Anti-Black Racism as a Chronic Condition

Nneka Sederstrom and Tamika Lasege, 

In A Critical Moment in Bioethics: Reckoning 

with Anti-Black Racism through Intergenerational 

Dialogue,  ed.  Faith  E.  Fletcher  et  al., 

Special  Report, Hastings Center Report 52, no. 2 

(2022):  S24-S29.

Abstract

Because America has a foundation of anti-Black racism, being born Black in this nation yields an identity that breeds the consequences of a chronic condition. This article highlights several ways in which medicine and clinical ethics, despite the former's emphasis on doing no harm and the latter's emphasis on nonmaleficence, fail to address or acknowledge some of the key ways in which physicians can—and do—harm patients of color. To understand harm in a way that can provide real substance for ethical standards in the practice of medicine, physicians need to think about how treatment decisions are constrained by a patient's race. The color of one's skin can and does negatively affect the quality of a person's diagnosis, promoted care plan, and prognosis. Yet racism in medicine and bioethics persist—because a racist system serves the interests of the dominant caste, White people. As correctives to this system, the authors propose several antiracist commitments physicians or ethicists can make.

(cut)

Here are some commitments to add to a newly revised Hippocratic oath: We shall stop denying that racism exists in medicine. We shall face the reality that we fail to train and equip our clinicians with the ability to effectively make informed clinical decisions using the reality of how race impacts health outcomes. We shall address the lack of the declaration of racism as a bioethics priority and work to train ethicists on how to engage in antiracism work. We shall own the effects of racism at every level in health care and the academy. Attempting to talk about everything except racism is another form of denial, privilege, and power that sustains racism. We will not have conversations about disproportionally high rates of “minority” housing insecurity, food scarcity, noncompliance with treatment plans, “drug-seeking behavior,” complex social needs, or “disruptive behavior” or rely on any other terms that are disguised proxies for racism without explicitly naming racism. As ethicists, we will not engage in conversations around goal setting, value judgments, benefits and risks of interventions, autonomy and capacity, or any other elements around the care of patients without naming racism.

So where do we go from here? How do we address the need to decolonize medicine and bioethics? When do we stop being inactive and start being proactive? It starts upstream with improving the medical education and bioethics curricula to accurately and thoroughly inform students on the social and biological sciences of human beings who are not White in America. Then, and only then, will we breed a generation of race-conscious clinicians and ethicists who can understand and interpret the historic inequities in our system and ultimately be capable of providing medical care and ethical analysis that reflect the diversity of our country. Clinical ethics program development must include antiracism training to develop clinical ethicists who have the skills to recognize and address racism at the bedside in clinical ethics consultation. It requires changing the faces in the field and addressing the extreme lack of racial diversity in bioethics. Increasing the number of clinicians of color in all professions within medicine, but especially the numbers of physicians, advance practice providers, and clinical ethicists, is imperative to the goal of improving patient outcomes for Black and brown populations.

The info is here.

White (but Not Black) Americans Continue to See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game; White Conservatives (but Not Moderates or Liberals) See Themselves as Losing

Rasmussen, R., Levari, D. E.,  et al.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0).

Abstract

In a 2011 article in this journal entitled “Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing” (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 215–218), Norton and Sommers assessed Black and White Americans’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White bias across the previous 6 decades—from the 1950s to the 2000s. They presented two key findings: White (but not Black) respondents perceived decreases in anti-Black bias to be associated with increases in anti-White bias, signaling the perception that racism is a zero-sum game; White respondents rated anti-White bias as more pronounced than anti-Black bias in the 2000s, signaling the perception that they were losing the zero-sum game. We collected new data to examine whether the key findings would be evident nearly a decade later and whether political ideology would moderate perceptions. Liberal, moderate, and conservative White (but not Black) Americans alike believed that racism is a zero-sum game. Liberal White Americans saw racism as a zero-sum game they were winning by a lot, moderate White Americans saw it as a game they were winning by only a little, and conservative White Americans saw it as a game they were losing. This work has clear implications for public policy and behavioral science and lays the groundwork for future research that examines to what extent racial differences in perceptions of racism by political ideology are changing over time.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that zero-sum thinking about racism pervades the entire political ideological spectrum among White Americans; even liberal White Americans believe that gains for Black people mean losses for White people. However, views of whether and by how much White people are seen as now winning or losing the zero-sum game vary by political ideology. Liberal, moderate, and conservative White Americans agree that White people were winning the zero-sum racism game in the past. They disagree on the outcome more recently; in the most recent decade, liberal White Americans see it as a game they are still winning by a lot, moderate White Americans see it as a game they are still winning but by a little, and conservative White Americans see racism as a zero-sum game they are now losing by a little.

