Are You Implicitly Biased?

If you've been reading veritable pastiche for a while, you know that I've talked about bias, and racism, even the 'accidental' kind of racism that I have.

• I've talked about race in the shadow of the Trayvon Martin case, and President Obama's heartfelt comments on the 'not guilty' verdict in favor of George Zimmerman, who has gone on to make absolutely nothing of his life - most recently auctioning off the gun he used to kill Martin. 

• I've talked about it in the context of Ferguson, and the social media hashtags that come from situations like the Michael Brown case, and the Eric Garner case, and the rest of them. 

• I've talked about it in the context of Donald Trump forcing Barack Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate, a low point not just for Obama but for the Office of the President itself. 

• I've talked about it in the context of  Paula Deen and other 'celebrities'.

• I've talked about it in the context of Donald Trump just being Donald Trump; I see him not as the potential Commander in Chief but as the actual inflamer in chief, and I truly believe he relishes the latter role more than the former. 

And now, in a matter of hours, we have two black men - Alton Sterling and Philando Castile - killed by Louisiana and Minnesota policemen in what can only be described as mind-boggling and horrific circumstances.  And we have the death of five police officers in Dallas, and attacks on officers in other states, in what can also only be described as mind-boggling and horrific.

We mourn the loss of them all - or we should - because neither being a police officer nor being a black man should be a capital crime in our country.

Law enforcement representatives are describing what it's like to be them, and almost without exception, you can replace the word 'officer' with 'black man' and the sentiment is exactly the same: they are not all bad; they just want to come home at night; they want to be safe on the streets; don't paint everyone with the same brush, and so on.

We have people - politicians, friends, family, strangers - trying to find a brush narrow enough to paint the picture that we have in our country, because either 'side' (a poor way to describe it, but I don't really have a better one) using any broad brush will further incite and inflame the other.

And so, it was in that context that I took a ten-minute test this morning to see if  I am biased based not on whether or I think I am, but based on a series of exercises that are designed to identify implicit reactions to black and white, good and bad.

The test showed that I have "little to no automatic preference between European Americans and African Americans" which surprised me a little, based on the self-exploration I've shared with you. To be clear, the 'debrief' that comes with the results notes that

How implicit associations affect our judgment is not well understood and may be influenced by a number of variables. As such, the score should serve as an opportunity for self-reflection, not as a definitive assessment of your implicit thoughts. 

I encourage you to take this test and reflect on your own results. Share it with friends and family and encourage them to do the same.

Share your results on social media, just as you would share your results of your viking name, or the flower or animal that most represents your spirit, or a bacon recipe.

Share it with your church congregation, your scout troop, your volunteer board, your elected representatives, and so on.

Why? Because if we all start with a little self-reflection, just maybe we can progress towards communal reflection, and from there maybe we can at least agree that something needs to change, and start working on solutions.

My Middle-Aged White Lady Perspective: Don't Apologize for the Truth

Gleefully stealing an armload of Doritos is not something you do to protest the inexplicable death of a young man in police custody. Nope -- stealing several bags of Doritos and dancing down the street with a bunch of other looters is something you do when you're an idiot, taking advantage of a bad situation and making it worse. It's something you do when you basically don't give a rat about anything other than yourself. 

Leaders of the Baltimore community calling out the looters and trouble-makers for looting and making trouble was the right thing to do, because that behavior completely disrespects the memory of the person who died in police custody and it completely disrespects his family who asked that people take a day off so that they could mourn and celebrate and bury their family member. 

Calling them out is important, because no matter what anyone hopes, the miscreants will get all of the attention, and their behavior will overshadow peaceful protests aimed at the people who must know (but aren't yet saying) why Freddie Gray ended up with a severed spine, and it will overshadow members of the Baltimore community, clergy and others, who put themselves between the rioters and the police, who tried to protect property and people, who did the right thing. We'll hear less about them because of the bad actors.  

Apologizing a day later for calling these folks out does a disservice to everyone who is protesting on purpose, with purpose, for a purpose. Community leaders should do better; communities deserve better from their leaders. 

Lots of folks have lots of reasons for why stuff happens like it did in Ferguson, and like it did in Baltimore and like it does in other places when something happens like the death of Michael Brown or the death of Freddie Gray. It stems, we're told,  from long-standing practices of abuse or brutality or economic injustice or gangs or lack of father figures or lack of opportunity or lack of hope or having to check a box on a job application that you've got a criminal record, or a lack of self-respect, or a bad upbringing, or mental health or drug and alcohol issues or a bad education.

But none of it comes from a lack of Doritos.

Hashtag Nation

#HandsUpDontShoot. #ICantBreathe.
If you spend any time on social media, or even if you pay attention to traditional media, you've seen the hashtags that stem from the shooting of Michael Brown and the choke-hold death of Eric Garner, both black males dead with the officer involved in each case un-indicted. The cases themselves are not necessarily indicative of #racism, even if that's the lens through which they are supposed to be viewed.

