DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Racism, Reading and Responsibility: Securitization Theory, Systemic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Racism, Reading and Responsibility: Securitization Theory, Systemic Racism, Reading and Responsibility: Securitization Theory, Systemic Racism in Security Studies and Methodologies for Excavating Foundational Flaws in Theories Online-only documentation to back-up our shorter piece: Racism and Responsibility – The Critical Limits of Deep-Fake Methodology in Security Studies: A reply to Howell and Richter-Montpetit Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan Introduction 2 Catch-22 x 3 3 1. How Not to Make an Academic Argument 4 Outright errors in Citation and Attribution 5 Unsupported Assertions 6 Guilt by Association 9 Failure to Consult the Relevant Sources 11 Not Understanding the Difference between What the Theory Does Not Do, and What it Cannot Do 12 Either you are with us, or you are with the racists 15 Twisting of Concepts to Serve the Charge of Racism – and destroying distinctions 20 Quoting against all principles 24 2. An evolutionary theory contrasting European desecuritization and African anarchy? 27 ‘Normal Politics’ – letting possible connotations overwrite actual text and theoretical structure 27 Europe 30 Africa 34 A historicist, evolutionary, teleological line drawn between two arbitrarily selected data points 35 3. Mimicking Mills 36 4. Security Dialogue: Some Serious Questions about Editorial Responsibility 43 5. Systemic racism and methods for attributing racism to a theory 47 Do they accuse us of racism? 49 Systemic analysis? Yes, please! 51 Finding out how a theory is constituted 54 6. Doing Securitization Studies of Racism: Actually Existing Analyses and Future Possibilities 57 Racism analysed with the help of Securitization Theory 58 Developing ST to better address racism – and generally to become a better theory 60 An empirical research agenda 63 7. Responsibility: Ethics of Reading, of Writing – and of Name-calling 65 Reading 67 Reading Hobbes (or not) 70 Certainly not reading Arendt 72 Writing 75 Critical Race Theory, maybe 79 Calling ST and us racist 81 Political Responsibility – and an invitation for rephrasing the disagreement 86 Conclusion 88 References 90 The present document is an online-only backup for the 4.000 word version by a related title in Security Dialogue. It is a long text - for three reasons. First, the article by Howell & Richter- Montpetit, which we reply to, contains an extraordinary amount of mistakes and falsehoods; second, we want to go beyond the negative task of responding to suggest some more constructive avenues for what could and should have been done in relation to racism and security studies as well as some more general methodological concerns raised by this affair, and thirdly, the issue we raise in the document about accusations of racism being hurtful and harmful (and in our view therefore libellous if - as in this case - unfounded) is not an abstract and rhetorical statement on our behalf, it has been an actual personal pain and professional disappointment that called forth a need to process this disheartening experience thoroughly. 1 Introduction Security Dialogue has published an article “Is Securitization Theory Racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School” by Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit (online 7th of August 2019; print Feb 2020, vol. 51:1, 3-22; doi:10.1177/0967010619862921); hereafter H&RM. This article makes strong claims about the “foundational role of racist thought in securitisation theory”. Allegedly, the theory is “structured not only by Eurocentrism but also by civilisationalism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack racism”. As the main architects behind Securitization Theory (ST), we are concerned to read about “the foundations of securitization theory in racist thought”. We are widely held to be responsible for founding this theory, and thus we must also be the ones who have placed this racist thought at the theory’s foundations.1 We are appalled by this on four grounds: 1. the toxic, libellous, and as we will show unsubstantiated, charge of racism that has been made against Securitization Theory (ST), and by close implication, us; 2. the deeply flawed, and at times pernicious, ‘methodology’ that purports to sustain this charge; and 3. the fact that what we have always thought of as a very good journal, has not only published such a questionable piece of ‘scholarship’, but also has failed to differentiate between the normal forms of academic critique on the one hand, and potentially libellous political accusations on the other, and not seen it as its duty to inform us beforehand, and/or give us a right of reply alongside the original article; and 4. the disastrous abdication of political responsibility involved in devaluating the concept of racism to something that 99% of the discipline can be charged with on the basis of bizarre conceptual and rhetorical manoeuvres, and thereby evacuating this important critical category of force at a time when racism is politically gaining power in diverse and destructive ways. We are, of