RSS

Tag Archives: bias

New Study – Adult Perceptions of Black Girls

Interesting study. Adults are likely to see black girls as more mature then they are, and in less need of support and nurturing…

Not sure why this is a surprise, as it seems that some of our sick population has a hard time seeing black children as even human.

 

Adults view black girls as ‘less innocent,’ new report says

When compared with their white peers, young black girls are viewed less as children and more like adults, according to a new research report.

Adults in the United States tend to view black girls as “less innocent” and more grown up than white girls, according to the report, which published by Georgetown Law’s Center on Poverty and Inequality on Tuesday.
Based on those findings, the research suggests that adults may perceive that black girls need less nurturing and protection than white girls, which could influence how black girls are treated in the education or juvenile justice systems.
“If our public systems, such as schools and the juvenile justice system, view black girls as older and less innocent, they may be targeted for unfair treatment in ways that effectively erase their childhood,” said Rebecca Epstein, lead author of the report and executive director of the Center on Poverty and Inequality.
She added that disparities in how black girls are viewed emerge as early as age 5, when some children are still in preschool.
“Our finding that adultification begins as young as the age of 5 was particularly sobering. That means that adults may even see little girls in kindergarten differently, needing less nurturing and support than their white peers,” Epstein said.
“Yet at the same time, the more general confirmation that black girls are adultified was not surprising. Scholars and researchers have observed this phenomenon for years,” she said. “Many experts have observed that stereotypes of black women, especially the stereotype of the ‘angry black woman,’ are projected onto black girls, and that black girls’ behavior is often interpreted as threatening to adults’ authority, which effectively adultifies black girls in harmful ways.”…More...
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Without Scumbag Scalia – The Supreme Court Hears Bias Cases

Without scumbag Scalia, the Supreme Court may actually come up with a non-racist Constitutional decision. Which is exactly why Republicans don’t want President Obama to appoint a replacement judge.

The REALLY bad news for the Rethugs is, Hillary may be replacing as many a 3 Justices in her first term…And the way the numbers are looking, there won’t be a damn thing they can do about it having sacrificed all right to any input.

Image result for racially biased jury

Supreme Court Hears Case On Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations

It’s only the second week of oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court and already the justices are on their third case involving race and the criminal justice system.

Tuesday’s case tests the constitutionality of widespread rules that bar courts from examining evidence of racial bias in jury deliberations.

The federal rules of evidence, as well as rules in most states, generally bar courts from hearing juror testimony about deliberations after a trial is over. Indeed, the Supreme Court just two years ago ruled that to allow an inquiry into jury deliberations would threaten the integrity of the jury system by inhibiting jurors’ discussions.

In that 2014 decision, however, the Court specifically said there “may be some cases of juror bias so extreme” that, by definition, the right to a fair trial “has been abridged.”

If and when such a case arises, the Court said, it would decide whether an exception is warranted.

That day has now come in the case of Miguel Peña-Rodriguez.

Peña-Rodriguez was a horse trainer at a racetrack in Colorado in 2007, when he was arrested after two teenage sisters, the daughters of a jockey, identified him as the man who groped them in a restroom at the barn.

According to the girls’ testimony, a man entered the bathroom, asked them if they wanted to party, and when they said “no” and tried to leave, he turned off the light, grabbed them, touched one of them on the breast, and the other on the shoulder and buttocks. The girls ran away, told their father what happened, and he identified Peña-Rodriguez from that description.

Later that night, police pulled Peña-Rodriguez over on the roadside, then brought the girls to the site, where they identified him, through a police cruiser window, as their assailant. Peña-Rodriguez was charged with one felony count of attempted sexual assault and three misdemeanors.

At trial, the prosecution’s case rested on the victims’ identification. The defense highlighted the short time the victims actually saw their attacker, the suggestibility of the night-time show-up, and the presence of other workers in the area at the time of the attack. It also presented an alibi witness, who testified that Peña-Rodriguez was with him in one of the other barns when the attack occurred. The alibi witness, like Peña-Rodriguez, was Hispanic.

The jurors initially deadlocked, unable to reach a verdict. The judge told them it was their duty to try again.

Image result for racially biased jury

After twelve hours of deliberation in all, and much shouting that could be heard outside the jury room, the jury found the defendant guilty on the three misdemeanor charges, but failed to reach agreement on the felony. The state subsequently dismissed the more serious charge.