Win or lose, why do White Americans, even liberal White Americans, view racism as a zero-sum game? The zero-sum pattern may be a logical consequence of structural racism, “racial practices that reproduce racial inequality in contemporary America [that] (1) are increasingly covert, (2) are embedded in normal operations of institutions, (3) avoid direct racial terminology, and (4) are invisible to most Whites” (Bonilla-Silva, 1997, p. 476). Racial progress by Black Americans may signal deviation from normal operations of American institutions, which is perceived as a threat to White Americans that motivates them to reassert cultural dominance (Wilkins et al., 2021).

A pdf of the research is here.

Racism in the Hands of an Angry God: How Image of God Impacts Cultural Racism in Relation to Police Treatment of African Americans

Lauve‐Moon, T. A., & Park, J. Z. (2023).

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12863 

Abstract

Previous research suggests an angry God image is a narrative schema predicting support for more punitive forms of criminal justice. However, this research has not explored the possibility that racialization may impact one's God image. We perform logistic regression on Wave V of the Baylor Religion Survey to examine the correlation between an angry God image and the belief that police shoot Blacks more often because Blacks are more violent than Whites (a context-specific form of cultural racism). Engaging critical insights from intersectionality theory, we also interact angry God image with both racialized identity and racialized religious tradition. Results suggest that the angry God schema is associated with this form of cultural racism for White people generally as well as White Evangelicals, yet for Black Protestants, belief in an angry God is associated with resistance against this type of cultural racism.

Discussion

Despite empirical evidence demonstrating the persistence of implicit bias in policing and institutional racism within law enforcement, the public continues to be divided on how to interpret police treatment of Black persons. This study uncovers an association between religious narrative schema, such as image of God, and one's attitude toward this social issue as well as how complex religion at the intersection of race and religious affiliation may impact the direction of this association between an angry God image and police treatment of Black persons. Our findings confirm that an angry God image is modestly associated with the narrative that police shoot Blacks more than Whites because Blacks are more violent than Whites. Even when controlling for other religious, political, and demographic factors, the association holds. While angry God is not the only factor or the most influential, our results suggests that it does work as a distinct factor in this understanding of police treatment of Black persons. Previous research supports this finding since the narrative that police shoot Blacks more because Blacks are more violent than Whites is based on punitive ideology. But whose version of the story is this telling?

Due to large White samples in most survey research, we contend that previous research has undertheorized the role that race plays in the association between angry God and punitive attitudes, and as a result, this research has likely inadvertently privileged a White narrative of angry God. Using the insights of critical quantitative methodology and intersectionality, the inclusion of interactions of angry God image with racialized identity as well as racialized religious traditions creates space for the telling of counternarratives regarding angry God image and the view that police shoot Blacks more than Whites because Blacks are more violent than Whites. The first interaction introduced assesses if racialized identity moderates the angry God effect. Although the interaction term for racialized identity and angry God is not significant, the predicted probabilities and average marginal effects elucidate a trend worth noting. While angry God image has no effect for Black respondents, it has a notable positive trend for White respondents, and this difference is pronounced on the higher half of the angry God scale. This supports our claim that past research has treated angry God image as a colorblind concept, yet this positive association between angry God and punitive criminal justice is raced, specifically raced White.

Here is a summary:

The article explores the relationship between image of God (IoG) and cultural racism in relation to police treatment of African Americans. The authors argue that IoG can be a source of cultural racism, which is a form of racism that is embedded in the culture of a society. They suggest that people who hold an angry IoG are more likely to believe that African Americans are dangerous and violent, and that this belief can lead to discriminatory treatment by police.

Here are some of the key points from the article:

• Image of God (IoG) can be a source of cultural racism.
• People who hold an angry IoG are more likely to believe that African Americans are dangerous and violent.
• This belief can lead to discriminatory treatment by police.
• Interventions that address IoG could be an effective way to reduce racism and discrimination.