course, concerned about the implications of this charge for ourselves, our students, our institutions and our colleagues. But we are also concerned about the implications for our discipline that an article of such poor academic quality and problematic political content can be published in one of our leading journals. This has implications not only for the academic integrity of IR, but also for the type and quality of debates that will define the discipline for the next decade and more. We are frankly resentful at having to waste our time and energy debunking accusations that, since they have no firm foundation, should never have been published in the first place. We have better academic things to be doing with our time and energy. But such toxic and unsupported charges cannot be left to stand unanswered, and if there is any benefit in this whole sorry affair, it might be to give a wake-up call to the discipline about the dangers it faces in the post-truth world. Charges like this have traction regardless of whether they are true or not. Ironically, in a very securitisation- like logic of all-means-justified, we have met arguments in the current context where other scholars don’t believe that the critique is valid, and yet think it is good that it is made because of the importance of fighting racism. The case therefore raises questions of the ethics of reading and writing – and how to address a challenge like racism that cuts across our object of study and our own scholarly community. Is the challenge of racism of such a special nature that it demands sacrifice of academia’s traditional rationale, its dedication to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding through the use of clear and systematic methods of analysis and argument? A license for personal 1 Strangely, this observation has been highly controversial. Security Dialogue has tried to prevent us from saying that we were accused of racism, because only our theory was. We address this in section 5. (The persistence of this effort from the journal can be quickly observed in the lengthy correspondence between us and the editors, which we believe should be made publicly available. The editorial team of Security Dialogue, however, does not agree to this transparency.) 2 defamation in the name of a higher cause is, in our view, likely both to make academia a much more unpleasant and dysfunctional place for all parties2, and to make it less able to intervene effectively in the public sphere on important matters like racism. In what follows we look first at the H&RM article itself, exposing it as a catalogue of methodological and conceptual errors so grievous and blatant as to void its claims. As separate sections (2 and 3), we address specifically their two main claims: that the theory is structured around a call for ‘progress’ from African anarchic securitizations to European, civilised, liberal and reasoned de- securitization; and that it builds on ‘social contract’ theory anchored in Hobbes and ‘state of nature’ thinking. Then, we ask some serious questions about the responsibilities of academic journals like Security Dialogue when they publish unsubstantiated accusations like this. Next, we present a few of the studies that have actually applied ST to racism and suggest a few more possible avenues for research. And finally, we ask how can and should IR take on the problem of structural or systemic racism? We conclude that H&RM’s article opens a false and dangerous path for IR, and that it will do much more harm than good in addressing the problem of structural racism in the discipline. While some sections (4, 6 and parts of 5) go beyond a reply to H&RM, the other sections are mostly refuting their ‘analysis’. Therefore, the division of labor should be clarified: Section 1 is about specific illegitimate techniques such as guilt by association, errors of citation, and reasoning excessively from absences in a text, i.e. roughly logical and formal errors. Sections 2 and 3 are about their two most substantial arguments, the two clearest lines of reasoning, i.e. substance. As part of section 5 about methodology, we show how they hide behind an analysis of ‘systemic racism’ that isn’t there and violate principles for ‘excavating’ what is constitutive of a theory. Section 7 demonstrates mistaken readings and misleading writing, and because discussed in terms of responsibility, this section points to their political failure in relation to the very real menace of racism. Our short reply in SD is structured differently, so readers who have read that first, will find familiar passages in different parts here, but mostly in sections 1, 2 and 5 Catch-22 x 3 Responding to H&RM’s attack is complicated by three ways in which our defence almost unavoidably will be used against us for further criticism: First, critical scholars in general, and anti-racists in particular, are very conscious of practices of marginalisation and exclusion – often real, but by now also a well-established figure easily awakened.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Catalyst Circle Bringing Racial Equity Into Focus for St
