As to #1, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but the frustrations I was expressing with the "system" weren't directed towards the system itself (though I do, in fact, have many, many, many frustrations) but instead to the way we have been talking about the system. I just don't find it very productive to talk about the system and the problems it causes in the abstract, as this monolithic entity. I don't see us getting anywhere when we criticize the "system" when it's really specific institutions within that system that are to blame.

I also think this conversation veered wildly from Kipp's original premise: That when we talk about White Supremacy, we're not giving enough credence to the role that class - and not just race - plays in that system. The discussion of whether or not Kipp had a right to feel alienated became the focus, but I think this RaceVClass dynamic (the topic of this thread) is a very worthwhile conversation to be having. Like you said, William David, we have a society where we still very much feel the effects of the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation. While the position that blacks (and other minorities) hold in society can certainly be attributed to race, I'm not so sure that there's such a 1-to-1 causal connection from race to explain why there's such inertia at the present moment. Achieving equality involves selflessness. Giving more power to the lower classes involves taking away power from the upper classes. Ensuring fair opportunity involves sacrifice from the top. In my mind, it's these factors that more adequately explain our unwillingness to change. I am certainly not going to deny that race plays a huge factor in all of this, especially within an institution such as our system of mass incarceration. There is definitely a certain aspect of the "other" that makes achieving equality that much more difficult when the lower classes are predominantly made up of people of another skin color or ethnicity. But at the end of the day, the reason society is not going to change is because that would involve loss from those holding the keys to change. And that holds true no matter what color your skin is.

-- JaredMiller - 19 Apr 2012

I thought y'all might be interested in reading Ta-Nehisi Coates, a blogger for the Atlantic who writes about race, comic books and the civil war, among other things. Specifically relevant is this post discussing the connection between democracy and racism in light of Coates' ongoing reading of Tocqueville. Here's an excerpt:

"One of the great intellectual tensions in my life comes from reconciling a deep belief in democracy with the fact of African-American history. What is unavoidable is that in America white supremacy has often been quite democratic. Tocqueville calls this sort of tyranny much worse because it bears the imprint of the "majority" and thus is imbued with a kind of moral justice."

One of the things I love about the law is that courts are not beholden to the will of the majority. The protection of individual rights can be and often is accomplished by courts when it would not be done in other democratic channels. At the same time, landmark court decisions that expand rather than contract rights can have a large positive impact on public opinion in support of the right in question.

(This is not incontrovertible; there's a causation question here, often discussed in terms of the Warren court and the civil rights movement but also applicable to the gay marriage decisions in Massachusetts and elsewhere, about whether a court has helped move public opinion or was just reacting to changing public opinion or even just reacting to changing "elite" opinion).

-- ShakedSivan - 18 Apr 2012

1. I remember when Eben said, "The beauty of the law is in its weakness." Given that law is governmental social "control," I think this statement holds the key of why you become frustrated with the "system." I would suggest that this is because the "law" is extremely deceptive. People, judges (e.g. Judge Day), state and local governments, etc. hide behind the "law," when there are actually more powerful forces at work. It's not really the law, but deep seated notions of family, religion, education, propaganda that are actually intertwined with the law to make it seem as if the law is doing the work. Behind the more powerful forces is the notion of "white supremacy." All white supremacy refers to is keeping those dominant from the "founders" to their descendents in power. That's why even when laws deceptively "change," they change to do their best to keep notions of "white supremacy" evident. For example, although in Brown v. Board of Education, Thurgood Marshall was able to convince SCOTUS to desegregate schools, the COURT did so with the racist assertion that "separate cannot be equal" and stated that "only" the minority group was deprived of an adequate education. This is the white supremacist belief that "blacks are inferior" and they need to be around whites to have an equal education. Everyone is deprived with this discrimination, and the court refused to reallocate wealth to make sure schools were appropriately funded for all people. Thus, the system was reinforced and it still is reinforced through the "War on Drugs" (drug laws - disproportionately affect African Americans), the type of "docile" education provided through NCLB, casting of political "elections," producing deviance through poverty and the denial of justice, etc. It is so hard to "fight" and is frustrating because it is so entrenched and thus hard to "see." This is why Trayvon Martin was likely killed. It is so entrenched that it is in the subconscious, and only through effort is this "racist" thinking averted.

2. Thanks for wanting to make "law school" work too. That is refreshing and took courage for you to respond to this. This class is the first step. We should do our best to get as much out of it as we can. Then, we should reflect over the summer and stay in correspondence. Maybe we can take some classes together that reflect and support this effort. We need to do whatever we can to become the type of lawyers that we need to be. In July, we should start brainstorming/planning methods in which to affect the law school community and later the rest of the nation. I was thinking about doing a lot of collaboration on events that challenge the status quo (e.g. having open discussions about the legal system and the best way to use it and the greater methods of social control for change, inviting "radical" professors to speak on issues, etc.). Eben is providing access to countless people who never had it through the Software Freedom Law Center. We have to work on providing access too, while using the media and other avenues to convince the world that the world needs changing.

This government cannot function without the PEOPLE. Thus, it uses casting to "convince" the people. We have to figure out how to move the people against the system so that more people can have the justice they deserve.

I ran through this entire thread and found it truly compelling, enlightening and thought-provoking. From the first day of classes, I've been incredibly impressed with the sheer intelligence of my classmates, and everything said here has only bolstered that feeling.

As Gechi astutely pointed out, I think that the real thrust behind this debate of alienation versus inclusiveness is a discussion of how we best tackle this "system of White (Male) Supremacy" that we see as the cause of so many problems for blacks, other minorities and, more generally, society. I honestly don't know what the answer to that question is. As Kipp and others have said, it doesn't seem to make sense to lambast all whites as a group and risk alienating those who are on the side of racial equality and justice, since integration seems to be so key to solving many of these problems. But as Gechi also pointed out, alienation inevitably comes from ANY sort of discussion in this realm; perhaps the focus is best put on achieving unity within the oppressed group(s).

I think my problem in figuring out what the best answer to this question is comes from the fact that we talk in these grand, vague terms of a "system of White Supremacy." William David discussed how powerful white men created this system through the propagation of slavery and other methods in order to achieve and maintain power. The vestiges of slavery are obviously real and incredibly destructive, leading to an underclass made up mostly of minorities who have little hope of climbing up the ladder (or, at the very least, have a lot farther up to climb than do most whites). I believe all of this is true. But when we blame the "system of White Supremacy," I'm not really sure what exactly this means. And because I'm not sure what exactly it means, I don't really know how to fight it. We've talked about discussing things in terms of what they DO instead of what they ARE, so instead of blaming this amorphous "system", why don't we start to discuss how this system actually operates so that we can fight it? In my mind, it operates by incarcerating minorities excessively and disproportionately, in the process tearing apart families, putting them deeper into poverty, and removing role models from the family. It also operates by refusing to give equal education to poor and rich, depriving poor (mostly minorities) of so many opportunities. These are just two ways, but I know there are countless others.

I know this veers a little bit from the original subject, but I just wanted to express some of the frustration I feel with discussions like this and some of the ones we've had in class, a frustration that comes from the fact that talking about the existence of this system seems rather meaningless to me. William David, you said that you feel that the "system has only strengthened despite what might appear to be incredible progress." What do you mean by this? Why do you think this? What exactly is the system DOING and in what ways exactly is it acting that has led you to this conclusion? In my mind, we need to first be asking and answering these questions; otherwise, the questions about how to tackle the "system of White Supremacy" more generally just become rather pointless.

PS William David, I would love to make law school work for us in the ways that you're talking about. What do you have in mind?

-- JaredMiller - 17 Apr 2012