Toward an understanding of structural racism: Implications for criminal justice

Julian M. Rucker and Jennifer A. Richeson

Science, 374 (6565)

DOI: 10.1126/science.abj7779

Abstract

Racial inequality is a foundational feature of the criminal justice system in the United States. Here we offer a psychological account for how Americans have come to tolerate a system that is so at odds with their professed egalitarian values. We argue that beliefs about the nature of racism—as being solely due to prejudiced individuals rather than structural factors that disadvantage marginalized racial groups—work to uphold racial stratification in the criminal justice system. Although acknowledging structural racism facilitates the perception of and willingness to reduce racial inequality in criminal justice outcomes, many Americans appear willfully ignorant of structural racism in society. We reflect on the role of psychological science in shaping popular understandings of racism and discuss how to contribute more meaningfully to its reduction.

From the Summary and self-reflection

In this Review, we sought to illustrate key social-psychological factors that shape the maintenance and justification of a racially unjust criminal justice system, despite large scale support for racially egalitarian values.  Psychological motives to substantiate the racial hierarchy and protect one’s self-image work against opportunities to increase exposure to critical education on the structural underpinnings of contemporary racial inequality.  In essence, ignorance and denial of structural racism protect against an indictment of the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. By contrast, acknowledgment of structural racism in society motivates efforts to reduce racially disparate outcomes. With this framework, it becomes clear that merely holding egalitarian attitudes is insufficient to reform and dismantle systems that reproduce racial inequality—a structural understanding of racism is integral to these objectives.

The paper is here.

Systemic Considerations in Child Development and the Pursuit of Racial Equality in the United States

Perry, S., Skinner-Dorkenoo, A. L., 

Wages, J., & Abaied, J. L. (2021, October 8). 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2021.1971453

Abstract

In this commentary on Lewis’ (2021) article in Psychological Inquiry, we expand on ways that both systemic and interpersonal contexts contribute to and uphold racial inequalities, with a particular focus on research on child development and socialization. We also discuss the potential roadblocks that may undermine the effectiveness of Lewis’ (2021) recommended strategy of relying on experts as a driving force for change. We conclude by proposing additional strategies for pursuing racial equality that may increase the impact of experts, such as starting anti-racist socialization early in development, family-level interventions, and teaching people about racial injustices and their connections to systemic racism.

From the Conclusion

Ultimately, the expert (Myrdal) concluded that the problem was White people and how they think about and structure society. Despite the immense popularity of his book among the American public and the fact that it did motivate some policy change (Brown v. Board of Education, Warren& Supreme Court of The United States, 1953), many of the same issues persist to this day. As such, we argue that, although relying on experts may be an appealing recommendation, history suggests that our efforts to reduce racial inequality in the U.S. will require substantial, widespread investment from White U.S. residents in order for real change to occur. Based on the literature reviewed here, significant barriers to such investment remain, many of which begin in early childhood. Beyond pursuing policies that promote structural equality on the advice of experts in ways that do not trigger backlash, we should support policies that educate the public—with a special emphasis on childhood socialization—on the history of systemic racism and the past and continued intentional efforts to create and maintain racial inequalities. 

Building upon recommendations offered by Lewis, we also argue that we need to move the societal bar from simply being non-racist, to being actively anti-racist. As a society, we need to recalibrate our norms, such that passively going along with systemic racism will no longer be acceptable (Tatum, 2017). In the summer of 2020, after the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, many organizations released statements in support of the Black Lives Movement, confronting systemic racism, and increasing social justice (Nguyen, 2020). But one question that many posed was whether these organizations and institutions were genuinely committed to tackling systemic racism, or if their acts were performative (Duarte, 2020). If groups, organizations, and institutions want to claim that they are committed to anti-racism, then they should be held accountable for these claims and provide concrete evidence of their efforts to dismantle the pervasive system of racial oppression. In addition to this, we recommend a greater investment in educating the public on the history of systemic racism (particularly with children; such as the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum implemented in the state of California), prompting White parents to actively be anti-racist and teach their children to do the same, and equitable structural policies that facilitate residential and school racial integration to increase quality interracial contact.

American Psychiatric Association Presidential Task Force to Address Structural Racism Throughout Psychiatry

Press Release
American Psychiatric Association
2 July 2020

The American Psychiatric Association today announced the members and charge of its Presidential Task Force to Address Structural Racism Throughout Psychiatry. The
Task Force was initially described at an APA Town Hall on June 15 amidst rising calls from psychiatrists for action on racism. It held its first meeting on June 27, and efforts, including the planning of future town halls, surveys and the establishment of related committees, are underway.

