TRANSCRIPTION FOR REPRODUCING RACISM PODCAST

Transcription

1 TRANSCRIPTION FOR REPRODUCING RACISM PODCAST Bedrosian Book Club February 19, 2015 BEDROSIAN CENTER An applied research center at the USC Price School of Public Policy BEDROSIAN.USC.EDU

2 USC Bedrosian Center February 19, 2015 Disclaimer: Please note that the text below may contain transcription errors. [00:00:00] >> Welcome to the USC Bedrosian Center Book Club Podcast. Today's edition features the book, "Reproducing Racism," by Daria Roithmayr, discussed by USC Professor Raphael Bostic, Nicole Esparza, LaVonna Lewis, and Cherrie Short. [00:00:19] >> Raphael Bostic: Welcome to the latest installment of the Bedrosian Book Club. My name is Raphael Bostic. I'm the director of the Bedrosian Center. And I'm really excited this month to be having a conversation about a book called "Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage." It's by a law professor here at USC, Daria Roithmayr. And joining me today are 3 faculty members from USC, 2 from the Price School, and 1 from the School of Social Work. I thought this mix would be really good because the book covers a wide range of issues that go beyond just our straight public policy. And we wanted to make sure that those perspectives were discussed. So let me ask each of my panelists to join to say who they are, and welcome. And then we'll jump into the conversation. [00:01:18] >> LaVonna Lewis: I'm LaVonna Lewis. I'm a teaching professor at the Price School, and also the director of Undergraduate Programs. [00:01:25] >> Cherrie Short: Okay; my name is Cherrie Short, and I'm the associate dean in the School of Social Work. I'm also a professor. I was a politician in my other life. I was in the Tony Blair administration. I was the person in Wales who looked after all the issues to do with race, diversity, immigration, and those sorts of issues. So, you know, I felt it was very important to be asked to be part of this, so thank you. [00:02:03] >> Raphael Bostic: No; it's great to have you here. I'm very excited you were able to join us. [00:02:06] >> Nicole Esparza: I'm Nicole Esparza. I'm an assistant professor at the Price School. And I study nonprofits and urban equality. [00:02:16] USC Bedrosian Center 1

3 >> Raphael Bostic: So let's just jump into this. So why don't we say talk a little bit about what this book is about. [00:02:25] >> Nicole Esparza: So to me the book is really about [inaudible] of advantage of whites particularly, as it says in the title, and how all these different aspects of life, both, you know, historically, parenting, neighborhoods, getting jobs, all these things cumulate over time and are very hard to break a pattern of inequality. [00:02:54] >> Cherrie Short: I thought the book sort of raises some very interesting points. As a person who actually thinks about race relations, and racism all the time, people say, "Oh, you know, Cherrie sees race relations and race underneath a stone." [Laughter] So, I mean, I think that one could make the argument that I looked at this book from various different angles. And I felt that even though you think about these issues in this way, I think that the author actually brought a new way forth to me in the sense that I looked at it even though I know that there were choices and that we are sort of locked into disadvantages and, you know, that society isn't actually dealing with these issues, because we can see that as a whole. [00:03:58] But at the same time I think the way that she divided the sections were very important because it allowed you then to free think about some of those issues that were meaningful, and at the same time she used evidence based practices to highlight them. And I thought that was incredible and very important; because usually people talk about them, but they don't sort of back it up straightaway, and she was doing that consistently throughout the book. [00:04:33] >> Raphael Bostic: So it's definitely more than a talking head kind of just discourse, or someone who's out giving speeches. There was definite grounding in what we know from evidence, from scientific research, which I think was quite helpful. Lavonna, did you have thoughts on [00:04:51] >> Lavonna Lewis: I think what struck me and I think to piggyback on what Cherrie was saying, I think it was a different way to talk about a common issue, and by that and I talk a lot about the need to keep the conversation going, and I felt that she gave a language that allowed you to keep the conversation going, to just not talk about white guilt and things like that, but to really think about how these kinds of decisions and choices over time bring us to this point. And to deny that reality, I think, is part of what was the frustration. It's like how can you deny that this is true, kind of given the available evidence, and to kind of have a language to respond to that denial I think was helpful. [00:05:42] >> Raphael Bostic: So I agree with everything you're saying. And just so that for those of you who haven't read the book, you know, Roithmayr starts by just saying, "Look, the way that you USC Bedrosian Center 2