Peña-Rodriguez was sentenced to two years probation, and required to register as a sex offender. He still trains horses at the barn.

But on the day of the verdict, while he went home, the defense lawyers, following the usual practice in Colorado and elsewhere, remained in the courthouse to speak with any willing jurors. Two jurors told them that during the deliberations one of the other jurors, identified in court records as H.C., had repeatedly expressed a bias against the defendant — and his alibi witness — because they are Hispanic.

With the trial judge’s permission, the lawyers then obtained affidavits from the jurors, in which the jurors quoted H.C. as saying that, from his experience as an ex-policeman, he knew that the defendant was guilty “because he’s Mexican” and “Mexican men … think they can ‘do whatever they want’ with women,” and that where he used to patrol, “nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.”

The affidavits also quoted H.C. as saying that the alibi witness was not credible because, among other things, he was “an illegal.”

In fact, the witness had testified at trial that he was a legal resident of the United States.

After receiving the affidavits, the trial judge ruled that there could be no questioning of jurors to see if a new trial would be justified because the Colorado has a rule barring inquiry into whatever happens in the jury room.

The Colorado Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, agreed.

Peña-Rodriguez appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where his lawyer will argue that in cases of alleged racial bias, if the trial judge cannot question jurors about their deliberations, the defendant is deprived of his constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury. Allowing an inquiry about racial bias is just as important, the defense will argue, as allowing an inquiry into jury tampering or whether outside information was brought into jury deliberations.

The state will argue that protecting the secrecy of jury deliberations ensures full and frank juror discussions, and protects public confidence in the jury system.

The defense will counter that more than 20 jurisdictions, from California to South Carolina, allow post-trial inquiry into racial bias on juries, and that such inquiries have existed in some states for decades without undermining the jury system.

The Supreme Court, now, will consider these arguments.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 11, 2016 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

An American Born, Ethnically Indian Doctor and Race

A Doctor of Indian Descent, not the author of this article.

South Asians (India, Pakistan region) in America also experience racial bias based on their brown skin – even when they are born and raised in the USA. They, along with East Asians have been used as the Model Minority wedge against black and HIspanic folks by the racist right. One of the reasons for South Asian “success” in America, is we are stealing the best and brightest with a strong commitment and background in education from the region. When we say we are “a nation of immigrants”, what that really means in no small part is we have been very successful at robbing the brain trusts for over 100 years with people from European countries before 1965, and around the world now. A large portion of the scientists who built the Atomic Bomb, and who later led our development of rockets were immigrants – educated for the most part in high-level European Schools.

America however, has had a complex relationship with racism for the “groups in the middle” – those that aren’t either black or white. Whether in the days of segregation, classifying the miniscule population of East Asians as “white”, and not subjecting them to segregated schools, to conditions which forced the building of separate “Chinatowns” in areas with any significant Asian population geographically segregated from the white community.

How I Deal with Racist Patients

When a patient requested ‘no Indian doctors,’ I expected the hospital higher-ups to stick up for me. But they didn’t.
Despite being born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, a city infamous for itsformer Jim Crow laws and the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, the most culturally insensitive conversations I’ve ever found myself in went something like this:

“Where are you from, darling?”

“Birmingham! I was born here.”

“No, no, where are you really from?”

I guess my brown skin has always given me away as not really American, so with a quick smile and a congenial laugh, I have always replied with a simple “Oh, my family is originally from India.” Usually this satisfies whoever I happen to be talking to at the moment, and we move on to discussing their favorite place to grab some chicken tikka masala. You know, the only topic safe to discuss with Indians, apparently.

As a physician, I spend much of my day being a “people person,” if you will. From patients and their families to other members of the medical team, most doctors spend the large majority of their day communicating with other people. So we’re well versed with handling almost everything that comes our way, from the inappropriate to the mundane.

Just the other day in clinic, a patient of mine told me about his travels in South Asia and excitedly asked me where I was born after I told him I’m Indian. Upon hearing that I was actually born in Birmingham, he dejectedly stated, “Oh, please, you’re a fake Indian.” Ouch.

Despite this obvious personal affront, I have coped well with the identity crisis that comes with simultaneously being denied the right to call myself either American or Indian. This unique no-man’s-land has usually been cushioned by an ability to separate these casual conversations from my role in the doctor-patient relationship. Except, of course, in the unique situations whereby my race has precluded me from doing my job—not due to any issue on my end, but due to the patients on the receiving end of my care.