Focusing on organized psychiatry, psychiatrists, psychiatric trainees, psychiatric patients, and others who work to serve psychiatric patients, the Task Force is initially charged with:

1. Providing education and resources on APA’s and psychiatry’s history regarding structural racism;
2. Explaining the current impact of structural racism on the mental health of our patients and colleagues;
3. Developing achievable and actionable recommendations for change to eliminate structural racism in the APA and psychiatry now and in the future;
4. Providing reports with specific recommendations for achievable actions to the APA Board of Trustees at each of its meetings through May 2021; and
5. Monitoring the implementation of tasks 1-4.

The info is here.

Structural Racism and Supporting Black Lives — The Role of Health Professionals

Rachel R. Hardeman, Eduardo M. Medina, and Katy B. Kozhimannil
The New England Journal of Medicine
Originally posted October 12, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Structural racism, the systems-level factors related to, yet distinct from, interpersonal racism, leads to increased rates of premature death and reduced levels of overall health and well-being. Like other epidemics, structural racism is causing widespread suffering, not only for black people and other communities of color but for our society as a whole. It is a threat to the physical, emotional, and social well-being of every person in a society that allocates privilege on the basis of race.  We believe that as clinicians and researchers, we wield power, privilege, and responsibility for dismantling structural racism — and we have a few recommendations for clinicians and researchers who wish to do so.

First, learn about, understand, and accept the United States’ racist roots. Structural racism is born of a doctrine of white supremacy that was developed to justify mass oppression involving economic and political exploitation.3 In the United States, such oppression was carried out through centuries of slavery premised on the social construct of race.

Our historical notions about race have shaped our scientific research and clinical practice. For example, experimentation on black communities and the segregation of care on the basis of race are deeply embedded in the U.S. health care system.

The article is here.

Systemic racism and U.S. health care

J. Feagin & Z. Bennefield
Social Science & Medicine
Volume 103, February 2014, Pages 7-14

Abstract

This article draws upon a major social science theoretical approach–systemic racism theory–to assess decades of empirical research on racial dimensions of U.S. health care and public health institutions. From the 1600s, the oppression of Americans of color has been systemic and rationalized using a white racial framing–with its constituent racist stereotypes, ideologies, images, narratives, and emotions. We review historical literature on racially exploitative medical and public health practices that helped generate and sustain this racial framing and related structural discrimination targeting Americans of color. We examine contemporary research on racial differentials in medical practices, white clinicians' racial framing, and views of patients and physicians of color to demonstrate the continuing reality of systemic racism throughout health care and public health institutions. We conclude from research that institutionalized white socioeconomic resources, discrimination, and racialized framing from centuries of slavery, segregation, and contemporary white oppression severely limit and restrict access of many Americans of color to adequate socioeconomic resources–and to adequate health care and health outcomes. Dealing justly with continuing racial “disparities” in health and health care requires a conceptual paradigm that realistically assesses U.S. society's white-racist roots and contemporary racist realities. We conclude briefly with examples of successful public policies that have brought structural changes in racial and class differentials in health care and public health in the U.S. and other countries.

Highlights

• A full-fledged theory of structural (systemic) racism for interpreting health care data.

• A full-fledged developed theory of structural (systemic) racism for interpreting public health data.

• Focus on powerful white decision makers central to health-related institutions.

• Importance of listening to patients and physicians of color on health issues.

• Implications of systemic racism theory and data for public policies regarding medical care and public health.

The info is here.

Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence.

Robert Jones
nbcnews.com
Originally published 27 July 20

Here are two excerpts:

As a white Christian who was raised Southern Baptist and shaped by a denominational college and seminary, it pains me to see these patterns in the data. Even worse, these questions only hint at the magnitude of the problem.

To determine the breadth of these attitudes, I created a "Racism Index," a measure consisting of 15 questions designed to get beyond personal biases and include perceptions of structural injustice. These questions included the three above, as well as questions about the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system and general perceptions of race, racism and racial discrimination.

Even at a glance, the Racism Index reveals a clear distinction. Compared to nonreligious whites, white Christians register higher median scores on the Racism Index, and the differences among white Christian subgroups are largely differences of degree rather than kind.

Not surprisingly, given their concentration in the South, white evangelical Protestants have the highest median score (0.78) on the Racism Index. But it is a mistake to see this as merely a Southern or an evangelical problem. The median scores of white Catholics (0.72) and white mainline Protestants (0.69) — groups that are more culturally dominant in the Northeast and the Midwest — are not far behind. Notably, the median score for each white Christian subgroup is significantly above the median scores of the general population (0.57), white religiously unaffiliated Americans (0.42) and Black Protestants (0.24).

