Comments on: Inequality Class: Question One

By: Romulus66

Romulus66 — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:33:45 +0000

While I’m not aware of the specific steps taken by the researchers Sam cited, I do know that when you are creating an experiment like these you are very carefully in accounting for those kinds of discrepancies. Apples to Apples really mean the situations are exactly the same. The store, the people involved (employers and applicants), law enforcement precincts. I think you brought up a good point that there may be a difference between urban and rural areas. But the statistics are still significant.
Another interesting study that I have seen, involves urban areas and employment. In urban areas, where there is neighborhoods known to be very poor, employers are discriminating against applicant based on address. When they get an application if the applicants address is in one of these poor (usually black) neighborhoods they will not get a call back. When confronted many of the employers cited poor education in these areas (applicants can’t speak proper English) and that the area is known for gang participation. When conducting that experiment it was very important to compare Apples to Apples.

By: lar5074

lar5074 — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:47:00 +0000

I agree with this person’s point. Crime rates can vary as a result of many different circumstances and area is a good example of one of those circumstances. The fact that urban areas tend to have high populations than rural areas could make the rate of crime look higher. Also, the more people there are in one area the more opportunities there would be for crimes to be committed. On the other hand, one could say that since there are more opportunities and more people to commit crimes in urban areas, crime prevention may be more utilized in that area and not used as much in suburban areas because crime tends to be naturally low.

By: yesec9

yesec9 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:20:19 +0000

The vast majority of violent crime is concentrated in the worst neighborhoods with consistent poverty. Therefore, I think it is an oversimplication if you say that crimes are more easily apprehended with higher population density. It is true. But it doesn't even paint half of the picture. The worst neighborhoods with drug dealing and crime are often crawling with cops. Compare poor black or Latino areas of North Philly with white areas like Port Richmond or University City for example, and you will see the population density is the same, but there are much more cops in the minority, drug infested areas. (Some of the poorer areas are actually LESS dense. They have been hit hard by depopulation and abandonment.) When you go to the more well-off city neighborhoods with the same (or even denser) populations, you don't have the cops and sirens. And since there is more poverty in latino and black communities, cops spend their time patrolling these areas.

By: thecorruptedon3

thecorruptedon3 — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:55:17 +0000

I think you have brought up a great point, in fact it is a great flow in Sam’s theory of comparing apples to apples, because that is impossible, you cannot compare people to people, no matter how similar they are , they won’t be the same exact person, everyone goes through different experiences in life and meet different people that influence them in different ways, so no you cannot compare apples to apples in a anyway, and if you did it will ineffective , I don’t know how anyone could compare two living things.
It is unlikely that the results would be accurate in any way.
p.s. I find it very funny that you used the word colored people when you were referring to black people, don’t know why but it is funny.

By: lifeonpurpose

lifeonpurpose — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:31:43 +0000

While I do think it is wise to take those factors into account, the numbers still speak volumes. There will always be outside factors in any experiment or statistical analysis that sway the results but it’s important to take a good look at the deeper underlying realities. And after Sam’s last class when he gave examples of how an employer in some cases was more likely to take a white man with a criminal record than a black man with no criminal record, it just shows that racism in the judicial field is still an issue.

By: Aweaver

Aweaver — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:25:03 +0000

As most people who have already commented here I am inclined to agree with the speaker in the way he views the situation. People are so quick to blame race (and I am not saying that race does not have something to do with those statistics) that they often miss other potential factors. Recently for a CAS class I was required give a report on our nation’s drug war. For obvious reasons, I researched racism within the drug war extensively, and found the same statistics that Sam showed in class. However, I also found that area’s law enforcement size was based on the populations of the area. That being said, it is a also a true statement, as the person in the comment said, that many minorities reside within high population urbanized areas. So the logical conclusion is that since a heavy amount of minorities reside in an area’s with heavy amounts of law enforcement, the statistics could be drastically skewed.
Yet, even considering those things, racism cannot be counted out as part of the issue. For example, go back in time, and let’s consider why the cities are so heavily populated by minorities, specifically African Americans. After the abolishment of slavery, those who were not content or able to participate in sharecropping flocked to the cities. Many former African American slaves came north in a large scale migration in search of ANYTHING better for themselves and their families (although conditions here could barely be considered an improvement). Ever since these events, the populations of cities have remained locked in this demographic trend; and this can certainly be construed as racism. In other words, it was racism that brought them to the cities, so in effect is it not racism that has put them in harm’s way (referring to the heavy law enforcement)?
Truly I think all that this discussion shows is that issues are not completely black and white. Obviously racism still exists, and I would never intend on downplaying the role it still plays in our society, but I think people need to start looking at the bigger picture if it means solutions are going to be found. When an issue has become so complicated that in truth, it is a variety of problems combined, we cannot simply zero in on one part of the problem and try to fix it that way. What I’m attempting to say is that racism has integrated itself into our society. It is not just a social issue anymore; it has become a part of us. So I wonder what this means for us? Are we doomed to always have racism as a part of our society? This morbid view seems to become truer every day.