4 live and you succeed is by leveraging your networks, right, and you have economic networks, you have social networks, you have political networks, and then there are institutional frameworks." And what she does, which is really interesting, was to show that decisions made 150 years ago about what the rules of each of these networks are get locked in, and then meaning that those who got handed advantage 150 years ago, are likely to have advantage today, even when today's people are not racist. Right; and to me that last part was the most interesting thing because, you know, a lot of the conversation is, "Well, I'm not a racist, so it's not my problem. If we're not fixing if things aren't getting better it's not my fault because I'm not a racist." Right; but that ignores all of the network structure, and the rules of the game that have been set up, meaning that you don't have to be a racist, that the outcome is going to just perpetuate. [00:06:54] And to me that was really interesting. And it was a new way to talk about the book. [00:07:01] >> Cherrie Short: Except I also think that institutional racism works in a similar way. There is a locked in theory with white advantages to how people are actually promoted if you're black and institutions, or, you know, if you're black whether you're regarded to do the same way within the institution. And it's harder in some ways to argue with institutions. You can argue with individuals, but it's very hard to make the argument with institutions. And I think the locked in theory actually demonstrates that. It shows that these things are almost God given in a sense, and it's hard then to dislodge them because like networks, you know, like Raphael is saying in regards to networks, I mean, people do have these networks, and they're strong networks. [00:08:04] They build them up for themselves, just like how like recruit like. And I think those sorts of things perpetuate throughout society, and has continued to do so. So I think that although I knew some of these arguments, I think that what makes the book special is what you're saying, LaVonna, is that, you know, it actually allows you to have a conversation about it, and not seeming as if you also what's the word, like people love to say, "Oh, that one's got a chip on her shoulder," or, you know, you can actually say, "Well, these are the issues." I mean, it's clear to see, you know, it's quite demonstrated in this book. And so I think that was a good argument for reading the book. [00:08:53] >> Raphael Bostic: So, Nicole, do you think that it's clear to see? Do you think I mean, do you think people really see these? [00:09:00] >> Nicole Esparza: I don't think that people see how well connected they are, or how to network with other people, or know other people's networks, which I think is one of the parts of the book that I the real kind of social capital social aspect of it is, you know, I don't think that people realize that opportunity hoarding is an actual thing, and people don't talk about them, and they don't necessarily hoard on purpose, it's just that they see themselves and what they want. And USC Bedrosian Center 3

5 until you can kind of see the whole group, do you realize that some people are very advantaged over others. The book does a really great job in doing these in all of these there are all these different chapters that kind of summarize these different types of institutional racism, or other parts that I think she did a fantastic job doing. [00:09:56] >> Raphael Bostic: Yes; I thought it was really interesting, because I do feel like and I want to talk about I want to get us to talk about the juxtaposition between the racist and the non racist, you know, because in today's world I think most in America feel like they're not racist. I think they began an argument about whether we think they really are; all right. But they think they aren't. And when you start a conversation about the racists, they and they'll say, "That's not me. I don't have a problem." And so it is very much in the space of keeping the conversation going and say, "Look, you actually contribute to everything as well." Right; and part of it is and we all have this problem, right, that we take what we know as of the baseline for granted, and that's kind of where what the world is, right? And we don't notice that the world is not that for other people, right? [00:10:57] And so I think it's actually easy for people to see advantage in terms of money, in terms of wealth, in terms of, you know, the big house. These network advantages I think are harder to actually notice, because it's just the fabric of your everyday thing. You walk down the street, and that it all starts to play out. And you don't actually there's nothing for you to do to have to notice that. [00:11:24] >> LaVonna Lewis: I think what's kind of devastating about the argument is that you can't actually convince yourself that everything that you have is because of your hard work, and the fact that you don't have is that you're not trying hard enough. And this makes very clear that I could try until the cows come home. It's like there are things that are fundamentally in my way. And until you in some way acknowledge that those things are in my way, I'm going to be stuck in this current situation. And I think that's the piece that's the most disheartening part of it, that I can live in this kind of state of denial that says, "You know what, if you would just try harder things would be different." And the message is, it's like you can't try hard against, you know, hundreds of years worth of problems and think that that's going to change overnight. And the idea that something that in this particular in this argument government has to take an honest role in terms of number 1, accepting the role that's played up to this date in terms of getting us to this madness, and then to basically ask the question, "Is government willing to look at itself in another way, and try to make the appropriate accommodations to really break some of the cycles that the author is talking about?" [00:12:43] >> Raphael Bostic: Now, I want to get to the appropriate combinations, but not quite now. [Laughter] Right; so I want to get it at the end because there's a lot that's been said on this, and it's been interesting. Just about any proposed accommodation gets completely shouted down, USC Bedrosian Center 4