(cut)

The results point to a stark conclusion: While most white Christians think of themselves as people who hold warm feelings toward African Americans, holding racist views is nonetheless positively and independently associated with white Christian identity. Again, this troubling relationship holds not just for white evangelical Protestants, but also for white mainline Protestants and white Catholics.

The info is here.

18 Things White People Should Know/Do Before Discussing Racism

By Tiffanie Drayton and Joshua McCarther
www.thefrisky.com
Originally posted June 12, 2014

Discussions about racism should be all-inclusive and open to people of all skin colors. However, to put it simply, sometimes White people lack the experience or education that can provide a rudimentary foundation from which a productive conversation can be built. This is not necessarily the fault of the individual, but pervasive myths and misinformation have dominated mainstream racial discourse and often times, the important issues are never highlighted. For that reason, The Frisky has decided to publish this handy list that has some basic rules and information to better prepare anyone for a worthwhile discussion about racism.

1. It is uncomfortable to talk about racism. It is more uncomfortable to live it.

2. “Colorblindness” is a cop-out. The statements “but I don’t see color” or “I never care about color” do not help to build a case against systemic racism. Try being the only White person in an environment. You will notice color then.

The rest of the article is here.

7 Ways We Know Systemic Racism Is Real

benjerry.com

Here is an excerpt:

Racism at Every Level of Society

Systemic racism is about the way racism is built right into every level of our society. Many people point to what they see as less in-your-face prejudice and bias these days, compared to decades past, but as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

While fewer people may consider themselves racist, racism itself persists in our schools, offices, court system, police departments, and elsewhere. Think about it: when white people occupy most positions of decision-making power, people of color have a difficult time getting a fair shake, let alone getting ahead. Bottom line: we have a lot of work to do.

The blog post is here.

5 Anti-Racist Practices White Scholars Can Adopt Today – #BLM Guest Post

Marius Kothor

TheProfessorIsIn.com

Originally posted 17 June, 2020

We are facing a historic moment of reckoning. The violent murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis ignited a movement that has engulfed the entire country. As people demand companies and organizations to account for their complicity in systemic racism, Black scholars are shedding new light on the anti-Blackness embedded within academic institutions. 

Black scholars such as Dr. Shardé M. Davis and Joy Melody Woods, for example, have started the #BlackintheIvory to bring renewed attention to the Micro and Macro level racism Black scholars experience in academia. A number of white scholars, on the other hand, are using this moment as an opportunity for hollow virtue signaling. Many have taken to social media to publicly declare that they are allies of Black people. It is unclear, however, if these performances of “woke-ness” will translate into efforts to address the systemic racism embedded in their departments and universities. From my experiences as a graduate student, it is unlikely that it will. Yet, for white scholars who are genuinely interested in using this moment to begin the process of unlearning the racist practices common in academia, there are a few practical steps that they can take. 

Below is a list of 5 things I think white scholars can do to begin to address racism in their day-to-day encounters with Black scholars. 

1. Publicly Articulate Solidarity with Black Scholars
2. Stop Calling the Black People in Your Institution by the Wrong Name
3. Do Not Talk to Black People as if You Know their Realities Better than They do
4. Cite Black Scholars in the Body of Your work, Not Just in the Footnotes 
5. Don’t Try to Get Black Scholars to Validate Your Problematic Project 

The full text is here.

Justin Welby tells Church of England to stop using NDAs amid racism claims

BBC.com

Originally posted 20 Apr 21

Justin Welby said he had not been aware confidentiality agreements were being used to stop people speaking publicly.

He told Times Radio the documentary was "rightly shaming".

Mr Welby added that he was "horrified" to hear the extent of racist abuse within the Church.

"I have said many times that I am totally against NDAs [non-disclosure agreements]. NDAs are unacceptable. I am just horrified by that and horrified by the fact of racism," he said.

Together with the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, he has written to senior members of the Church, telling them confidentiality agreements are no longer to be used.

The Church of England is releasing a report later this week, which it says will include plans to address racism within its own ranks.

Dr Elizabeth Henry, the Church's former adviser on race relations, quit her job last year because she said she felt disillusioned.

"I felt frustrated by the lack of progress with issues of racism," she told Panorama.

The info is here.

Mental Health Implications of Abortion Restrictions for Historically Marginalized Populations

Ogbu-Nwobodo, L., Shim, R.S., et al.