    Catalyst Circle Bringing racial equity into focus for St. Louis A reality in which a person is no more or Racial less likely to experience society’s benefits or bur- Equity: dens just because of the color of their skin. We operate in our world and live our lives unaware of many things happening around us – until there is a catalytic event. For St. Louis, for many people in St. Louis, the catalytic event to put racial equity at the forefront was the shooting of Michael Brown. Throughout its history, St. Louis has long wrestled with race relations. Today, through the diligent work of the Ferguson Commission, we can better understand our role in making our community more equitable. The goal of this work, undertaken by individuals, small groups, and organizations throughout St. Louis, is to raise the level of understanding and identify a path toward racial equity. Racial equity can come through system-wide policy changes. It can also come through YOU. By having potentially difficult conversations about race with your friends and family, we can all play a part in stemming the tide of racism. No longer being comfortable remaining a bystander to our community’s racial inequities, this work will equip you to engage in those conversations, to share insights from a mismatched history, to radically listen to those who are different from you, and to become an individual catalyst for change in our community. Why does this matter to you? To our community? Racial equity provides each of us with individual enrichment and exposes us to diversity of thought, making us each more knowledgeable and effective members of our community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom of Speech Vs the Right to Discriminate; American and French Policy on Banning Muslim Religious Attire”
    “The Freedom of Speech Vs the Right to Discriminate; American and French Policy on banning Muslim Religious Attire” Cortni Holthaus A New Middle East Spring 2016 3/31/2016 From hijab bans to TSA patdowns, the American and French government have shown no tolerance whatsoever to the people in the Muslim community in the aftermath of terror events such as 9/11 and the 2015 Paris Attack. In my essay, I explain why the American and French government have responded to these events the way they did, how it negatively affects Muslim people, and how the problem should be solved instead. The first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S Constitution, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, gives religious Muslim women the right to wear hijab, because there can be no state or federal law which prohibits this activity. However, there is a major caveat in this amendment; Sometimes, in a building like a school or an airport, hijab is not allowed, along with headscarves. This is because these public buildings often have a rule of no head coverings, and wearing hijab can be perceived as a safety issue, as the garment is loose, and items could potentially be stored under it. In the US' laws and French laws surrounding the right to religious attire, the laws are often contradicting, and can be interpreted many different ways by the governments and other national institutions. My goal is to explain why the U.S and French are inherently Islamophobic towards Muslim clothing, and explain what can be done in order to ameliorate this problem, taking in mind the recent terror attacks in Paris, and of past events such as 9/11.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to #Livingwhileblack: Blackness As Nuisance
    RESPONSE RACE, SPACE, AND SURVEILLANCE: A RESPONSE TO #LIVINGWHILEBLACK: BLACKNESS AS NUISANCE LOLITA BUCKNER INNISS* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ 213 I. Nuisance, Trespass, and the Interaction Between the Two ............................................................................ 219 II. #LWB Incidents as Legal Geography: Race and Space ................................................................................ 225 III. #LivingWhileBlack and Surveillance .............................. 229 Conclusion................................................................................... 231 INTRODUCTION In #LivingWhileBlack: Blackness as Nuisance, Taja-Nia Henderson and Jamila Jefferson-Jones examine incidents wherein white people called 911 to report Black people for occupying spaces that callers believed the Black people in question ought not to occupy.1 Sadly, these incidents * Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Professor of Law, University Distinguished Professor and Inaugural Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, SMU Dedman School of Law. Ph.D., LLM with Distinction, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. J.D., University of California, Los Angeles. A.B., Princeton University. 1. Taja-Nia Y. Henderson & Jamila Jefferson-Jones, #LivingWhileBlack: Blackness as Nuisance, 69 AM. U. L. REV. 863, 863 (2020). The phenomenon of white people calling the police or personally accosting Black people based on unfounded allegations of wrongdoing
    [Show full text]
  • Candidate Number 25460