6 and that's unreasonable. You know, you're not acknowledging, you know, whatever. So we haven't found a way to have a conversation about accommodations, and I want us to talk about that. So am I should I listen to you to say that you all, all 3 of you agree that early history matters a whole lot, and that things the changes that happen today just don't matter? I mean, could I make a bumper sticker and have you all put that on your car, you know, things today don't matter, early history is all that there is? [00:13:40] >> Cherrie Short: Well, of course early history matters. I think early history actually forms the whole platform for how people behave, and how they see the world. So early history plays a very important role. And I think the history especially of say the Jim Crow laws formulates an understanding of how divided society is between people who are black and people who are white, because of the privilege that people who are white were able to have continually. So I think that those if you look at an overall picture, America is still in that state of suppression. I mean, look at all the way incarceration actually works in relation to how the criminal justice system actually deals with, you know, black young men, or how the police force actually deals with black young men. [00:14:52] I mean, it's out there for one to actually see. Now, whether one accepts that and understand that things need changing, I think it's another argument, and it's another conversation; because you could get people saying, "Well, they must have done something to be in that situation. I mean, why isn't everybody suffering the same disadvantage then? You know, why have we got Oprah?" I mean, there are times I've heard that, "Well, why how come we've got a black president?" These people's minds are suffering. I mean, it's just interesting those terminologies and how people perceive what's actually happening, and how people who are black understand that argument of what's happening to them, which is totally different from how some people actually see what's going on in society. [00:15:54] So it's quite interesting. So although history formulates an opinion for us, I think that people take away what they choose to take away from history. [00:16:05] >> Raphael Bostic: But what I'm hearing is kind of paradoxical, right, because we should celebrate Oprah, we should celebrate a black president, because those are things, right, that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. And they do reflect like a change. Right; so there was no Oprah in 1910, right, and it was not even possible then. Right; and so there are things that happen. But at the same time so people will say, "Look, Oprah, I spent my money on an old magazine and I watched her every day. You know, I voted for Obama," right? And they view that as, "Gee, I'm not the problem." Right; and so but at the same time and I think this is what you're saying, Cherrie, there are outliers in every field, right, and the outlier should not be viewed as the rule. And we need to be thinking about the rule as well, right, so a few people got out, they sort of broke the chains, or the boundaries, or the constraints; but that doesn't mean USC Bedrosian Center 5

7 that we should expect it to be a general thing, and it doesn't mean that there are no chains, or no boundaries, or no limitations. [00:17:23] >> Nicole Esparza: Well, I also kind of think that this has always been the case with particular types of occupations of roles, right? So I can really love, you know, basketball players or African Americans. They might not be my next door neighbors though. So I think Oprah kind of fits in that category, right, she's not your doctor, she's a woman who talks on TV. So I don't think it could go should go that far in saying like, you know, "Oprah did it. You know, you could do it too," like Michael Jordan or something. [00:17:58] >> Raphael Bostic: I could talk on TV. [00:17:59] >> Nicole Esparza: [Laughs] I'm sure you could. [Laughter] [00:18:00] >> Raphael Bostic: I'm the next Oprah. So I wanted to turn the conversation next to this issue of, you know, Roithmayr uses the words "locked in" a lot, as in, you know, the way that our economic disadvantage is because of inherence and all that. It's going to be virtually impossible for minorities to catch up. And the way income is, is going to be impossible for minorities to catch up. And the way social networks have evolved it's going to be impossible for minorities to catch up. And the way that institutions have evolved they had a great passage. The thing about the LSAT I thought was very interesting. And, you know, we know the LSAT is not predictive of anything, yet because it's built an infrastructure that allows law schools to share information, they're not going to ever get rid of it, right, even though disadvantages. Right; it's locked in, right? [00:19:03] Do you think that these things are really locked in? [00:19:07] >> LaVonna Lewis: So let me start by saying I think that they're locked in, in part because they're part of the DNA. Right; I mean, if I when I think about law school, I think about the LSAT exam. When I think about, you know, my neighborhood, I think about the fact that I want to live here and not someplace else. It never occurs to me how that place got to be that way. It's just kind of where I am. And I think that's the issue that we don't ask the question today, "How did we get here?" We just make our decisions based on the fact that this is where we are, and so now how do I respond? And I think that's the part about being locked in. It never occurs to me to challenge this current circumstance. Right; and so to ask kind of questions about, you know, "Is this fair, is this right?" And it's like, "No; you weren't a slave owner, but can you deal with the fact that because of hundreds of years of slavery that might have been a problem for some people?" USC Bedrosian Center 6

8 [00:20:11] And to really just get [laughs] I mean, it sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to say it that way, but to really [laughter] appreciate the fact that it really is I this is for me this is who I am right now, I get a you're locked in because there's nothing that says, "I don't have to avoid addressing this issue. I can live all of my life without ever thinking that this should be of any concern to anyone." I think that's the argument that the institutions support that avoidance, and that denial, and so, "I'm not culpable, I'm not a racist, but you know, I don't see the fact that I have advantage. It's just, you know, part of the DNA. It's my network, it's the people I hang with so why would I expect anything different?" [00:20:59] >> Raphael Bostic: So can I just be a devil's advocate for a moment, because I hear you, right, and when you're looking around for what park are you going to go to, what beach you're going to go to, what house you're going to buy, what neighborhood are you going to rent in, you don't ask, "Well, why how did that neighborhood get to where it was?" All you know is that if you rent here, you are going to live in the neighborhood as it currently is, right, that and to me that seems reasonable. I guess the question, though, is and this is sort of just to your point, those people who choose to make other decisions based on sort of a [inaudible] history, are basically saying, "I'm going to take on the burden of trying to change the world," right or, "I'm going to ignore all these things and try to take this place and put it on its own trajectory." [00:21:59] Is that how we should be approaching this? I mean, this is me person to person intervention that does seem to me can go very far. I mean [00:22:12] >> LaVonna Lewis: I'm not talking about a person to person intervention. I'm talking about raising collective consciousness that basically says, "You can no longer deny that this is you know, that this did not happen by accident, that it happened by design." And since it happened by design, can we design our way out of it? And I think that's the conversation, right, and I don't again, it's like so long as we avoid that conversation, we will be locked in because everybody says this is the best that we can do, and if you would just try harder you could be here too, even though we know that based on the available evidence you have to be a superstar for that to really happen. [00:22:54] >> Raphael Bostic: So, Nicole, are we locked in? Are these things locked in? [00:22:58] >> Nicole Esparza: I think it's very hard to change course; [laughter] to change courses. But, I mean, I absolutely agree with what these 2 women are saying is, you know, if you have policies that created advantage for 1 group, and if you believe that wealth is accumulated over generations, which it is, then it's very hard to just all of a sudden accumulate wealth. You know, but we can I think talk about policies, or, you know, buying homes, or education, and things like USC Bedrosian Center 7