I remember early in my residency, a patient specifically requested that no “foreigners” take care of her. This request was made in passing, one time, to her primary doctor, who happened to be white. It never came up again while she was in the hospital, so nothing was ever really done about it.

Fast forward a year or so later in my residency when a patient’s family explicitly requested, well, actually demanded, that no Indian doctors directly care for their mother. This was a little problematic, from a medical and technical aspect, given that the majority of her primary team of doctors was, in fact, some variety of Indian.

As you can imagine, this situation was also ethically, morally, and personally problematic. I wish I could say that this situation was handled well and all misunderstandings were cleared—but the racism and disrespect of this request were brushed away, and the medical team was told by the powers that be to handle the situation with sensitivity. Excuse me, what?

As a medical community, we are all very aware of the racial biases and healthcare discrimination faced by our patients. In fact, NEJM and JAMA have both recently published perspective pieces on these topics. But very few people have taken a look at the opposite end of that spectrum and how the judgments placed on physicians impact patient care and physician well being.

Instead of ignoring these issues, we should be taking strides within the medical community to break down unfair judgments and racist ideals. Minority doctors all tell stories about these experiences and we usually laugh because that’s what makes us feel a little better, but deep down we all know how unfunny it is.

I really don’t mind casual conversation about the best Indian restaurant in town, or the nostalgic reminiscing about that wonderful Indian neighbor from so long ago, or even that little game I play every time somebody asks me if I know that other Dr. Khan/Patel/Singh/Insert-Brown-Last-Name-Here.

But I do mind being judged by the color of my skin. Of all the things that I had imagined brown could do for me, I never really expected it to make me feel out of place both inside and outside of the hospital.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 26, 2015 in The New Jim Crow, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

How Bias in Medicine Affects Treatment and Outcome by Race

Google Image “Black Child and Doctor”, and the first 900 images look something like this fantasy –

Now, with only about 2.5% of all doctors being black – what do you think the statistical chance of this is? This is the first lie of many the medical profession tells itself, and the world. It also empowers a dangerous stereotype that patients are treated better racially. You find pretty much the same thing for Asian or Hispanic kids.

We know that the result of such disparate treatment results in the needless deaths of possibly several hundred thousand black patients a year. From Prenatal Mortality rates 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than white or Hispanic populations, to higher death rates among the elderly.

From the Journal of the American Medical Association

A landmark report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2003 documented that from the simplest to the most technologically advanced diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, African American (or black) individuals and those in other minority groups receive fewer procedures and poorer-quality medical care than white individuals.1 These differences existed even after statistical adjustment for variations in health insurance, stage and severity of disease, income or education, comorbid disease, and the type of health care facility. Very limited progress has been made in reducing racial/ethnic disparities in the quality and intensity of care.2

This from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

Bias, Black Lives, and Academic Medicine

At noon Pacific Standard Time on December 10, 2014, thousands of students from 70 medical schools throughout the United States held silent “White Coats for Black Lives” die-ins. These demonstrations, the largest coordinated protests at U.S. medical schools since the Vietnam War era, were initiated by medical students in California and spread across the country in response to the following call to action posted online atthefreethoughtproject.com:

“We feel it is essential to begin a conversation about our role in addressing the explicit and implicit discrimination and racism in our communities and reflect on the systemic biases embedded in our medical education curricula, clinical learning environments, and administrative decision-making. We believe these discussions are needed at academic medical centers nationwide.” Though the stimulus for the die-ins was the nationwide protests in response to the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, the students demanded an examination of racial bias within our country’s academic medical centers.

What are the systemic biases within academic medical centers, and what do they have to do with black lives? Two observations about health care disparities may be relevant.

