Much has
been publicized about the way police officers differentially treat particular
ethnic or other easily identifiable groups.
It is almost invariably implied that the differential treatment observed
arises solely from the racial or religious (or other) biases of the
police. If group A is treated
differently than group B, it is implied specifically that this is because of
the attitudes of the police, not real differences between the groups.
This
implication ignores the possibility that group A may behave differently than
group B. What if there is a higher rate
of crime in group A than there is in group B?
Other factors may also make the groups actually different in their
public or private behavior. The police
may of course be biased, and that can be a terrible thing. The police may also be responding to
legitimate and measurable differences between groups.
In fact, of
course, the factors of bias and behavioral differences may play into each
other, each making the other factor more embedded and extreme. We should also consider the important
functions of “prejudice”, meaning, of course, to pre-judge a situation on a
basis of incomplete data, as in to judge an individual solely on the basis of
some group to which he belongs. Nature
seems to have intended prejudice as an emergency default judgment in a rapidly
unfolding situation in which the data are not yet clear. For instance, when a homeless stranger knocks
on my door wanting to spend the night, my prejudices kick in instantly, based
on the generalities I have in my head about homeless people. Fair?
Of course not. Pro-survival?
Maybe so! Certainly my first response is
skeptical/distrustful, at least until I have thought through several scenarios.
Back to my
original topic. Police in particular
frequently respond to a ongoing violent situation with little or no time to
step back and rationally assess it. Such
situations invite, even demand, pre-judgment.
It is easy to observe that in video recordings of confrontations between
police and groups of people that both sides display prejudice and
over-generalization in their attitudes and behaviors, and this tends to
intensify the irrational violence already beginning in the situation. In such
situations, immediate distrust is not an irrational response, but it should not
be the only factor.
Many
questions need to be asked that are not being asked. Instead we are encouraged to “take sides”
without ourselves knowing all the facts.
Our responses are becoming more and more extreme and emotionally-driven. Nobody asks if group A (or B) is actually
more violent than the other, or asks if there are more crimes committed by
group A than group B. The society in
which we live needs to look harder at how specific groups are treated. If there is more violence or crime in group A
than B, why is that? We need to look at
the systemic illness, not just the symptoms.
We need to address the illness itself, our systemic rationalization for
the unfair treatment of various groups.
Out of
systemic unfairness comes rage against the system. Systems don’t like to change. We don’t like to change. Perhaps it takes
rage to get us to pay attention, but rageful decisions are invariably exaggerated
and extreme. We need to think, not just
feel, and think clearly and publicly about what we need to do differently. Talk is cheap. Change is hard, painful and
anxiety-producing. For change to last,
it has to be studied and carefully planned. Immediate emergent responses are
not a basis for real, stable solutions. We need to slow down and make our
changes work.
More to follow.