    LOSING CONTROL: REGULATING SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION IN MASS PRIVATE PROPERTY * ROBERT E. PFEFFER ** Introduction Three young men enter a shopping mall. In a security office in the mall a guard monitors them via closed circuit TV. Based on their appearance, such as their ethnicity or the way they are dressed, he decides to approach them and asks for ID. They are told that if they do not produce ID, they will not be admitted. He then runs their names through the computer and finds that one of them was arrested two years before on a shoplifting charge. He tells all three they must leave. This not uncommon scenario raises nettlesome issues regarding the general right of the mall owner to exclude persons from the mall property versus the right of the young men to visit the mall, as well as whether the exclusion was based on factors — such as race, age, or ethnicity — that many would find at minimum troubling and perhaps entirely unacceptable. 1 The owner of the * This Article grew in part out of two presentations made to the faculty of the University of Mississippi. I wish to thank the faculty for the opportunity to present my ideas and for providing helpful feedback. It also was motivated by research performed under the guidance of the Faculty of Law and the Center for Criminological Research at Oxford University, and I wish to extend thanks to those institutions for their guidance and assistance. ** Of counsel, Bickel & Brewer, Dallas, Texas; Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law, 2006-2007; Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, University of Mississippi School of Law, 2005-2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Dirty Data, Bad Predictions: How Civil Rights Violations Impact Police Data, Predictive Policing Systems, and Justice
    DIRTY DATA, BAD PREDICTIONS: HOW CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IMPACT POLICE DATA, PREDICTIVE POLICING SYSTEMS, AND JUSTICE RASHIDA RICHARDSON,* JASON SCHULTZ,** AND KATE CRAWFORD*** Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using algorithmic predictive policing systems to forecast criminal activity and allocate police resources. Yet in numerous jurisdictions, these systems are built on data produced within the context of flawed, racially fraught and sometimes unlawful practices (‘dirty policing’). This can include systemic data manipulation, falsifying police reports, unlawful use of force, planted evidence, and unconstitutional searches. These policing practices shape the environment and the methodology by which data is created, which leads to inaccuracies, skews, and forms of systemic bias embedded in the data (‘dirty data’). Predictive policing systems informed by such data cannot escape the legacy of unlawful or biased policing practices that they are built on. Nor do claims by predictive policing vendors that these systems provide greater objectivity, transparency, or accountability hold up. While some systems offer the ability to see the algorithms used and even occasionally access to the data itself, there is no evidence to suggest that vendors independently or adequately assess the impact that unlawful and bias policing practices have on their systems, or otherwise assess how broader societal biases may affect their systems. In our research, we examine the implications of using dirty data with predictive policing, and look at jurisdictions that (1) have utilized predictive policing systems and (2) have done so while under government commission investigations or federal court monitored settlements, consent decrees, or memoranda of agreement stemming from corrupt, racially biased, or otherwise illegal policing practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Racial Profiling Is Wrong
    Saint Louis University Public Law Review Volume 18 Number 2 Civil Rights in the Next Millennium Article 4 (Vol. XVIII, No.2) 1999 Any Way You Slice It: Why Racial Profiling is rW ong Reginald T. Shuford American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shuford, Reginald T. (1999) "Any Way You Slice It: Why Racial Profiling is rW ong," Saint Louis University Public Law Review: Vol. 18 : No. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol18/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Public Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT: WHY RACIAL PROFILING IS WRONG REGINALD T. SHUFORD* INTRODUCTION It has been said that in life but two things are certain: death and taxes.1 If you are a young African-American or Latino male, however, there is an additional certainty: At some point during your lifetime, you will be harassed by the police.2 Racially motivated police harassment, vis-a-vis racial profiling, is as American as baseball and apple pie. And it has been around, in some form or fashion, for most of America’s history.3 Racial profiling happens to consumers and pedestrians, on planes, trains, and automobiles. There is driving while black (or brown), flying while black, walking while black, shopping while black, hailing (as in a cab) while black, swimming while black (six African-American youths accused of stealing a cell phone and beeper at a public pool in Michigan) and dining while black (think Miami, where a tip was automatically added to the bill of a black patron, on the assumption that blacks are poor tippers), to name a few.