By: klh383

klh383 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:11:28 +0000

Even though I know some of the disadvantages minorities have growing up in a poor community, it still is shocking to me that so many blacks are being incarcerated. The most troubling thing about the statistics shown in class the other day is that the majority of people being incarcerated are not doing anything more illegal than my friends and me do or did at one point. For instance, I learned in my social problems class that the majority of people incarcerated are arrested for minor incidents.

The reason that the majority of prisoners are black is obviously not because of their race, but because of the community or area that they live in. Suburban kids do and deal drugs just as much as inner city kids do. The difference is that police monitor and patrol the inner city neighborhoods much more than they do than in the suburbs. The fact is that minority youths grow up in these areas and once you are in the criminal justice system it may be hard to get out. This is especially true for people in the lower classes, no matter what your color is.

Another reason we see such staggering statistics for incarceration is because disadvantages can be passed down through generations. If you grow up in a bad area than most likely you are going to have lower expectations than those in the upper classes. People, including the individual themselves, will probably have lower expectations for themselves and not have as positive role models to look up to.

The point I am trying to make is that I think that social economic status or community you grew up in has more to do with incarceration than race. But sadly because of the system that has been set in place, minorities are too often the victims. They are stuck in these poorer communities because of a vicious cycle that keeps people from moving up in the world.

Whether we want to admit it or not, I think we have a system that is inherently racist and we don’t even realize it and it doesn’t just stop with the police that patrol the areas (and most likely just doing their jobs). The reason for these prison stats is also because of the way the court system works and how judges are more likely to give the kid from suburbia a pass while punishing the black inner city kid for the same crime.

There are so many factors that lead to the current ratio of those incarcerated. In the end I think a much of it has to do with the high number of police in an area, but I also think that there has to be some hidden racism in our justice in order for such a difference in the percent of white and black prisoners.

By: JayBella

JayBella — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:30:46 +0000

Nice. Alright, let me grasp the question: was the law enforcement of different areas considered? The fact that the question is asking if the law enforcement was controlled or not comes directly from the assumption that there are different law enforcement “policies” or a certain “strictness” to each area: urban and suburban. Doesn’t that mean there is a problem to begin with? Why should the LAW differ in select areas of the state? I thought the law was the law and the same rules applied everywhere. That could easily lead to confusion. Anyway, what I took from the question was that the law enforcement is more strict and/or abundant in the urban areas compared to the suburbs. But why? Could it possibly be because there are more black people that live there? Hey, you said it. I think you answered your own question. It is a vicious cycle that seems to trap most colored people: All of these statistics are shown that imply colored people demonstrate bad behavior, break the law, get incarcerated, don’t make much money and then have a few kids that grow up in a similar neighborhood. And guess what happens? Those kids are faced with stricter police officers that have their stereotypes all mapped out, ready to trap another generation. And the story continues.

By: varun2700

varun2700 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:55:59 +0000

I think that this kid makes a pretty good point. I think that there is more crime in suburban areas than in urban areas because these areas are often less patrolled by cops, and some people these days have tendencies to join gangs because they think that it is the cool thing to do. They feel that they need to represent their neighborhoods in a gang. Its almost as if they feel that they are expected to do this by society. Cops don't often suspect that there would be more crime in a suburban area because you would naturally think that the majority of crime would take place in the urban areas. When they let their guards down people feel that they are more free to commit crimes, because they think that they can get away with it more easily. Its not really a race thing. Crimes are committed by people of every race under many circumstances. Another reason that there are more crimes in suburban areas is because there are more poor people that live in suburban areas. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet especially with the tough economy that we have in our world today, so they resort to a life of crime to fulfill their financial needs. Its actually kind of sad when you think about it that people have to resort to this just to be able to survive. Yes there are many poor people in the city as well, but its easier to get away with crime in the suburbs, so people tend to take the risk even more often there. Not to say that there isn't a lot of crimes in urban areas, its just that the suburban areas tend to have a little more of a problem with crime. Its kind of bizarre when you think about it because you would never really expect this to be the case. I used to always just assume that the urban areas were much worse than the suburban areas when it comes to crime rates. It seems that whenever you hear about gang crimes occurring in the United States they seem that they are always in the city. I think that the majority of the people would also be very surprised to hear this statistic as well. Usually you just associate crimes with cities, you don't really think of suburbs as major areas of crimes, but it is the areas that you would never suspect that usually turn out to be the worse. I agree with some of the points that Sam made in class, The stats that he showed regarding the percentage of colored individuals that were imprisoned compared to the white people who committed the same crimes really, showed on this topic. i dint really think it was to do with race, rather I was always of the belief that more to do with the social status of an individual.

By: dqb5081

dqb5081 — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:38:10 +0000

test