9 that. I think there is a way to get out of it, but it would take collective, you know, consciousness and actual policies to help disadvantaged communities and people become to closing in that gap. That gap is just widening and widening, and I think it's kind of one of the main take homes of the book is how can we shrink that gap? [00:23:58] >> Raphael Bostic: Cherrie? [00:23:59] >> Cherrie Short: Well, I definitely think that we are locked into the whole [laughs] structure of how the society operates. It's clear to see that. Poverty and inequality works in a way that it's very, very difficult to actually get out of. It's a circle that deprivation actually exists. And I think that racism also works in the same format. And it's very hard to break that cycle. I do think, though, that if there was a will and I'm always an optimist in my thinking, and I do think that if governments had a will, okay, or if white society had a will, then, you know, we could focus on a different way of organizing and also of giving a more equitable society to everyone. But I feel that that will isn't there, and the consciousness isn't there. [00:25:02] And it's just what people say that are in authority and in power. It's the way they handle the situation, or the things they say that allows you to understand that change isn't anyway near coming [laughs] in that direction, and that the system is totally locked in. Whether one wishes to continue to be an optimist I think, you know, optimism probably does help your psychological wellbeing as a social worker, [laughter] otherwise there would be no hope [overlapping]. [00:25:46] >> Nicole Esparza: [Inaudible Comment]. [00:25:46] >> Raphael Bostic: Yes. [00:25:46] >> Cherrie Short: So I'd like to think that, you know, somehow the locked in situation will change through policy, through education and mobility for everybody. But when I go into the prisons here in California, and into the jails, you know, I come out feeling that, you know, the locked in system is so strong that, you know, how do we dismantle something that is so readily destroying human beings that are people of color? How do you do that? And the question then becomes not just an academic question for me, but it becomes a reality question. And, you know, recently I was in Jordan Downs, and [00:26:44] >> Raphael Bostic: And Jordan Downs is a public housing project in Central Los Angeles. [00:26:49] USC Bedrosian Center 8

10 >> Cherrie Short: Where this little boy, who was always following me around, and every member of his family is in prison, every single member, including his mother; and he said, "When am I going to prison?" And I wish in some ways that I had recorded it, because if you actually say that to someone that he said it, it almost seems so farfetched that an 8 year old could say that. And it doesn't seem it seems displaced, doesn't it? But it certainly showed me how locked in the system was that he thought he's 8, and he thought when was he going to prison? [00:27:32] >> Raphael Bostic: It's a foregone conclusion. [00:27:34] >> [Laughs] I mean, that is a locked in system for you. [00:27:37] >> Raphael Bostic: Yes; so definitely problematic. You said something that I think LaVonna and Nicole agree with, that I kind of agree with too, and that there's no will to do something, right, so that you need this collective will. I'm wondering why you think there isn't why the will isn't there. [00:27:59] [ Silence ] [00:28:04] >> LaVonna Lewis: So, I mean, I think it's an interesting question, why the will isn't there. The thing that I think is that really kind of blows my mind is that there are people in power who really don't see a problem. And so if I don't see a problem, why would I have a will to address something that I don't even see? And so this idea that until you find a way to present the issue in a way that makes it relevant, and front burner for me, there will be no will. So until you're telling me that, you know, I may lose you know, that they're at the gates and they may be burning down my house if you don't do something, I don't see a sense of urgency to do anything, because from my perspective it's working the way it's supposed to. [00:29:07] Right; so why would I want to challenge what's working exactly the way I need it to work? [00:29:13] >> Cherrie Short: And also [laughter] it suits the system as well. One could make the argument that it's not disadvantaging a great majority of people in the same way that it disadvantaged people of color. And what I have noticed, and not just in America, but in Britain also is that if certain things work for certain privileged groups, or certain things are working okay for you, why would you want to change that? You're very comfortable with what's going on. It's you know, there's no need. And the point that you're making too, LaVonna, I mean, that it's quite interesting because the where would the will come from if everything is working in your interest? USC Bedrosian Center 9