First, there is evidence that doctors hold stereotypes based on patients’ race that can influence their clinical decisions.1 Implicit bias refers to unconscious racial stereotypes that grow from our personal and cultural experiences. These implicit beliefs may also stem from a lack of day-to-day interracial and intercultural interactions. Although explicit race bias is rare among physicians, an unconscious preference for whites as compared with blacks is commonly revealed on tests of implicit bias.1

Second, despite physicians’ and medical centers’ best intentions of being equitable, black–white disparities persist in patient outcomes, medical education, and faculty recruitment. In the 2002 report Unequal Treatment, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed hundreds of studies of age, sex, and racial differences in medical diagnoses, treatments, and health care outcomes.2 The IOM’s conclusion was that for almost every disease studied, black Americans received less effective care than white Americans. These disparities persisted despite matching for socioeconomic and insurance status. Minority patients received fewer recommended treatments for diseases ranging from AIDS to cancer to heart disease. And racial gaps in health care outcomes have persisted. For example, gaps in blood pressure, cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin control between black and white members of Medicare health maintenance organizations were found throughout the period 2006 to 2011.3

The IOM found “strong but circumstantial evidence for the role of bias, stereotyping, and prejudice” in perpetuating racial health disparities.2 The finding that physicians have implicit racial bias does not prove that it affects patient–doctor relationships or changes treatment decisions. But some research suggests that there’s a direct relationship among physicians’ implicit bias, mistrust on the part of black patients, and clinical outcomes.1 Although the causes of health care disparities are certainly multifactorial, implicit bias plays some role.

Implicit bias may also influence administrative decisions at academic medical centers — decisions ranging from what services are provided, to whether to accept insurance plans that serve the most disadvantaged members of minority groups, to which neighborhoods to choose when establishing new physicians’ offices. The likelihood of such influence does not mean that bias is the only explanation for unequal treatment or administrative decisions that favor one group over another. The point is simply that there is potential for making racially biased decisions, and it generally goes unexamined.

Implicit racial bias might contribute to the failure to achieve greater inclusion of black students in medical education. Though there has been progress in the recruitment of some underrepresented minority groups to medical schools, the percentage of black men among all medical school graduates has declined over the past 20 years (see graph Number of U.S. Physicians by Graduation Year, Race, Ethnic Group, and Sex, 1980–2012.). The country’s traditionally black medical colleges — Howard, Meharry, and Morehouse — continue to graduate a disproportionate number of black medical students. In 2012, there were just 517 black men among the more than 20,000 graduating students at U.S. medical schools (see graph). Black medical students are more than twice as likely as white students to express a desire to care for underserved communities of color. Our inability to recruit black men into medicine is alarming, given the urgency of racial health care disparities in the United States.

Recruitment and retention of black faculty members have also long challenged academic medicine. Only 2.9% of all faculty members at U.S. medical schools are black.4 A 2010 study showed that among faculty members who had been hired in 2000, blacks were less likely to have been retained than any other demographic group. Black faculty members are less likely than their white counterparts to be promoted, to hold senior faculty or administrative positions, and to receive research awards from the National Institutes of Health.5 Thirty-one percent of the 84,195 white faculty members at U.S. medical schools were full professors in 2011, as compared with just 11% of the 3952 black faculty members. The paucity of black faculty members contributes to a climate in which black medical students may lack accessible black role models. The IOM has defined the climate for diversity as “the perceptions, attitudes, and expectations that define the institution, particularly as seen from the perspectives of individuals of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.” Though there may be various drivers of poor recruitment, retention, and promotion of black faculty members, the role of institutional bias and the climate for black faculty at academic medical centers deserve scrutiny. By any measure, academic medicine’s persistent difficulty in developing black faculty members is a serious concern.

For the sake of not only black lives but all lives, we should heed our students’ call to examine the implicit biases in our academic medical centers. We can begin by assessing how bias contributes to the persistence of black–white disparities in health care, medical school recruitment, and faculty retention in our own institutions. We can audit the care we deliver to ensure that the right treatments are provided and the best outcomes are achieved regardless of patients’ race, class, or sex. We can assess the climate within our centers and strive to ensure that our recruitment processes, classrooms, clinics, administrations, and boardrooms are inclusive to all. But most important, we should talk about bias, with our students, our faculties, our staff, our administrations, and our patients. Maybe then we’ll have a chance to finally eliminate the racial health care disparities that persist in the United States.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 26, 2015 in American Genocide, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MSM Coverage of Obama Biased Negatively

News coverage of President Obama is biased towards the negative, explaining why he is having such a difficult time getting his message across, or getting credit for the accomplishments of his Administration. This isn’t the first time this has happened. If you will remember back to the 2000 Presidential Election cycle, the MSM all but crowned Bush President 11 months BEFORE the actual election. The MSM spent a lot of time tossing Bush softball questions and giving him the benefit of the doubt.

They are doing it again, this time in support of a stable of Republican mental midgets and moral degenerates who, under no circumstance could be considered “Presidential material”. It is time to fight back, at least for fair media coverage.