    [Show full text]
  • Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center
    1 October 6, 2020 Maria Claudia Pulido Acting Executive Secretary Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Washington D.C. Re: Movement Lawyering Clinic at Howard University School of Law, the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center, and the Center for Justice and Accountability submission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Hearing on Structural Racism and Police Violence in the United States Dear Acting Secretary Pulido and Commissioners: The Commission’s November 26, 2018 report “Police Violence Against Afro-descendants in the United States,” recommended that the United States provide reparations for police violence against Black Americans.1 Since then, more evidence has accumulated justifying that demand. That evidence includes more thorough and specific documentation of the harms to victims, families, and the larger Black community, and more robust proposals for reparatory justice that have emerged from Black human rights activists in the United States including the Movement for Black Lives. In this submission, we provide a survey of these most recent developments. I. The harm of police violence includes severe damage to the mental health of both the family members of those directly impacted and the larger Black community. a. Reparations are due for harms to family members Under international laW, the victims of gross human rights violations include family members of the victims. The Inter-American Court initially recognized that family members of victims of gross human rights violations should be beneficiaries of reparations because of the deep 1 IACHR, African Americans, Police Use of Force, and Human Rights in the United States, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.156/18 (Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackness As Nuisance
    RESPONSE RACE, SPACE, AND SURVEILLANCE: A RESPONSE TO #LIVINGWHILEBLACK: BLACKNESS AS NUISANCE LOLITA BUCKNER INNISS* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ 213 I. Nuisance, Trespass, and the Interaction Between the Two ............................................................................ 219 II. #LWB Incidents as Legal Geography: Race and Space ................................................................................ 225 III. #LivingWhileBlack and Surveillance .............................. 229 Conclusion................................................................................... 231 INTRODUCTION In #LivingWhileBlack: Blackness as Nuisance, Taja-Nia Henderson and Jamila Jefferson-Jones examine incidents wherein white people called 911 to report Black people for occupying spaces that callers believed the Black people in question ought not to occupy.1 Sadly, these incidents * Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Professor of Law, University Distinguished Professor and Inaugural Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, SMU Dedman School of Law. Ph.D., LLM with Distinction, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. J.D., University of California, Los Angeles. A.B., Princeton University. 1. Taja-Nia Y. Henderson & Jamila Jefferson-Jones, #LivingWhileBlack: Blackness as Nuisance, 69 AM. U. L. REV. 863, 863 (2020). The phenomenon of white people calling the police or personally accosting Black people based on unfounded allegations of wrongdoing
    [Show full text]
  • The RISE and REACH of Surveillance Technology 2
    21st Century Policing: The RISE and REACH of Surveillance Technology 2 About the Authors Action Center on Race and The Community Resource the Economy (ACRE) Hub for Safety and The Action Center on Race and the Economy Accountability (ACRE) is a campaign hub for organizations The Hub serves as a resource for local advocates and working at the intersection of racial justice and Wall organizers working to address the harms of policing in Street accountability. We provide research and the U.S. and seeking to cultivate community safety and communications infrastructure and strategic support accountability outside of the criminal legal system. The for organizations working on campaigns to win Hub is a conduit of information and assistance for local structural change by directly taking on the financial grassroots organizations across this nation and beyond. elite that are responsible for pillaging communities of color, devastating working-class communities, This report was written by Jasson Perez, Alyxandra and harming our environment. We partner with local Goodwin, and Jessica Quiason of ACRE and Kelcey organizations from across the United States that Duggan, Niaz Kasravi, and Philip McHarris of The Hub. are working on racial, economic, environmental, and education justice campaigns and help them connect Special thanks to Kendra Bozarth, Tracey Corder and the dots between their issues and Wall Street, so that Carrie Sloan for your invaluable edits. each of the local efforts feeds into a broad national movement to hold the financial sector accountable. Acknowledgements We want to thank the following people for taking time to speak with us about their work and law enforcement surveillance generally: • Albert Fox Cahn, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual Forum Healthcare Disparities Through the Lens of Diversity