11 [00:30:14] [Laughs] I mean, you know, it's very hard to find that will, isn't it? I mean, why should you? It's and that brings me back to the networking elements of it, because overall to a lot of people that doesn't really look like racism, or working against society in any way. I mean, it's you know, I'm just making sure my kids go to the best school, gets the best education, we live in the best communities, we access the system well, you know, healthcare is for us, we don't care if nobody else gets it. You know, there are all of those sorts of things that but that's okay because I'm all right. You know, and I think, you know, unless there is a collective issue around it you know, I always think that racism doesn't just damage, you know, people of color, it damages everyone. And so, you know, we have to look at the society in a holistic [00:31:16] >> Raphael Bostic: But you know what, I don't think most people believe that. But you've declared that, but I don't think most people believe that. And I think that people often view that as someone else's problem, and it's not mine. Right; and that even though there are problems in sort of minorities community X, they don't really that doesn't really affect me in any way. And I'm still going to be okay, and I'm going to do all my things so I can just shut it off. I can turn the TV off. I never have to see it, and it doesn't affect me. And so, you know, listening to you, both of you, I'm wondering what the case is to be made for making the change. All right; I mean, in the US you need a 51% message, right, you've got to get 51% of the people to vote, or you're going to lose. [00:32:22] What I hear what you say is that we are far from 51% the public who thinks that they are damaged, or who think that there's a problem, and so how do we get their attention. Nicole, thoughts on that; or any of you, [laughter] any of you. [00:32:40] >> LaVonna Lewis: I mean, I think the way you get people's attention is convincing them that you will need them at some point; maybe not now, but at some point you will need them. And are you comfortable with the fact that they may come to you in the condition that they're in right now? So, for example, if I'm relying on you to keep my social security benefits coming, and you can't read and write, what does that look like for my future? You know what I mean, so it has to be this idea of your future is linked to mine, whether you like it or not. The demographic shifts are saying that. And, again, we can continue to deny that that's the reality, unless we, you know, go as far as we want to in terms of keeping people out. But that's what the models are telling us, we're changing. And so are we going to try to, you know, keep the old systems in place, as we try to bring in a new group of people who are responsible for keeping it going? [00:33:46] >> Raphael Bostic: Well, I think the answer we know the answer to that question. [Laughter] And I guess the question I'm asking is like where is change coming because, you know, the solutions that I've heard on this front are things like reparations, right, baby bonds where you set aside a bond for every new child for an underrepresented group, and you can do every child USC Bedrosian Center 10

12 and sort of ranted it up for different amounts for depending on your background. But it doesn't seem to me that any of those gets at the type of change that we're talking about here, which is a much more fundamental systemic change. And, you know, you correct me if I'm wrong about what I'm hearing from this conversation is that the political institutional barriers are more significant and bigger are those than the economic. [00:34:48] So the economics is one, and then we have social and political institution in the other, and that those social things, the subtle things, the things you don't notice, they're the ones that are the bigger barrier. Am I hearing you right there, or am I overstating kind of where you guys are? [00:35:10] >> Cherrie Short: I think you can see both. I think there's unwittingly there's institutional racism, that we are not consciously aware of every day, but they work against us and against our interest. And then there are the ones that you can actually see, like the incarceration of young black men at a higher rate than anyone can imagine in this country. That demonstrates to me that something is seriously wrong. [00:35:42] >> Raphael Bostic: So I agree with that, but I think most people would say that the thing that's seriously wrong is that these people are doing things that break the law. [00:35:52] >> Cherrie Short: But then the discussion should be around could all these people be breaking the law far more than [inaudible] white people are? And why is the sentencing pattern so unequal distribution of the patterns in general? And why do courts tend to incarcerate in certain groups of people far more readily than other groups? I mean, you know, these are statistics that we can actually point to. So it's open and easy to understand. I think that if change is going to happen, it's got to be a realization from also people of color. I think that even though we know that we are suppressed in all different ways because of the way the system works, sometimes we are so into just living day by day that we don't take on the challenges of what's happening to us as we should. [00:37:06] And I think that's an important issue. And I do think education is the crucial thing, that we should ensure that our children are educated, because if you look to the prisons again the people who seem to be locked up at a high rate are people who have difficulty in writing and reading, and being able to argue the point of justice for themselves. So I think, you know, it's not just a simple question of changing things overnight. I think that's why it's called "the locked in model, because it is locked in. And how to unlock it is that you need political will. One, you definitely need an awareness. There's got to be a recognition that when people go to prison, they're coming out, you know, unless we do something to make sure that people's lives are better [00:38:04] USC Bedrosian Center 11