October 27, 2022

N Engl J Med 2022; 387:1613-1617

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMms2211124

Here is an excerpt:

Abortion and Mental Health

To begin with, abortion does not lead to mental health harm — a fact that has been established by data and recognized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the American Psychological Association The Turnaway Study, a longitudinal study that compared mental health outcomes among people who obtained an abortion with those among people denied abortion care, found that abortion denial was associated with initially higher levels of stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem than was obtaining of wanted abortion care. People who had an abortion did not have an increased risk of any mental health disorder, including depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorders. Whether people obtained or were denied an abortion, those at greatest risk for adverse psychological outcomes after seeking an abortion were those with a history of mental health conditions or of child abuse or neglect and those who perceived abortion stigma (i.e., they felt others would look down on them for seeking an abortion). Furthermore, people who are highly oppressed and marginalized by society are more vulnerable to psychological distress.

There is evidence that people seeking abortion have poorer baseline mental health, on average, than people who are not seeking an abortion. However, this poorer mental health results in part from structural inequities that disproportionately expose some populations to poverty, trauma, adverse childhood experiences (including physical and sexual abuse), and intimate partner violence. People seek abortion for many reasons, including (but not limited to) timing issues, the need to focus on their other children, concern for their own physical or mental health, the desire to avoid exposing a child to a violent or abusive partner, and the lack of financial security to raise a child.

In addition, for people with a history of mental illness, pregnancy and the postpartum period are a time of high risk, with increased rates of recurrence of psychiatric symptoms and of adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Because of stigma and discrimination, birthing or pregnant people with serious mental illnesses or substance use disorders are more likely to be counseled by health professionals to avoid or terminate pregnancies, as highlighted by a small study of women with bipolar disorder. One study found that among women with mental health conditions, the rate of readmission to a psychiatric hospital was not elevated around the time of abortion, but there was an increased rate of hospitalization in psychiatric facilities at the time of childbirth. Data also indicate that for people with preexisting mental health conditions, mental health outcomes are poor whether they obtain an abortion or give birth.

The Role of Structural Racism

Structural racism — defined as ongoing interactions between macro-level systems and institutions that constrain the resources, opportunities, and power of marginalized racial and ethnic groups — is widely considered a fundamental cause of poor health and racial inequities, including adverse maternal health outcomes. Structural racism ensures the inequitable distribution of a broad range of health-promoting resources and opportunities that unfairly advantage White people and unfairly disadvantage historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups (e.g., education, paid leave from work, access to high-quality health care, safe neighborhoods, and affordable housing). In addition, structural racism is responsible for inequities and poor mental health outcomes among many diverse populations.

The information is here.

Our morally unserious president on display in Kenosha

Michael Sean Winters
National Catholic Reporter
Originally posted 4 September 20

President Donald Trump went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, this week to "survey the property damage" according to a White House transcript. He spoke a lot about law and order and very little about justice, as if the concepts are not necessarily related. To him, they probably are not.

A morally serious person would begin any examination of the damage in Kenosha with a look at an MRI of Jacob Blake's shattered torso. Blake was shot seven times in the back — reports said he was shot at "point blank range," but that phrase covers a range of distances — the gun only a few feet from his body. The video made the shooting look like a public execution.

Donald Trump is not a morally serious person.

A morally serious person would continue his survey of the damage in Kenosha by visiting with the family of Jacob Blake, especially his three young sons who witnessed the shooting. They are ages 3, 5 and 8, and the trauma to which they were exposed is horrific to contemplate. A morally serious person would express sympathy with the family and the community, mindful of how much more shocking the shocking video of Blake's shooting was if you knew the victim.

Donald Trump is not a morally serious person.

A morally serious person would understand that, while it is entirely fitting for the nation's chief magistrate to mourn the death of Aaron "Jay" Danielson, the 39-year old Trump supporter gunned down on the streets of Portland, Oregon, it is wrong to mourn his death publicly without mentioning the shooting of Blake, on the very day you are going to Kenosha. Such uneven treatment epitomizes the very reason it is still necessary to remind the nation that Black lives matter.

Donald Trump is not a morally serious person.

A morally serious person would inquire into the legacy of racism, structural racism, in Kenosha and elsewhere, the racism that made the shooting of Blake horrifying but not surprising. A morally serious person would not take refuge in chatter about "a few bad apples" but confront the police culture that permits such bad apples to poison the bushel. A morally serious person would work, and work hard, at finding ways to ameliorate the effects of racism and call fellow citizens to that deep examination of conscience every episode of police brutality against Black men demands.

Donald Trump is not a morally serious person.

The info is here.

