Now is NOT the Time to Get Distracted
The reality of everyday life for the Black community has been once again thrust into the spotlight since the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer on May 25th. Today as I write, three weeks since the murder of George Floyd, there are sustained, organized protests all over the country. The murder of Rayshard Brooks by an Atlanta police officer on June 12th, the circumstances surrounding the two Black men found hanging from trees in California in the last two weeks, as well as countless Black men and women who have suffered disproportionate police brutality and surveillance, continue to illustrate the systemically racist model of policing in this country. This is all on top of the continuing devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects of COVID-19 on the Black community (which I wrote about for CTC in May). The protests across the United States have shone a light on these facts, and contain a diverse cross-section of Americans; and as research notes, this is a critical component for protests to shift public opinion.
And yes, I said “facts.” You might be asking, “But PolySue, what about alternative facts? What about ‘all lives matter people?’ What about…?” Well, you are right. Not everyone sees what we see. New research suggests that even those who sympathize with individuals who experience interpersonal racism, can still deny systemic racism exists and even score high on the racial resentment scale. The author ends her analysis stating, “until more White Americans feel emotionally invested in less visibly outrageous forms of black disadvantage, their commitment may not extend far.” So, here is the thing: without protests in our streets, without media coverage of ALL of the ways systemic racism manifests, without schools teaching children from a very young age about racial inequities and White privilege, can there be real, sustained change? How can the recent flashpoints create a meaningful shift for those who either just now realize racism still exists, or it is “worse” than they thought?
Now, work with me here as I walk you through my train of thought on this…
As a civic educator in the post-truth, fake news, alternative facts era, I have a new responsibility: to ensure successful fact-checking. Research finds that 57% of 18-24-year-olds get their news from social media and messaging apps, and Pew Research Center reports that social media news is often full of mis- and disinformation. As a professor, this poses challenges. This brought me to an article in FiveThirtyEight two weeks ago by political scientist Lee Drutman. Citing others’ work, he reports that effective fact-checking has four things in common:
1. They are from highly credible sources (with extra credit for those that are also surprising, like Republicans contradicting other Republicans or Democrats contradicting other Democrats).
2. They offer a new frame for thinking about the issue (that is, they don’t simply dismiss a claim as “wrong” or “unsubstantiated”).
3. They don’t directly challenge one’s worldview and identity.
4. They happen early, before a false narrative gains traction.”
This got me thinking about how these “rules” can contribute to shifting Whites’ attitudes on police reform to push legislators to act at the local, state, and federal levels. What information, and how it is presented, is most useful to transform “Wow, that’s sad someone was killed,” to “We need policy change, now.?” So, let’s take this one-by-one…
The first rule is for the information to be from a credible source, and especially one that comes from someone who is like-minded. Now, what constitutes a credible outlet has become subjective, so I want to focus more on the latter of this rule. For example, on June 6th, Fox News published an opinion piece written by former NFL player Jack Brewer about the existence of systemic racism. While many of the comments are disgusting, the fact that Fox published this on their website is not nothing. Now, Jack Brewer is a Black man, so the impact of this information might land differently if delivered by a White man or woman. This takes us to the lone Black Republican senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, who has taken the lead in crafting the Senate’s police reform bill. This week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “I think the best way for the Senate Republicans to go forward on this is to listen to one of our own, who's had these experiences. He's had them since he's been in the United States Senate.” The White, Trump-friendly, Kentucky conservative Senate leader sent a message that a Black man must be listened to because his experiences matter, AND the subtext of the comment is that “experiences” means racism. Moreover, by calling Senator Scott “one of our own,” he foregrounds partisan identity over racial identity, thereby creating an in-group dynamic. This can help at the very least create empathy, which can be the first step to opinion shifts.