13 >> Raphael Bostic: They're going to go back in. [00:38:05] >> Cherrie Short: that they're going to go back in, but in the meantime they're going to affect our communities too. And there are all those arguments about issues in communities, and where one should live, and where one should not live. So it's not a straightforward argument, but I do think the politicians have a very strong role to play in this, and education. Socialization is the key. [00:38:30] >> Raphael Bostic: Well, that makes me a little depressed, [laughter] because, you know, that I mean I think as a practical manner that our political class is not ready to have that conversation. And, you know, I think about and this may be a little academic, but I think about [inaudible] policy window, right? And there are 3 pieces to this; 1, everyone's got to recognize there's a problem. And I don't think we have an issue there. You know, I don't think we have an issue there. I think people have a question about whether they're a part of the problem or not. So that's one thing. The second is there needs to be some sort of focusing event. And I don't think we've had that. And in fact and I have not really thought of this like this, I think we've had conflicting focusing events that have made people feel different ways. So you take the election of the president, that's a focusing event that we don't have a problem. Then you take [inaudible] Eric Garner, that's a focusing event. [00:39:33] We do have a problem. And I think people are confused as to and let me not be so presumptuous to know what they are; and I think we have not discussed the events together as a compelling single whole that regular people are hearing. They're not hearing that message. And so the focusing event is a [inaudible]. And then the third piece is that then you have to know what to do. You have to have a solution that everyone agrees is the right way to go. And I don't think we have that either. And so I'm wondering so, you know, we're in policy school, you're in the School of Social Work, this is our life. Right; we are looking to improve society, improve equity, and make sure everyone has an ability to realize whatever they wish, right, maximize their access to opportunity. What should we be doing; like what are the things that we should be lifting up as a solution? [00:40:39] And you can point to things that are in the book, or, you know, other things as well. [00:40:45] >> LaVonna Lewis: For me I would start with teaching people how to have a difficult conversation, because so long as people don't want to enter that space, we're going to keep getting the same old results. You know what I mean? And so it really has to be an agreement that I'm going to sit here, and even though I'm uncomfortable, even though I wish I was someplace else, I care enough about the outcome to stick with it. And I think that's what we should be doing for our students, we should be teaching our students how to ask the next question. Instead of saying, "This is where we are," well the next question is, "How did we get USC Bedrosian Center 12

14 here?" You know, can we have that conversation; and really kind of forcing people to face things that may make them uncomfortable, but, you know, and I think that's the value added of being at a policy school where you know that there are different perspectives, how far do we progress that, and how comfortable are we bringing all those perspectives in, and do we get a space where we hold each other harmless, we're talking about the things from my perspective? [00:41:58] You can't call me a racist if this is the way that I see it. It's just the way that I see it, and let's just go from there. And I think that's for me that's where I see my role at this institution is to really, you know, get people comfortable having a conversation that nobody really wants to have, [laughs] I mean, quite frankly so. [00:42:18] >> Nicole Esparza: No; I agree with that. I think this is a really good book also for undergraduates to read. It's a very easy read for them to do, and to talk about the things. And I teach the Intro to Public Policy class like LaVonna does, and I did I do a week on criminal justice policy. And their faces when I say, "We don't have racial policy in the United States, but the closest thing we have to it is the criminal justice policy," because there's nothing that affects race more than that. And their faces are like and then at the end of the course when they write what did you learn in this class, almost all of them write about that of that experience of reading about how many people are incarcerated, and who's incarcerated, and how it started with the drug war, and how we ended up here. And it's like they've never heard this, and, you know, it's interesting that they learn about the collateral consequences of being incarcerated, not being able to get Section 8 housing afterwards, like [laughs] [00:43:21] >> Raphael Bostic: Once you're incarcerated you there's nothing you can do. I mean, you can't get jobs, you can't live with your family, and then we're surprised when there's recidivism. I mean, to me we almost guarantee that there will be recidivism by how we've set up the system. And that's institutional. You know, even for the people who want to do better, you know, there's no there's nothing that they can do. And so, you know, we have to revisit that. And it's actually on the criminal justice, which is maybe a whole other book we'll have to find. It's been interesting that the changes that we've seen in recent years have been for fiscal reasons. And they're leading to some degree of rebalancing in red states, and the states that you wouldn't have thought would be the natural place for that. So maybe there is hope, but again, you have to get to such an extreme that people are like, "Holy cow, we've got to figure something out here." [00:44:22] >> Cherrie Short: I think training and awareness of discrimination and racism is important in every student life. I think that, you know, in the School of Social Work, you know, we try to incorporate it in the mainstream. And, you know, I make the argument that we shouldn't tag, you know, [laughs] these ideas to the end of curriculum, but that it should be you know, people should be made to understand it, that it's a part of our lives. And therefore it's a part of USC Bedrosian Center 13