Examining the asymmetry in judgments of racism in self and others

Angela C. Bell, Melissa Burkley, & 

Jarrod Bock (2019)

The Journal of Social Psychology, 159:5, 611-627.

DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2018.1538930

Abstract

Across three experiments, participants were provided with a list of racist behaviors that purportedly were enacted from a fellow student but in fact were based on the participants’ own behaviors. People consistently evaluated themselves as less racist than this comparison other, even though this other’s racist behaviors were identical to their own. Studies 2a and 2b demonstrate this effect is quite robust and even occurs under social pressure and social consensus conditions in which participants were free to express their racial biases. Thus, it appears that people are less likely to base their racist trait ratings on behavioral evidence when evaluating themselves compared to when they are evaluating another. Taken together, this work provides evidence for the consistency and robustness of self-enhanced social comparisons as applied to the trait domain of racism. Further, this work sheds insight into why people deny they are racist when they act racist.

General discussion

The present work provides evidence for the consistency and robustness of the biased self-enhanced evaluations of racism. Across three experiments, participants received a list of racist behaviors that purportedly were enacted from a fellow student but in fact were based on the participants’ own behaviors. People consistently evaluated themselves as less racist than this comparison other, even though this other’s racist behaviors were identical to their own. Studies2a and 2b demonstrate this effect is quite robust and even occurs under conditions in which participants feel free to express their racial biases. Taken together, this work suggests that people are less likely to base their racist trait ratings on behavioral evidence when evaluating themselves compared to when they are evaluating another. By doing so, people are able to maintain the self-perception that they are not racist even in the face of contradictory behavioral evidence (i.e., people are less racist than themselves).

(I emphasized this last sentence.)

A pdf of the research can be found here.

The patient called me ‘colored girl.’ The senior doctor training me said nothing

By Jennifer Adaeze Anyaegbunam
Stat
Originally posted April 11, 2016

Medicine struggles with a chronic disease: racism.

Medical schools try to combat this disease with diversity initiatives and training in unconscious bias and cultural sensitivity. I’m about to graduate from the University of Virginia School of Medicine, so I’ve been through such programs.

They’re not enough.

Every one of us needs to own the principles that protect us and our patients from racism and bias. That means learning to see prejudice and speaking up against it. But that is far, far easier said than done.

Again and again during my four years of training, I encountered racism and ignorance, directed either at patients or at me and other students of color. Yet it was very hard for me to speak up, even politely, because as a student, I felt I had no authority — and didn’t want to seem confrontational to senior physicians who would be writing my evaluations.

The article is here.

A Systematic Review of Black People Coping With Racism: Approaches, Analysis, and Empowerment

Jacob, G., Faber, S. C., et al. (2022).

Perspectives on Psychological Science.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221100509

Abstract

This article reviews the current research literature concerning Black people in Western societies to better understand how they regulate their emotions when coping with racism, which coping strategies they use, and which strategies are functional for well-being. A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and 26 studies were identified on the basis of a comprehensive search of multiple databases and reference sections of relevant articles. Studies were quantitative and qualitative, and all articles located were from the United States or Canada. Findings demonstrate that Black people tend to cope with racism through social support (friends, family, support groups), religion (prayer, church, spirituality), avoidance (attempting to avoid stressors), and problem-focused coping (confronting the situation directly). Findings suggest gender differences in coping strategies. We also explore the relationship between coping with physical versus emotional pain and contrast functional versus dysfunctional coping approaches, underscoring the importance of encouraging personal empowerment to promote psychological well-being. Findings may help inform mental-health interventions. Limitations include the high number of American-based samples and exclusion of other Black ethnic and national groups, which is an important area for further exploration.

From the Discussion section

Clinical implications

For clinicians seeking ways to support Black clients with racial trauma, the successful coping strategies enumerated here can serve as model starting points and should provide clients with greater agency and better outcomes (Heard-Garris et al., 2021; Hope et al., 2018) than the use of an ambiguous strategy. Therapy should be palpable positive affirmation; clients should feel validated and empowered. If they are religious, finding purpose in their experience even if it was negative can have a positive therapeutic effect. Helping clients find a coping strategy that affirms their intrinsic worth and beauty can also be profoundly therapeutic. If clients do not have affirmative social-support networks, or have dysfunctional social support, helping them find positively affirming support can be highly beneficial. Encouraging clients to create and make art, music, or prose out of their racist experience through positive reframing can be a transformative and proactive coping mechanism (Miller et al., 2020; Stuckey & Nobel, 2010). Certain forms of activism furthermore seem to have specific mental-health benefits (Heard-Garris et al., 2021; Montagno & Garrett-Walker, 2022; Riley et al., 2021). Ensuring that the coping mechanism chosen allows clients to reclaim their identity and dignity is essential. It is important to keep in mind that activism comes in many forms and may or may not involve formal protests or a Black Lives Matter event (E. K. Griffin & Armstead, 2020). Black clients can look for opportunities to promote antiracist change in their personal environments as well (work, school, community) through any number of prosocial means. For a cognitive-behavioral approach to helping clients with racial stress and trauma, see Williams et al. (in press).

