Introduction
Racism is not necessarily conscious, outspoken, or visibly noticeable, and it is frequently institutional and structural. Systemic and structural racisms are a form of prejudice that is prevalent and deeply ingrained in structures, legislation, documented or unpublished guidelines, and entrenched customs and rituals. As a result, they condone and propagate commonplace inequitable treatment and subjugation of racial minorities. Residential exclusion, unequal mortgage lending, biased crime control and imprisonment of people of color, and voter disenfranchisement practices are just a few illustrations (Flournoy 3). Thus, systematic racism encompasses the institutionalized systems and institutions complicit in racial discrimination and bigotry (Flournoy 3). This paper aims at discussing and analyzing some of the reasons that support institutional racism and those against this kind of prejudice.
Motivated Reasoning and Systemic Racism
Motivated reasoning is a style of argumentation in which individuals access, develop, and assess arguments to reach or support a favored hypothesis. People participate in motivated reasoning to prevent or mitigate incongruence, the psychological unpleasantness that occurs when persons are challenged with contradicting facts, particularly their satisfaction, pleasure, and mental well-being (McConahay 93). Cognitive bias is a constraint on independent thought induced by the human visual cortex’s proclivity for filtering material through the lens of personal observation and inclinations.
Confirmation bias is a psychological bias in which individuals seek, evaluate, and even retrieve knowledge to support established ideas and lead to motivated reasoning. The motivation for these biases is to decrease discrepancy caused by individuals’ intrinsic decision to eliminate distress, referred to as the pleasure principle. Furthermore, a significant trigger of motivated thinking is encountering a perceived threat to oneself, referred to as the conservative bias (Reyna et al. 110). Without such a compelling threat, individuals may pursue the most definitive assessment rather than the desired result. Danger to the self can manifest in various ways, which means that motivated thinking may trigger different inferences (Reyna et al. 110). For example, followers of a politician may downplay the implications of the candidate’s negative behavior or may ascribe the conduct to contextual variables.
One reason is that White individuals are driven to downplay their experiences of bigotry, racism, and systemic racism to safeguard their collective reputation. Institutional inequality threatens the White stereotype by undercutting American norms of justice and inclusiveness (Beattie and Danielle 178). Additionally, institutionalized racism suggests that White people have disproportionate inherent benefits and that, as a group, they perpetuate inequity. Apart from experiences of discrimination, the desire to preserve a group image affects White public views of diversification and enthusiasm for measures that promote marginalized groups (Beattie and Danielle 178). Whites, for instance, view diversity in institutions and organizations extensively because a broad view of heterogeneity reinforces the sense that diversity happens in a variety of circumstances.
Modern Symbolic Prejudice
Modern symbolic discrimination is a sort of bias directed towards Blacks by Whites in specific. At the same time, it is probable in some proportion by other American ethnicities and, in theory, may target persons other than Blacks. An example of modern symbolic racism is that Blacks make unreasonable requirements and have earned more than they ought (Dovidio et al. 63). Some of the characteristics of modern symbolic prejudice include its strong bearing on how Americans view race-based governance. It is hypothesized to affect a broad spectrum of political perceptions, including resistance to liberal apartheid discrimination such as racial quotas and commuting (Reyna et al. 113). Mentalities toward less explicitly ethnic background policies that disproportionately affect blacks, such as harsh crime initiatives, encompass contemporary symbolic racism. Another characteristic of contemporary symbolic discrimination is the belief that it is learned through socialization (Sidanius et al. 112). In other words, present racist ideas are acquired through parental influences, colleagues, and the mainstream press (Sidanius et al. 112). In addition, it is developed as early as adolescence and remains constant throughout one’s lifespan.
The notion of outcome fairness seeks to ensure that underprivileged people benefit. Equal outcome proponents think that because systematic inequality precludes actual equality of chances, the only way to accomplish parity is through a more equitable allocation of money, such as diversity initiatives and universal basic income (Marmot 540). On the other side, opportunity equality aims at ensuring that everyone has an equal chance at success. Defenders of equality of opportunity are criticized for using it to justify maintaining the status quo and preventing individuals from moving to a more egalitarian society (Marmot 540). As a result, proponents for equality of outcome are blamed for peddling the utopian notion that people can and should be equal, impeding industrialization and entrepreneurial progress (Marmot 541). The concept of equality overlooks the fact that the socioeconomic circumstances in which an individual is born may constrain their chances, whether regarding education, professionalism, or any other element affecting someone’s accomplishment.