15 the curriculum as a whole, and not just something that we just put on the end of it and say, "Well, we're doing this project on race." I mean, what does that mean? So, you know, it's all about educating people. You know, I often say that white people don't get up in the morning and think of, you know, what racism is going to hit them today, do they? [00:45:23] I mean, they get up with a different [laughter] view of life, you know. You know, they don't have to talk to their male children about the fact that, "If the police stops you whatever they ask you to do, do it. If they kick you, please don't kick them back." You don't have to say those things. So, you know, they're at an advantage, and so it's almost as if the space needs to be open for the rest of us to feel a part of that space in order to have that discussion. And I think it works both sides. I think that it's all right for us to press for the space to be open, but unless the people who own the space allow us in the space, it's very difficult to get into that space. And I think that's why there are some good people in the world, and we have to [00:46:17] >> Raphael Bostic: Just a few. [Laughter] [00:46:18] >> Cherrie Short: I think we have to recognize that, and not everybody who is in government, or making policy decision, or in education, you know, are biased in one way. So on thinking like that I think it does allow you to feel optimistic. And I think in revisiting my thoughts in the book, I you know, first of all I thought, "Gosh, this is quite depressing really because what's the conclusion to this book?" And part of the book actually states that, "I'm not here to find conclusions for you." And it continues, "But these are some of the things that one could look at." And I thought, "You know, that's true, you can't really find conclusion. [00:47:18] I think it's the responsibility of everyone to recognize what's going on, and it's as educators it's our responsibility to let our students have that debate and open it so that it can be a free discussion so that they can be part of what's actually happening in society." And training is crucial. I mean, you know, that's a really important thing for social workers too because we work in communities all the time, and if we have no understanding of these issues, then that wouldn't be very helpful to the way we write reports to the court, or the way we deal with the prison system, or, you know, so it's understanding how system works is a crucial thing. [00:48:12] >> Raphael Bostic: The one thing that jumped out at me during the whole book was this idea that you don't have to be racist today for the disparities to continue. Right; and I think that's a message that you don't hear people saying, that, you know, today if everyone was completely earnest, they did all the right things, the gaps wouldn't close, right? And that I don't think people know that. I don't think people [00:48:45] >> LaVonna Lewis: No; [overlapping] USC Bedrosian Center 14

16 [00:48:46] >> Raphael Bostic: have that in their consciousness. And that's important. And the reason why it's important is because it leads you to have to reach the conclusion that you have to go above and beyond. Right; and what is interesting, you know, my family my mother would always say, "You can't just be as good as somebody, you have to be better, right, because you can't assume that everything will work out the same." And it's to this recognition that there are barriers, and that you have to face. But I feel like for white America I feel like if they're not actively discriminating against someone, they are being part of the solution. And what this is saying is you actually have to go above and beyond that, right, just being true in your own interaction isn't enough. And that's the part of this conversation that's the part of this book, the message for me that I think really has the potential to turn on some light bulbs and get people to say, "Oh, I hadn't really thought about it like that." [00:49:53] >> LaVonna Lewis: Yes; I mean, I think it's really kind of interesting that you would say that, I mean, in terms of going above and beyond. I guess for me it's really just it's a message about, "Get honest." Right; so for example, to I mean, it's like you can't so people just love to think about us as being colorblind. And I say that's a lie. First of all, you're saying that what you see is not the same thing that I see, and that's a lie. And the second point is that because I am colorblind that means I don't have to do anything. Right; and so that's the lie, the fact that because I'm telling myself I don't see color, then I don't have to think about what color might be relevant in this situation. And so it's just about being honest. It's like [00:50:37] >> Raphael Bostic: But I'm saying something different, which is [00:50:38] >> LaVonna Lewis: Okay. [00:50:38] >> Raphael Bostic: even when you do see color, and you go out of your way to be open, and welcoming, and agreeable, and even you know, even when you do do that, right, so I mean, because I actually think that there are different groups of people here, right, there are the people who are just the racists. Right; I think you just write those people off. They're never going to be in this conversation, whatever. Then you have people who believe that the problem has been solved. They're the people who are colorblind. That's a different class of people. They have their own perspectives and issues. Then you have people who know that there is the potential that race can matter. And they actively in their faces [phonetic] try to make sure that race doesn't matter in their dealings. Right; and they're really different, but none of them think above and beyond. Right; all of them are in either, "I don't have to do anything," or, "I just need to do my thing." And that's where that's the part that's different for me, because I do feel like so USC Bedrosian Center 15

17 much of the conversation on this gets bogged down in, "Well, I'm not a racist so I don't have to talk about this anymore." [00:51:51] Right; and it means that the conversation then gets marginalized to a small group of people, either the racist, racist, who we all look at and we're like, "You're racist," [laughter] or the people who say, you know, "We're colorblind and don't have a problem," and then everyone's like, "You know, we do have a problem," and they want to drag you in, right? And so there's this big [inaudible] that doesn't get dragged pulled into the conversation. And this book says, "No; you guys are part of this, even when you're not actively doing anything." And I think that was really useful. [00:52:24] >> LaVonna Lewis: Yes. [00:52:25] >> Raphael Bostic: So we're getting to the end. But I wanted to make sure that we spent some time talking about who should read this, and who do you think is good for the who would benefit by this book, and in what context? [00:52:43] [ Silence ] [00:52:47] >> LaVonna Lewis: So, I mean, it's hard to say who benefits, because that I mean, the presumption is that I want to benefit. You know what I mean, so for me I benefit as an educator because I can talk about these issues in a way that, you know, may keep my students engaged longer, which is value added. I think the people who believe that government shouldn't be involved in this conversation should read the book, and understand that government has always been involved in the conversation. The real question is will we do it in a way that really gets to kind of the nuts and bolts of the problem? And so I think it has again, for me it has a wide range of people, but fundamentally for me the message is, you know, "If you want to keep the conversation going, whether that's with the people in your fraternity, or sorority, or whether it's with the people in the Congress, you need to read the book." [00:53:56] >> Cherrie Short: Hmm. Well, I think that the book is easy to read. Because it's easy to read, and it's [inaudible], because it's evidence based, I think it would be good for politicians to have a look at this book, and see some of the institutional racism that actually exists, and see what they could do to actually help to unlock it. So I think I would definitely say politicians. I would say my students for sure, because I think that, you know, when you don't have to think about these issues, you don't think about them. And I find that all the time. And even with social work it's, you know, if you you know, you only think about it to a certain degree. And so I think critical thinking is crucial, and it's definitely important. And I think what this book does is that it USC Bedrosian Center 16