The research is here.

Structural Competency Meets Structural Racism: Race, Politics, and the Structure of Medical Knowledge

Jonathan M. Metzl and Dorothy E. Roberts
Virtual Mentor. 2014;16(9):674-690.
doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.9.spec1-1409.

Here is an excerpt:

The Clinical Implications of Addressing Race from a Structural Perspective

These brief case examples illustrate the complex ways that seemingly clinically relevant “cultural” characteristics and attitudes also reflect structural inequities, medical politics, legal codes, invisible discrimination, and socioeconomic disparities. Black men who appeared schizophrenic to medical practitioners did so in part because of the framing of new diagnostic codes. Lower-income persons who “refused” to eat well or exercise lived in neighborhoods without grocery stores or sidewalks. Black women who seemed to be uniquely harming their children by using crack cocaine while pregnant were victims of racial stereotyping, as well as of a selection bias in which decisions about which patients were reported to law enforcement depended on the racial and economic segregation of prenatal care. In this sense, approaches that attempt to address issues—such as the misdiagnosis of schizophrenia in black men, perceived diet “noncompliance” in minority populations, or the punishment of “crack mothers”—through a heuristic aimed solely at enhancing cross-cultural communication between doctors and patients, though surely well intentioned, will overlook the potentially pathologizing impact of structural factors set in motion long before patients or doctors enter exam rooms.

Structural factors impact majority populations as well as minority ones, and structures of privilege or opulence also influence expressions of illness and health. For instance, in the United States, research suggests that pediatricians disproportionately overdiagnose ADHD in white school-aged children. Until recently, medical researchers in many global locales assumed, wrongly, that eating disorders afflicted only affluent persons.

Yet of late, medicine and medical education have struggled most with addressing ways that structural forces impact and disadvantage communities of color. As sociologist Hannah Bradby rightly explains it, hypothesizing mechanisms that include the micro-processes of interactions between patients and professionals and the macro-processes of population-level inequalities is a missing step in our reasoning at present…. [A]s long as we see the solution to racism lying only in educating the individual, we fail to address the complexity of racism and risk alienating patients and physicians alike.

The info is here.

Dear White People: Here Are 5 Uncomfortable Truths Black Colleagues Need You To Know

Dana Brownlee

Forbes.com

Originally posted 16 June 2020

While no one has a precise prescription for how to eradicate racial injustice in the workplace, I firmly believe that a critical first step is embracing the difficult conversations and uncomfortable truths that we’ve become too accustomed to avoiding. The baseline uncomfortable truth is that blacks and whites in corporate America often maintain their own subcultures – including very different informal conversations in the workplace - with surprisingly little overlap at times. To be perfectly honest, as a black woman who has worked in and around corporate America for nearly 30 years, I’ve typically only been privy to the black side of the conversation, but I think in this moment where everyone is looking for opportunities to either teach, learn or grow, it’s instructive if not necessary to break down the traditional siloes and speak the unspeakable. So in this vein I’m sharing five critical “truths” that I feel many black people in corporate settings would vehemently discuss in “private” but not necessarily assert in “public.”

Here are the 5, plus a bonus.

Truth #1 - Racism doesn’t just show up in its most extreme form. There is indeed a continuum (of racist thoughts and behaviors), and you may be on it.

Truth #2 – Even if you personally haven’t offended anyone (that you know of), you may indeed be part of the problem.

Truth #3 – Every black person on your team is not your “friend.”

Truth #4 – Gender and race discrimination are not “essentially the same.”

Truth #5 – Even though there may be one or two black faces in leadership, your organization may indeed have a rampant racial injustice problem.

Bonus Truth #6: You can absolutely be part of the solution.

As workplaces tackle racism with a renewed sense of urgency amidst the worldwide Black Lives Matter protests, it’s imperative that they approach the problem of racism as they would any other serious business problem – methodically, intensely and with a sense of urgency and conviction.

The information is here.