4 ms·

Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? Not at all. I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least requi

Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? Not at all. I mean, doesn't proof of "racism" at least require showing that the judge treats members of one race better than those of another? Is there any evidence of this in the story? If not, why do we call it "racism" rather than "prejudice", or just "hate"? Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring. The point is that she's obviously biased against defendants based on family origin and language background (and incredibly condescending, to boot). Which are both attributes manifestly incompatible with her job description.

nkurz 10y ago
>> Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself >> was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? > > Not at all. Could you walk me through that? I don't see how an accusation of "racism" can have meaning unless we care about the races of the parties involved. For example, if I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true? And at least one example of how the judge treated a male differently than a female? Perhaps you feel that "racism" and "prejudice" are synonyms at this point, and that it's pedantic to differentiate them? > Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring. Yes, and if it's a red herring --- a false clue designed to distract and mislead the reader --- why should we let the accusation stand just because the subject has other shortcomings? How does this improve the situation for future defendants? Sure, the judge probably holds racial prejudices, and these probably influence some of her behavior in the courtroom. But I'd wager though that there are many other factors involved, and one of them (economic prejudice, overwork and burn-out, ignorance and stupidity, simple lack of compassion) is playing a larger role, and that a correct diagnosis is the first step to improvement. I'm not excusing the judge's behavior, I'm claiming that putting false blame on racism is a distraction from the real issues (whatever they might be). Edit: Here's a couple other articles about the author, Judge Shelley Chapman: http://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/ http://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/ http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-trial http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-trial These don't contradict anything anyone here has said, but may offer additional insight into her views.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true? Defendants? Yes. Judge? No. The sex of the actor is irrelevant in determining whether their actions demonstrate systematic bias against a particular sex in their judicial decisions. (There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.) Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis.
  - nkurz 10y ago
    I carefully avoided saying that it wouldn't be sexism if the sexes were the same. At least, I tried to, although perhaps I edited badly. I started out with a longer example including reference to the US Census's definition of Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than a race and including North African's as White, but decided it was too confusing and ended up "wouldn't you want to know". (There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.) Yes, and not only for discussing, but to have any reasonable chance of working toward a solution. I think the "fix" almost certainly depends on the cause of the prejudice, which I think almost certainly depends on the sexes of the parties. Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis. But that's the question, right? What stays the same, and what changes? And in this case, do you think that "racism" is a helpful diagnosis?

nkurz 10y ago

>> Would it alter your verdict of racism if she herself >> was Black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Jewish? > > Not at all. Could you walk me through that? I don't see how an accusation of "racism" can have meaning unless we care about the races of the parties involved. For example, if I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true? And at least one example of how the judge treated a male differently than a female? Perhaps you feel that "racism" and "prejudice" are synonyms at this point, and that it's pedantic to differentiate them? > Whether she's certifiably "racist" or not is a red herring. Yes, and if it's a red herring --- a false clue designed to distract and mislead the reader --- why should we let the accusation stand just because the subject has other shortcomings? How does this improve the situation for future defendants? Sure, the judge probably holds racial prejudices, and these probably influence some of her behavior in the courtroom. But I'd wager though that there are many other factors involved, and one of them (economic prejudice, overwork and burn-out, ignorance and stupidity, simple lack of compassion) is playing a larger role, and that a correct diagnosis is the first step to improvement. I'm not excusing the judge's behavior, I'm claiming that putting false blame on racism is a distraction from the real issues (whatever they might be). Edit: Here's a couple other articles about the author, Judge Shelley Chapman: http://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/ http://hlrecord.org/2014/02/feminists-take-on-debt/ http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-trial http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/bronx-girls-explorers-trial These don't contradict anything anyone here has said, but may offer additional insight into her views.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I were to declare that it is obvious that the judge acts they way she does because she is "sexist", wouldn't you want to know the sexes of the judge and the defendants before deciding whether the accusation is true? Defendants? Yes. Judge? No. The sex of the actor is irrelevant in determining whether their actions demonstrate systematic bias against a particular sex in their judicial decisions. (There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.) Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis.
- nkurz 10y ago
  I carefully avoided saying that it wouldn't be sexism if the sexes were the same. At least, I tried to, although perhaps I edited badly. I started out with a longer example including reference to the US Census's definition of Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than a race and including North African's as White, but decided it was too confusing and ended up "wouldn't you want to know". (There are situations where the sex of the judge might be interesting in discussing the sexism once it was established, but not in determining if it exists.) Yes, and not only for discussing, but to have any reasonable chance of working toward a solution. I think the "fix" almost certainly depends on the cause of the prejudice, which I think almost certainly depends on the sexes of the parties. Similarly, with "racism", mutatis mutandis. But that's the question, right? What stays the same, and what changes? And in this case, do you think that "racism" is a helpful diagnosis?