18 highlights, you know, the fact that this is a continuation of a law that was, you know, so to speak that we got rid of, but at the same time it's continuing in different forms. [00:55:16] And unless you've thought about the Jim Crow laws, and how it and everybody is against that, I mean, you know, you only have to say, "Jim Crow" and they all, "Yes; we're against that." [Laughter] You know, so, you know, you have a strong standpoint to work by saying, "Well, okay, so if you're against the Jim Crow laws, why are we having A, B, C, D still existing? And, you know, what can we do to ensure that this sort of institutional racism is gotten rid of, and how can we do that?" And I still go back to the issue about policy and policy decisions. And I think maybe why I think like that is because I, you know, have been a politician for a long time. But I know that it's important how people formulate policy. And it's very difficult to get rid of things once you've set them in motion. [00:56:18] It's not easy to say, you know, "We're going to change overnight," or, you know, "These policies are going to be different." But there is recognition; if people can recognize that, and if you can be aware of it, then you're you know, it's half the battle in a lot of ways. And I see that with the poll tax in Britain. So Margaret Thatcher brought in this poll tax, and the way the poll tax actually worked it works to the disadvantage mainly of people who were just the working poor really, because they had to pay this poll tax. Everybody had to pay the poll tax, but the working poor were sort of stuck in this not quite in total poverty, but not quite had the ability to manage to pay the poll tax. And people were incensed by it. [00:57:19] And people started to demonstrate across the country. And they were up in arms, and everywhere you turned around people couldn't stand the fact that they were paying this poll tax. And it crosses all lines of color. And before we know it, Margaret Thatcher had to get rid of the poll tax. And I do think that, you know, mass awareness and mass intention of good people in society does actually able to move things along. And I hope that this book will actually demonstrate that to those people. [00:57:58] >> Raphael Bostic: You know, I share your hope there. [Laughter] Nicole, who should read this book? [00:58:04] >> Nicole Esparza: Yes; I would say any student probably undergrad, grad student. I think it's a really great book, easy to read, they could read it very quickly. [Laughter] Yes; I mean, I think LaVonna's right, that just getting them to learn about something that they probably don't want to talk about is great. [00:58:28] >> Raphael Bostic: Yes. So I actually agree with all that. I think that this is a book that is actually potentially accessible to regular people. USC Bedrosian Center 17

19 [00:58:37] >> Nicole Esparza: To regular people. [00:58:39] >> Raphael Bostic: Right; so, you know, I think anyone who spends a lot of time on college campus, they're not a regular person, [laughter] right, okay? But because it's not super long, this is not like 600 pages, and because the chapters are a nice little bite sized segments in regular language, right, so we're not talking a bunch of lingo, I think this could be something that would be interesting nighttime reading just before you go to bed, or on a plane, or something like that, and could really [00:59:12] >> Cherrie Short: Well, good luck. [00:59:13] >> Raphael Bostic: Good [laughter] I mean, so getting anyone's attention is always a challenge, right? But I do think that this book if it does happen to get popular is something that a lot of folks could actually read, and it would lead them to reflect; and that would be quite interesting. And I actually think it would be useful for the media to read this book, because the media includes a whole lot of narratives about how people live and why they make the decisions they do that are often not really informed by anything, right? [00:59:50] >> LaVonna Lewis: Yes. [00:59:50] >> Raphael Bostic: And so to actually force them to know the evidence [laughter] before they draw conclusions I think would be really helpful. Any last things you guys wanted to say about the book? I had a few last things. So I actually am somewhat optimistic coming off of this book. You know, this is the [01:00:18] >> LaVonna Lewis: Really. [Laughs] [01:00:19] >> Raphael Bostic: Because, you know, listening to particularly Cherrie talk about there are a few good people, I do think there are a lot of good people. And I think people just don't know, and they don't talk about these things. But I think books like this and vehicles like what we're doing here talking about it and making it accessible to as wide an audience as we possibly can, gives me hope that people will notice, and, you know, as I think all of you have said, noticing is the first step to healing, and healing in progress; that this is like the AA thing, right, the first step is you have to acknowledge you have a problem, and understand it before you're ever going to solve it. I try to get that AA thing in every one of these so [laughter] USC Bedrosian Center 18