#BlackLivesMatter. #ShutItDown.
The two above are echoing in the multiple protests that have occurred in Ferguson and NYC and across the country since the grand jury decisions came out within days of each other. Without a charge in either case -- not murder, not manslaughter, not even criminally negligent homicide -- it's understandable that there were protests, even if some of them were self-serving, not on message, and generally destructive, when that's exactly the opposite of what was needed. Everyone saw the pictures of looting and burning in Ferguson. Here's some perspective on that, and on the whole of #Ferguson.

#CrimingWhileWhite.  #LivingWhileBlack.
The first one's all about how white people don't get arrested for things, as opposed to black people who do get arrested for things. Stop and frisk. Open container violations. White collar crime. Shooting your hunting buddies. That kind of thing. Here's a comedic take on it, peppered with some facts which should at least make you stop and think about things for a second.  The second of the pair is all about the flipside of the white privilege coin; about having to work harder, live more carefully, be more aware of your surroundings, simply because of your skin color.

Hashtags are used to bring people and ideas together; that's like-minded people and frequently opposite-minded people as well.  When those connections lead to open dialogue and an honest (if sometimes uncomfortable) exchange of opinions and perspective, we have a real opportunity. If they turn out to be only fleeting hashtags, if we all go back to what we did and thought before, that opportunity will be lost.

#AllLivesMatter.

My Middle Aged White Lady Perspective: Juries Do Their Best

No indictment for Officer Darren Wilson, but a huge indictment of our justice system?  It might have been the right decision, or it could have been the worst decision in recent memory?  So many questions, still, after the announcement that there was no probable cause to charge Wilson with any of five different crimes in the death of Michael Brown.

My middle-aged white lady perspective is that when you get into an altercation with a police officer, such as the one that was described by Wilson and witnesses, you stop being merely 'an unarmed teenager' and start being a criminal. And should such an altercation occur, and the suspect were to flee, I would expect the officer to pursue and arrest the perpetrator. The district attorney, who would have the clear intent of obtaining an indictment against the person who assaulted the officer, would present evidence to the grand jury, and if it got that far, a jury trial could occur.

I've been on juries three times, never a grand jury.

One was an attempted murder with related felony charges. I was a kid, only in my twenties. The families of the victim and the alleged perpetrator were going at each other, shooting comments back and forth during jury selection. They were staring and glaring at us as we sat during voir dire, mumbling comments about us, and continuing their snarking back and forth at each other.

After several admonitions from the judge, which fell on deaf ears, the spectators were removed; there was a physical altercation outside as everyone left. When we were excused for the lunch break, we were harassed in the hallway by the perpetrator's family, more comments and dirty looks, and we were escorted down the hall by the court attendants. The people harassing us were all black. Most of us were white. We all were scared.

We came back after lunch to find out that that the two sides had settled during the break and that our services were not needed.  On our way out after being excused, the two families were going at it, and we were hurried out of the way again by the court attendants.  Once we were outside, we all expressed gratitude that we didn't have to see it through, although emboldened by not having to, we all were very confident that we could have done it.

My second criminal trial was a felony DWI case. The DA did a horrible job presenting his evidence; the defense attorney did a good job presenting his, and we found the gentleman not guilty.  After being excused, we were harassed in the hall outside the court room.

By the DA. Who told us we were idiots because clearly this guy was a drunk and we should have locked him up because he was a threat to humanity. And while that might have been the case, the evidence did not show that and we told the DA that.  He ended up being shoved down the hallway, still growling at us, by others from his office.

We did what we were supposed to do as trial jurors, and decided the case based on the evidence presented, even though we all suspected that he was a repeat offender (hence the felony charge) and there was a good chance he had been drinking that night. In the interest of full disclosure, after the trial, the defense attorney bought us all a drink.

The third one was a civil trial involving a fender bender in the parking lot of an ice cream parlor, much less glamorous, but again, based on the evidence presented, the six of us made our decision and assigned blame to both parties proportionally.

In Missouri v. Darren Wilson,  the grand jury was not presented a case where the clear goal was to obtain an indictment; to me it was more of an investigative effort. They heard evidence from not only witnesses, investigators and the alleged perpetrator, Officer Wilson himself, but they also saw media reports and personal video and audio recordings. This was not a trial, and it was not intended to be one. Some seem to think that was the point, and so from that perspective, the justice system failed. I disagree.

I haven't read everything yet -- it's all online, including Wilson's incredible statement that he "felt like a five year old holding onto Hulk Hogan" during the altercation with Brown in the police car. That shocked me - I mean, doesn't that sound more like something a middle-aged white lady would say, rather than a comment from a cop?

There are 24 volumes of grand jury testimony alone, as well as another 24 documents labeled Reports and Forensic Evidence, and 30 Law Enforcement Interviews. There are many conflicting statements, conflicting between Witness A and Witness B, as well as conflicting between Witness A and Witness A -- the same witness making different statements at different times. And there are many statements that conflict with the forensic evidence from the crime scene itself.

Ultimately, that is why I think the grand jury did what they did.  Asked to make a decision as to whether Darren Wilson murdered Michael Brown, based on all the evidence presented, they said no.

It doesn't make them racist.

It doesn't mean they're glad Michael Brown is dead.

No one is, including this middle-aged white lady.