Arguments For and Against the Existence of Systemic Racism
Some of the justifications for systemic racism in the USA are seen in the criminal justice system. While black individuals account for 13% of the American population, they account for 40% of the inmate population (Lavalley and Khalilah 4). When Black persons are charged, they are approximately 20% more likely to receive a jail term and often receive longer punishments than those imposed on whites prosecuted for identical offenses (Lavalley and Khalilah 4). Perhaps when a Black and white individual commits the same act, the Black person has a higher chance of getting apprehended. Additionally, over 80 percent of low-income Black individuals reside in neighborhoods that fit the state’s legal definition for low-income populations (Park and Mei-Po 100). Thus, this is compared to just below 50 percent of low-income white persons (Park and Mei-Po 100). These tendencies have long been evident in central cities, causing significant political conflict between a limited bunch of top wealthy, primarily white suburbs, and low-income minority populations with their interests and goals.
However, there exist reasons to show that the United States government has over the years combated systemic racism and that it no longer suffices in institutions. As they have done in healthcare, federal officials have created support to ensure that well-prepared instructors are available in shortage sectors and high-need locales. Additionally, jurisdictions have balanced education funding by mandating higher teacher quality and addressing instructor shortages, as Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, and North Carolina have. The deployment of a high-quality curriculum and skilled educators has had a more significant impact on the educational performance of Black populations.
Conclusion
I believe that systemic racism still exists in various institutions within the USA. For instance, health inequities continue and are common among minority communities, and bigotry contributes to these discrepancies. Taylor et al. reported that 30% of Black pregnant women live in neighborhoods without decent healthcare, contrasted to 20% of white pregnant women (30). Additionally, black women had a C-section of 36% in 2017, compared to 30.9 percent of white women (Braveman et al. 2). Underinsurance and a lack of health institutions offering effective maternity and infant care increase these disparities in impoverished communities.
Works Cited
Beattie, Peter, and Danielle Snider. “Knowledge in International Relations: Susceptibilities to Motivated Reasoning among Experts and Non-Experts.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Vol. 7, no. 1, 2019, pp. 172-191.
Braveman, Paula, et al. “Explaining the Black-White Disparity in Preterm Birth: A Consensus Statement from a Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Work Group Convened by the March of Dimes.” Frontiers in Reproductive Health, 2021, pp. 1-24.
Dovidio, John F., Kerry Kawakami, and Samuel L. Gaertner. “Implicit and Explicit Prejudice and Interracial Interaction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, no. 1, 2002, pp. 62-68.
Flournoy, Edward Brian. “The Rising of Systemic Racism and Redlining in the United States of America.” Journal of Social Change, Vol. 13, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-7.
Lavalley, Ryan, and Khalilah Robinson Johnson. “Occupation, Injustice, and Anti-Black Racism in the United States of America.” Journal of Occupational Science, 2020, pp. 1-13.
Marmot, Michael. “Social Justice, Epidemiology and Health Inequalities.” European Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 32, no. 7, 2017, pp. 537-546.
McConahay, John B. “Modern Racism, Ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale.” In Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism, edited by John Dovidio and Samuel Gaertner, Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1996, pp. 91– 126.
Park, Yoo Min, and Mei-Po Kwan. “Beyond Residential Segregation: A Spatiotemporal Approach to Examining Multi-Contextual Segregation.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 71, 2018, pp. 98-108.
Reyna, Christine, et al. “Examining the Principles in Principled Conservatism: The Role of Responsibility Stereotypes as Cues for Deservingness in Racial Policy Decisions.” Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 90, no. 1, 2006, pp. 109-128.
Sidanius, Jim, et al. Peering into the Jaws of the Beast: The Integrative Dynamics of Social Identity, Symbolic Racism, and Social Dominance. Russell Sage Foundation, 1999.
Taylor, Yhenneko J., Tsai-Ling Liu, and Elizabeth A. Howell. “Insurance Differences in Preventive Care use and Adverse Birth Outcomes among Pregnant Women in a Medicaid Non-expansion State: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Journal of women’s health, Vol. 29, no. 1, 2020, pp. 29-37.