The second one is that the information provides some nuance and depth to the issue, as opposed to being wholly dismissive. For example, the call to “defund the police” is juxtaposed with “law and order.” The process of defunding the police is about divesting resources away from the militarization of the police, and investing resources into social, educational and health programs. Defund the police does not mean abolish the police; although calls for that are valid. Similarly, calling for law and order does not only mean a militarized police that “dominates” the streets. Boiling down police reform to either no police or total, violent domination does not move the needle on opinion of police reforms. According to a Huffington Post poll, there is broad-based approval for some police reforms. While there is dissention over how “significant” the changes need to be, the only item that has little support across party and other demographics is for defunding the police. BUT, there is slightly more support for divesting and investing, worded as “budgeting less money for your local police department and more for social services (for instance, funding social workers and mental health professionals).” When there is more than simple soundbites and slogans, public opinion can move.
“They don’t directly challenge one’s worldview and identity.” This one is gonna be tricky. Often, discussions of systemic racism and equity measures are construed as an attack against Whites or as anti-White bias. And for some Whites, they now perceive anti-White bias as a bigger problem than anti-Black bias. Let’s dive into this for a moment. As far back as 1958, sociologist Herbert Blumer argued:
“Race prejudice is a defensive reaction to such challenging of the sense of group position. It consists of the disturbed feelings, usually of marked hostility, that are thereby aroused. As such, race prejudice is a protective device. It functions, however short-sightedly, to preserve the integrity and the position of the dominant group.”
If your worldview is that your power is deserved because of the natural order of things, and it is to be preserved because if oppressed groups get power, you lose yours, then you are unlikely to see systems of oppression. Or if you see them, you are likely to argue they must stay in place. If you believe the current system of policing serves your interests because it preserves your power, it is harder for you to see the need for police reform, and when calls for it occur, you are likely to feel threatened, even scared. While crime in the United States has continued to decrease, surveys show that a large majority of Americans believe there is more crime now that the year prior. Fear. So, how do we move past this one? I argue this is where White allies can have the largest impact, especially when coupled with rule number four.
This weekend I was out for drinks with a friend, and she brought a friend of hers I never met. The conversation turned to recent events, and the friend casually remarked, “Look how fast things turned! One day police are heroes and the next they are all horrible. Who will it be next?” In my mind here is the scene: a white women from a small, midwestern town with all the privilege is observing through her worldview; one that makes her feel like she might be the next target. I let her speak, and replied something like, “I think what is lost in that analysis, and much analysis in the media, is that this is not about one police officer, or even all of those who have killed Black men and women. It is about the historical, disproportionate killing of black men and women at the hands of police.” I tried to incorporate rules 1-4: As a woman who looks like, and comes from a similar geographic place as her, I tried to break apart the shallow interpretation of a system, without threatening her identity…and I did it on the spot. That is where rule four matters. Bear with my analogy: When a dog shits on the carpet, and you scold her two days later, she has no idea what you are referencing. When you do it in the moment, it helps train the dog not to do it again. The most effective corrections are immediate. Nipping a false narrative in the bud is something the media is terrible at, which is why it is even more important to do this interpersonally (both in the virtual and real worlds). Those on the path to allyship HAVE to have the hard conversations, and correct false interpretations in the moment. I admit I have not done this with every opportunity; I chickened out many times. But, I am walking the path to being a better ally, and it begins with practicing rules 1-4. Well, I suppose it begins with educating yourself to then practice rules 1-4. This can help shift public opinion.
Drutman ends his piece arguing, “even an effective fact check might not make the difference that policymakers are hoping for in political attitudes.” This is a very important part of the transition from protests, to empathy, to support for policy change. Research is clear that for anti-discrimination policy change to happen, a majority of the public has to be in favor of it and that majority has to be increasing BEFORE lawmakers will act in any meaningful way. According to recent polls, 63% of white Americans say that Blacks are treated unfairly by police, 57% say the criminal justice systems treats Whites better, and 55% say race was a factor in George Floyd’s death. Progress, right? Yes, but…only 49% of Whites say police are more likely to use force against a Black person. And here it is. Here is where rules 1-4 can help shift the opinion of those who need to see reality outside their privilege, worldview, and/or fear. It is time to do the work. As a protest leader said recently: The lights are on; now is not the time to get distracted.
Author: Suzanne Chod