it is built into the system. It is racism because the determining factor is race. The same goes for a company who hires a white man because of that man's race.

 

[Revmitchell]

Once again the argument becomes, "I'm a liberal." Laughable.

You mean like how Jon took a discussion about the lack of black CEOs and brought up disproportionate black arrests?

What John posts has nothing to do with my discussion with you. You don't get to interject his post as evidence of anything that's going on in our discussions.

 

[InTheLight]

Look at it this way, @InTheLight

Racism is wrong. It is a sin. It is a crime.

We should not assume a person or entity is guilty and demand that they prove their innocence. That is also wrong.

But what happens (and what you have done) is assume guilt

I do not believe that blacks who seek to be CEO's are not qualified. I'm sure most are. That said, I cannot say if they are MORE qualified. And neither can you.

In interviews I am suspect that there are some, perhaps many, who would give an advantage to someone who is white. This is racism BUT this is not systemic racism.

The only thing I can say with certainty is the claim that only 1% of CEO's are black is because of systemic racism is itself a racist statement.

There are so many reasons this could be - to include qualifications (people choose the BEST qualified among qualified candidates), individual conscious racism (the persons in power deliberately choose a white CEO), individual unconsious racism (a choice made because those in power identify with the person chosen because they are "like them"), consequences of past systemic racism (an unequal dispersing of resources like housing, education, etc.), the disadvantage of culture (a culture that values anti-establishment mentalities)....just to name a few.

What is missing? Systemic racism.

The problem cannot be systemic without it being proven. We cannot correct an issue if the issue is just an assumption.

So, 496 of the largest 500 companies in the US *could* be practicing racism by not hiring a black CEO, but certainly this is not proof that it is systemic. Four hundred and ninety-six out of five hundred is not systemic.

 

[InTheLight]

What John posts has nothing to do with my discussion with you. You don't get to interject his post as evidence of anything that's going on in our discussions.

When did you become a moderator?

 

[JonC]

So, 496 of the largest 500 companies in the US *could* be practicing racism by not hiring a black CEO, but certainly this is not proof that it is systemic. Four hundred and ninety-six out of five hundred is not systemic.

Exactly. I think that the more logical conclusion (given the median age of a CEO) is that it is the result of past systemic racism.

It is racist, however, to assume racism (especially when there are several just as legitimate possibilities).

 

[Revmitchell]

When did you become a moderator?

OK let me reword this. Your attempt to bring something he said into our discussion as if it's evidence that something I have said or posted is wrong is silly. I don't know why I'm having to constantly explain basic things to you all the time on this board.

 

[InTheLight]

Exactly. I think that the more logical conclusion (given the median age of a CEO) is that it is the result of past systemic racism.

It is racist, however, to assume racism (especially when there are several just as legitimate possibilities).

OK, so again I ask--if the low numbers of blacks as CEOs can be explained as past systemic racism, when did systemic racism end?

Or if you can show that the number of black CEOs is increasing with time, that would be an indicator that your theory has some merit. Can you show that?

 

[Sai]

Once again the argument becomes, "I'm a liberal." Laughable.

You mean like how Jon took a discussion about the lack of black CEOs and brought up disproportionate black arrests?

Quit kissing the black man’s feet.

 

[Sai]

OK, so again I ask--if the low numbers of blacks as CEOs can be explained as past systemic racism, when did systemic racism end?

Or if you can show that the number of black CEOs is increasing with time, that would be an indicator that your theory has some merit. Can you show that?

What’s with this obsession over CEO’s? Especially when in America you can work for yourselves and not someone else. Is working for someone else the white man’s idea of the American Dream? I think that people have lost track of how this country is supposed to work. As a CEO of a company if you make $400k a year you get taxed quite heavily on that money. There are easier ways to make that kind of money without paying the high tax brackets. God bless America!

 

[Revmitchell]

Since the term "Systemic Racism" is alleged to be a rampant problem in the United States, I have opened this forum for those who understand the issue to give us a solid definition of what the term actually means.

As far as I can tell, it means nothing, and has no discernable definition....
Am I wrong?
Please enlighten me as to what "Systemic Racism" means and how we can decifer whether America suffers from it in any meaningful degree.

So far in this thread there have only been examples of what some perceive ad racism given and then those examples are used as definitions of systematic racism.

In the video below is a discussion about Resolution 9 in the SBC. During this discussion an actual definition of systematic racism is given. You need to know these men all have PHD's and are accomplished in the study of this issue.

Systematic Racism is the determination of social standards through one race only. The accusation being made currently is that America has current standards of social interaction made up of white men only therefore it is racist.

 

[JonC]

OK, so again I ask--if the low numbers of blacks as CEOs can be explained as past systemic racism, when did systemic racism end?

Or if you can show that the number of black CEOs is increasing with time, that would be an indicator that your theory has some merit. Can you show that?

Yes. The low numbers can be explained as past systemic racism (among other things).

Systemic racism has not ended. People are afforded, by official policy, opportunities based on race as the determining factor.

Systemic racism against minority races officially ended on a national level in 1964. As time went on organizations were charged with continuing systemic racism at an individual business or corporate level and prosecuted (again, if a minority was the target).

Systemic racism against a minority race could, technically, exist today. I do not know of any cases, but there could be a company that has racist policies in place. But this would be illegal and a crime which is punishable (again, if against a minority).

I can show an upward trend in minorities holding leadership positions in corporations and on the board of Fortune 500 companies.

When looking at Fortune 500 companies, the number of companies with greater than 40 percent diversity has doubled. In 2004 14.9% of board seats were held by minority races. In 2018 this had increased by 5%. By the numbers, in 2004 178 seats were held by minority persons and in 2018 238 were held by minority persons.

From 2004 to 2018 number of Black persons holding board seats increased from 10% to 11.1%; the number of Hispanics from 3.8% to 4.4% and the number of Asian persons from 1% to 3.8%.

From 2016 to 2018 Black persons gained 17 positions, White men lost 23 (white women gained 13), Hispanic men gained 3 (Hispanic women lost 3), Asians gained 8.

(The source is the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance examining board diversity on Fortune 500 boards).

 

[canadyjd]

Yes, and a quite damning one.

[snip unrelated stuff]
The burden is on you to explain why only 1% of Fortune 500 companies have black CEOs. That means that only 5 CEOs out of 500 are black. Why is that?

Rather, first and foremost, the burden is on you to provide proof the statistics you are claiming are accurate. Where do you get those numbers?

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Yes. The low numbers can be explained as past systemic racism (among other things).

Systemic racism has not ended. People are afforded, by official policy, opportunities based on race as the determining factor.

Systemic racism against minority races officially ended on a national level in 1964. As time went on organizations were charged with continuing systemic racism at an individual business or corporate level and prosecuted (again, if a minority was the target).

Systemic racism against a minority race could, technically, exist today. I do not know of any cases, but there could be a company that has racist policies in place. But this would be illegal and a crime which is punishable (again, if against a minority).

I can show an upward trend in minorities holding leadership positions in corporations and on the board of Fortune 500 companies.

When looking at Fortune 500 companies, the number of companies with greater than 40 percent diversity has doubled. In 2004 14.9% of board seats were held by minority races. In 2018 this had increased by 5%. By the numbers, in 2004 178 seats were held by minority persons and in 2018 238 were held by minority persons.

From 2004 to 2018 number of Black persons holding board seats increased from 10% to 11.1%; the number of Hispanics from 3.8% to 4.4% and the number of Asian persons from 1% to 3.8%.

From 2016 to 2018 Black persons gained 17 positions, White men lost 23 (white women gained 13), Hispanic men gained 3 (Hispanic women lost 3), Asians gained 8.

(The source is the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance examining board diversity on Fortune 500 boards).

Thanks for sharing the information. Looks like progress is being made and, like all employees, it just takes time to work yourself up to the top.

peace to you

 

[Sai]

Evidently the systemic racism has evolved into this “Karen” phenomenon. Quite alarming actually.

 

[Adonia]

Systemic racism is when only 1% of the Fortune 500 CEOs are black despite the overall black population being about 14%.

How about the NBA? Wouldn't it be guilty of "systemic racism" since some 74.4% of it's players are black? How about the NFL where it's 70%? Seems like there is a whole lot of systemic racism gong on here against white people.