 

Study finds harsh media coverage for Obama

President Obama “has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment” of all presidential candidates over the past five months, according to a study released Monday from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Pew found that Mr. Obama was the subject of negative assessments nearly four times as often as he was the subject of positive assessments. It found he received “positive” coverage nine percent of the time, “neutral” coverage 57 percent of the time and “negative” coverage 34 percent of the time.

The study, which was conducted using a combination of “traditional media research methods [and] computer algorithms to track the level and tone of coverage,” cuts against the widespread conservative claim that the “liberal media” aides Mr. Obama and other Democrats while attacking Republicans.

Pew says it looked at coverage from more than 11,500 news outlets, including local and national broadcasts, news websites and blogs.

Mr. Obama’s negative coverage could be explained in part by the fact that he is “covered largely as president rather than a candidate,” Pew said – and coverage of him is linked to the struggling economy.

Among the Republican presidential candidates, Pew found that Rick Perry has received the most positive coverage of all the candidates, with 32 percent positive coverage. He was followed by Sarah Palin (31 percent), Michele Bachmann (31 percent), Herman Cain (28 percent) and Mitt Romney (26 percent.) Palin, a vocal critic of the media, ultimately decided not to seek the GOP nomination.

Perry had the best ratio of any candidate, with 32 percent positive coverage to 20 percent negative coverage, a 12 percent net positive ratings in terms of coverage. He was followed by Palin (with 9 percent net positive coverage), Bachmann (8 percent net positive), Cain (5 percent net positive), Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman (both with 4 percent net positive coverage.) Pew found that Cain surged in positive coverage starting in late August – even before he did so in the polls.

The only candidate who received more negative coverage than Mr. Obama was Newt Gingrich, whom Pew found was the subject of negative coverage 35 percent of the time. That can be attrubited in part to his early stumbles, including his criticism of the House GOP Medicare plan and the decision by top staffers to abandom Gingrich’s campaign. While Pew found that Mr. Obama received just nine percent positive coverage, however, Gingrich received 15 percent positive coverage.

The candidates with the worst coverage ratio were Mr. Obama (25 percent net negative coverage), Gingrich (20 percent net negative), Rick Santorum (3 percent net negative) and Mitt Romney (1 percent net negative.)

As Politico’s Keach Hagey notes, Pew found that Mr. Obama had widely positive media coverage during his first 100 days in office, with 42 percent positive coverage and 20 percent negative coverage.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 17, 2011 in Great American Rip-Off, News

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Fear Of the Angry Black Man

What is Portrayed By Conservative Media.

You’ve heard the term “Angry black man/woman” probably too many times for it to register anymore. Most black professionals run into it personally at one time or another, and it is a common device utilized in political and corporate infighting against black employees.

It is a device, dependent on the ignorance or bias of other white employees and managers, which can cause serious career damage to the accused black employee. Often phrased as “having a chip on the shoulder” when a black employee reacts no differently than a white employee to a situation, or when the employee is a black woman, as having “an attitude”, the false canard is just another of those “black taxes” on the way to that still not reached post-racial nirvana.

This irrational, racially driven bias provides a serious challenge to President Obama’s image.

 

What President Obama Projects…

Obama and the Question of the ‘Angry Black Man’

Dec. 23, 2010 – Since his 2008 campaign, much discussion has been devoted to understanding President Obama’s approach.  At various points Obama’s public coolness has been seen as a plus, while at other points it has been viewed as a real minus.  On those rare occasions when Obama has dared give expression to his ire, he has confronted the “angry black man” issue and any concerns he may have regarding the perception that an “angry black man” has assumed the role of President of the United States of America.

In the last two weeks two friends of mine have written pieces critical of my assertion that part of understanding Barack Obama is to understand his intense fear of being perceived as an “angry black man.” One friend simply stated his disagreement with me, while the other ridiculed my position. Both friends happen to be white.

Before I go any further let me be clear that I do not articulate this analysis as in any way a defense of Obama. As my record shows, I have been highly critical of the President on many issues.  What has me unsettled, however, is how easy it has been for many white leftists and progressives to dismiss the matter of the “angry black man” without fully interrogating the concept and its implications.  In that sense, this is about much more than President Obama.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
6 Comments

Posted by on December 27, 2010 in Giant Negros, The Post-Racial Life

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: