Racial Privacy Initiative

Sand

Ive heard theyre trying to get a Racial Privacy Iniative going in California, which basically prevents the government from profilling California's populace based on race. While there are weaknesses in the particular wording (It allows the police force and other institutions to describe people as being black for example - mind you for the police descriptions it seems only practical to include skin colour, along with hair and eye colour etc), it seems like a good step towards a truly color blind government. Theres been opposition from some Civil Liberties groups and minority representitves as they feel it harms them.

Just wondering what peoples views are on the idea of preventing the categorisation of a populace on race (Which are apparently used by certain parties to tailor their manifestos - witness the Bush - Hispanic wooing)? Does it harm or help minorities? In a system where everyone is equal does the concept of minorities even come into play? My own view is that anything which reduces the ability to discriminated based on race is a good thing.

Link to a Google search on the topic
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Racial+Privacy+Initiative+California&spell=1

Here are two in particular
http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010606.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/

DadaKopf

American politicians have become total slaves to opinion polls and population statistics for decades now. While it's totally unpractical to ban race profiling altogether (for pusposes of law enforcement, medicine etc), I'd welcome certain measures that would attempt to disrupt the policymakers' slavish attachment to population statistics in general. Sometimes, though, it seems as if these kinds fo statistics are done soley in the interest of creeping bureaucracy. All the same, it's important for politicians to know their people, in the interest of good government - it's another to use statistics to manipulate them for personal ends.

Clintons Cat

i always leave the race/ethnicity boxes unmarked on census forms and official doccumentation.
It is none of their godamn buisness.Will i get a free badge if i am an "identified ethnic group" will it get the council to fix the holes in the road?Probally not so blank it is for me.
The only practical use these boxes serve is to identify language needs of a local area,a good thing Public spending should be directed principally at the poorest areas not on a system which could be accused of bias.That way resentment is not built into the system.

swiss

I can't really agree with the thrust of this initiative. I think that, for statistical purposes only it is perfectly acceptable to ask someone what race they belong too. It can help to predict social and movement patterns, and hence help administrations target the needs of local communities.

Originally posted by sand
My own view is that anything which reduces the ability to discriminated based on race is a good thing.

I can't really argue with this. I certainly feel that there should be no grounds where a person can be discriminated on the basis of race. However, although surveys which ask these kinds of questions can increase the ability to discriminate, it can also be a beneficial aid.

I know that technically there should be no difference between an influx of black or white people in a community, for example, but it is through objective monitoring of these social variations that a more culturally balanced society can be acheived. Like it or not, there is oftentimes a significant cultural difference between different ethnic groups, and by recognising this by acknowledging the presence of ethnic groups we can seek to integrate previously seperate societies without creating a monocultural society.

Perhaps that's a little too altruistic, but I think that for cumulative statistical purposes, there is a greatly reduced ground for discrimination in any multicultural society (or indeed a society that seeks to become multicultural).

Victor

I think things like this can be helpful in relation to the provision of public services, in particular schools and health / social services. The assumption that the population is homogenous in any particular area can lead to complancency in the provision of specific services, in particular for new and minority residents.

See Census 2002 http://www.cso.ie/census.html

seamus

Originally posted by Sand
.......in the particular wording (It allows the police force and other institutions to describe people as being black for example - mind you for the police descriptions it seems only practical to include skin colour, along with hair and eye colour etc),.....

Well that's the way I look at it. To say someone is black, is the same as saying he has blond hair. It distinguishes someone from being the same as anyone else, but at the same time places them in a group of similar people - Something which humans have been doing since the dawn of time. Categorisation is not bad. It has good and bad traits. It's human nature. We definitely won't get rid of it in our lifetime.

GerK

Theres been opposition from some Civil Liberties groups and minority representitves as they feel it harms them.

I'm none too suprised that there are objections, I would imagine this legislation would make it difficult to expose the effects of racist policies, after all if it is illegal to track how many hispanic people you have forced below the poverty line, howe many black people you have locked in your prisons etc. Its a well known fact that levels of poverty and incarcaration are disproportionately high amoung minority groups in the US.

Its a known fact now, but after this law, in a generations time, you could have every minority group locked up or starving in a ghetto somewhere and middle Amerikkka would never have to find out about it.

Sand

Personally I dont see skin colour as being anything other than a characteristic like your eye colour, or your hair colour. Were not interested in whether more blue eyed people get top jobs or whether more black haired people go to prison. Why? Because it tells us absolutely nothing of use.

Now what does someones skin colour tell us? His income level? His probability to commit crime? His achievements in education? Nope. Of course we can make biased judgement based on someones skin colour. We see someone is black. We see he is poor, has been involved in petty crime and has a poor academic record. How then do we explain a black who is rich, not involved in crime and a academic genius? And vice versa for someone who is white?

The problem is people think that skin colour is the important characteristic here. Its not. Its most likely the income level. Poor people are more likely to be involved in petty crime, and to have lower academic standards and vice versa. Assuming a government operates on the principle of equality for its citizens how is a persons skin colour important? Surely the government should be looking at how to solve poor peoples problems rather than black peoples problems (Who contain the whole spectrum of poor to rich)?

Its a known fact now, but after this law, in a generations time, you could have every minority group locked up or starving in a ghetto somewhere and middle Amerikkka would never have to find out about it.

Seeing as you mention America its worth pointing out that by my understanding of US government statistics if you have 2 Irish Grandparents, A German Grandparent and a African American Grandparent youre African American. Hence its hard to talk about whose black and whose not.

bonkey

As gerk pointed out, one of the side-issues of this is that it prevents the determination as to whether or not races are being discriminated against.

Racial discrimination exists. In some cases, it exists because of policy, but in others it exists because of the people who carry out policy being racist.

You need to be very careful about what racial profiling you remove, or else you remove the ability to detect racism, as well as the ability to enforce it through policy in some way.

Now what does someones skin colour tell us? His income level? His probability to commit crime? His achievements in education? Nope. Of course we can make biased judgement based on someones skin colour.

Absolutely - I agree completely. However, there are so many cases of blacks driving expensive cars in America being pulled over for no other reason than the fact that they are blacks driving expensive cars. There is no policy, profiling, or anything else of that nature behind this. There are simply police making assumptions that there is something wrong with the picture.

If you remove the ability to profile issues like this according to colour, all you know is that x people were checked for vehicle ownership. If you look at the profiling, you may see that a particular race is being targetted unfairly.

In principle, I agree with the initiative. In practice, I would worry that it would make racism an even tougher nut to crack.

Racists never needed statistics to justify their beliefs, but those trying to identify racism do.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Surely the government should be looking at how to solve poor peoples problems rather than black peoples problems (Who contain the whole spectrum of poor to rich)?

AS a matter of interest, are you suggesting that the racial abuse which blacks receive is purely because of their uneven distribution across the economic boundaries?

Poverty and racialism are not disparate issues, but neither are they the same issue.

Sand

You need to be very careful about what racial profiling you remove, or else you remove the ability to detect racism, as well as the ability to enforce it through policy in some way.

Im of the belief that profiling by race pretty much contradicts the assumption of equality. By profiling people in such a fashion we are, for the best of intentions as mentioned, saying that race is important - when in fact its not important. Regardless of whether someone is Caucasian or Asian the government needs to treat both equally (Incidentally this underlies my opposition to affirmitive action- its simply discrimination, again for the best of intentions but it simply reverses the discrimination- it does not remove it).

The usefulness of the statistics is also debateable. Gerk mentioned that African Americans account for a disproportionate fraction of incarcerations. One, this doesnt really help us unless we change the laws so that African Americans are less likely to go to jail - regardless of their actual guilt. Two, this can actually be used by racist groups to insinuate that African Americans are dangerous so and sos out to destroy Middle America one drive by shooting at a time.

However again Ill bet ( anyone got a link to data? ) that the bottom 20% of income levels in the US account for far more than 20% of US incarcerations, regardless of colour. The problem may be that African Americans are a larger fraction of the poor than they should be all other things being equal. Even in this case, policies aimed at helping the poor are still more useful and just than policies aimed at helping poor African Americans in particular.

In principle, I agree with the initiative. In practice, I would worry that it would make racism an even tougher nut to crack.

I agree with what youre saying, I dont want to throw the baby out with the bath water myself- but I believe by acting as if peoples skin colour was important you encourage the belief that it is. Discrimnation can cut both ways, both the negative type we know as racism and the well intentioned type. We need to eliminate both. Seeing as racism is basically a social construct it seems to me the best thing to do is to create a society where skin colour is not regarded as important - from the top down if needed.

AS a matter of interest, are you suggesting that the racial abuse which blacks receive is purely because of their uneven distribution across the economic boundaries?

Nope not entirely. But it plays a large role in it - If youre walking through a "tough" (i.e a poor, run down etc) area youll be equally apprehensive (fear

---

>hate) whether the locals are black or white and blue with yello polka dots. You generally believe that youre at more risk of crime there (and youre probably right). In areas where the inhabitants *are* black that can easily be transferred to racism. While Im no expert Id imagine that this is true in US cities, where A-As form a larger fraction of the poor than the should do, and thus these "tough" areas than they should do.