During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Virtual Forum Healthcare Disparities Through the Lens of Diversity During the COVID-19 Pandemic June 13, 12:00-2:00pm EDT Disclosures Research Advisor/ Employee Speakers Books, In-Kind Stock/ Honorarium/ Funding Consultant Bureau Intellectual services Equity expenses Property (travel) Al-Mateen None None VCU None American N/A None N/A Psychiatric Press; Springer Caraballo None None None None None N/A None N/A Oatis None None None None None N/A None N/A Adam 2018 & None University of None None N/A None Greater St. Louis 2019 Missouri- ROCAP AACAP Columbia Advocacy & APA Collaborati on Grant Recipient Disclosures Research Advisor/ Employee Speakers Books, In-Kind Stock/ Honorarium/ Funding Consultant Bureau Intellectual services Equity expenses Property (travel) Cho None None None None American N/A None N/A Psychiatric Press; Springer Li None None None None American N/A None N/A Psychiatric Press; Springer Fortuna Patient None University of None None N/A None N/A Centered California, Outcome San Research Francisco Institute Disclosures Research Advisor/ Employee Speakers Books, In-Kind Stock/ Honorarium/ Funding Consultant Bureau Intellectual services Equity expenses Property (travel) Hoffman None None None None None N/A None N/A Daily None None None None None N/A None N/A Livingston None None None None None N/A None N/A Cullins None None None None None N/A None N/A Agenda Time Topic Speaker 12:00 noon Address from President Gabrielle Carlson 12:05 pm Introduction/Review of Health Disparities Cheryl Al-Mateen, Angel Caraballo AACAP Caucus/Committee Presentations Melvin Oatis, Moderator 12:15 pm Asian Caucus Jang Cho, Annie Li IMG Caucus Balkozar Adam Rural Committee Thomas Hoffman Native American Committee Susan Daily, Richard Livingston Latinx (Hispanic) Caucus Lisa Fortuna Black Caucus Lisa Cullins 1:45 pm Q&A Melvin Oatis, Moderator Gabrielle Carlson, MD Presidential Comments Syndemic two or more afflictions, interacting synergistically, contributing to excess burden of disease in a population.
    [Show full text]
  • Racism in Media: How Media Shapes Our View of People of Color in Society
    Merrimack College Merrimack ScholarWorks Community Engagement Student Work Education Student Work Spring 2020 Racism in Media: How Media Shapes our View of People of Color in Society SeMarial Wilder Merrimack College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/soe_student_ce Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication Commons, and the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation Wilder, SeMarial, "Racism in Media: How Media Shapes our View of People of Color in Society" (2020). Community Engagement Student Work. 46. https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/soe_student_ce/46 This Capstone - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Education Student Work at Merrimack ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Community Engagement Student Work by an authorized administrator of Merrimack ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Running head: RACISM IN MEDIA Racism in Media: How Media Shapes our View of People of Color in Society SeMarial Wilder Merrimack College 2020 RACISM IN MEDIA 2 MERRIMACK COLLEGE CAPSTONE PAPER SIGNATURE PAGE CAPSTONE SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF EDUCATION IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CAPSTONE TITLE: Racism in Media: How Media Shapes our View of People of Color in Society AUTHOR: SeMarial Wilder THE CAPSTONE PAPER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. Audrey Falk, Ed.D. May 8, 2020 DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SIGNATURE DATE ENGAGEMENT Melissa Nemon, Ph.D. May 8, 2020 INSTRUCTOR, CAPSTONE SIGNATURE DATE COURSE RACISM IN MEDIA 3 Acknowledgements Thank you so much to my parents, Mary Ann Vivians and Linnie Vivians for always supporting me in everything I do.
    [Show full text]
  • "Driving While Black": Corollary Phenomena and Collateral Consequences
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 5-1999 "Driving While Black": Corollary Phenomena and Collateral Consequences Katheryn Russell-Brown University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation Katheryn Russell-Brown, "Driving While Black": Corollary Phenomena and Collateral Consequences, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 717 (1999), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/230 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "DRIVING WHILE BLACK": COROLLARY PHENOMENA AND COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES KATHERYN K. RUSSELL* INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In the public arena, issues of race continue to command center stage.' The ongoing debates and discussions have raised new questions, while not necessarily answering the old ones. Specifically, the recent dialogues have focused on the role that Blackness plays in today's society. Some assign Blackness a primary role, others believe it is secondary. Still others dismiss it as tertiary. These varied positions, ranging from "race has nothing to do with this" to "race has everything to do with this" have in some ways canceled out any meaningful discussion of racial issues. Each of the racial camps has been allowed to claim victory without giving any ground.
    [Show full text]