Who is the Most "Hated"?

The New York Times columnist Charles Blow has recently included FBI hate crime statistics in his opinion pieces. These columns have caused me to re-think these statistics and what they can tell us about racial relations.

Although I consider hate crimes to be a very serious issue and I have even briefly studied white supremacist organizations (the spawning ground for a number of the people who commit racially-motivated hate crimes), I have been reluctant to discuss hate crimes. Hate crimes tend to reinforce the view that the issue of racial discrimination is about just a few crazy, bad apples. In 2007, there were less than 5,000 hate crime victims against all racial groups by the FBI racial categorization and likely a smaller number of offenders. In comparison, possibly ten times that number of blacks only were victims subtle and not-so-subtle biases in our criminal justice system. Maybe hundreds of thousands of blacks faced discrimination in the workplace--much of which they were probably not aware of, and millions of black children went to separate and unequal schools. The impersonal, bureaucratic institutional discrimination in the society greatly dwarfs the few-bad-apple hate crimes.

There are other problems with the FBI hate crime statistics. They likely significantly undercount the number of hate crimes. Many people may not report being a victim of a hate crime. Police officers for a variety of reasons may intentionally mis-categorize a hate crime as some other type of crime. Some police agencies simply do not report hate crimes. (For more on these points see "Understanding Hate Crimes" by the Prejudice Institute.)

On the other hand, even hate crimes are sociological phenomena. A hate crime is a crime against a socially-recognized group motivated by a culturally-shared narrative about a group. The narrative may not be believed by a majority or even a large number, but it is none-the-less shared. So, hate crimes may provide a type of a hate index of the society.

In different societies, racial hate crimes are likely disproportionately directed to different groups based on the specific history of racial relations of that country. Hate crimes also would depend on specific criminological factors. Some countries would likely have factors that lead to more or less hate crimes, and also more or less hate crimes against specific groups. It is not clear what conclusions can be drawn from relative rates of hate crimes, but it is worth pondering.

With these thoughts in mind, I decided to take a preliminary look at the hate crime statistics of 2007 to see who is "hated"--in the hate-crime sense--in America. The simple number of hate crimes by racial group does not tell us much since different groups make up different shares of the population. What is interesting is the percent of racially-motivated hate crimes relative to the share of the population. If a group were to make up 10 percent of the population and were victims of 10 percent of the racial hate crimes then there is nothing unusual there. If a group were 10 percent of the population but victims of 90 percent of the hate crimes then the group is a particularly "hated" group.

Before I go into my findings, I have to address the question of which groups count as a racial group. I have written at length about this issue in my book Achieving Blackness. The official Census racial categories do not get at the way people think about race. Just as in many cases people are not economically rational, people's racial categories are not consistent, discrete and logical scientific categories no matter how much scholars of racial relations wish that they were. It is clear to me that Jews, Muslims and Hispanics are sometimes thought of as racial groups by people in general and, importantly, by people committing hate crimes against them. This may not be the case in every hate crime, but I'll nonetheless include these groups as racialized groups. Since the Census Bureau does not follow this scheme, individuals will be double-counted. An individual can be a black, Hispanic Muslim and be counted in all three categories, for example. My racialized groups are whites, blacks, Asians and Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, mixed-race people, Jews, Muslims and Hispanics.

For simplicity, the figure below shows findings only for whites, blacks, Jews and Muslims. Although in absolute number, there were more anti-black hate crime incidents in 2007 than incidents against other racialized groups, blacks were not the most "hated" group. Relative to their share in the population, Jews were nearly eight times (7.94) more likely to be the target of a hate crime. Jews make up only 2.2 percent of the U.S. population but 17.5 percent of the racialized hate crimes were targeted at Jews.

Source: Author's analysis of FBI data.

Blacks and Muslims had the misfortune to come in second and third respectively. Relative to their share of the population, blacks were almost four times as likely to be targets of racialized hate crimes; Muslims were 3.5 times as likely. Of all the groups examined, whites were greatly under-represented among racialized hate crime targets.



Share this article with a friend. Use the email icon below.

--Algernon Austin, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2005-2009 by Thora Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The Racial Mismatch

A New Lecture: “Anti-Black Discrimination in the Age of Obama” by Dr. Algernon Austin

The simplistic idea that impoverished African Americans have only themselves to blame for their poverty, due to their poor cultural values—a notion advanced by many, including black public figures such as Bill Cosby—is believable only if a blind eye is turned to those inconvenient things social scientists like to call “facts.” Algernon Austin soundly refutes the “culture of poverty” argument by paying careful attention to marco-economic data about long-term poverty trends and sociological case studies about persistent discrimination. In other words, unlike the glib punditry, Austin actually looks at the “facts.”
--Dr. Andrew Hartman, professor and audience member, Illinois State University

Contact Dr. Austin to arrange a speaking engagement.
________________________________________________________________________


Many people argue that the jobs crisis facing black men stems from their lower educational attainment. There is a great need to improve the educational attainment of blacks generally, but educational improvements alone won't solve the crisis. The figure above shows the 2006 unemployment rates for non-Hispanic black and white males in Chicago. In Chicago, at every educational level, whites are more likely to be employed than blacks. If blacks had the exact same educational-attainment profile as whites, blacks would still be more likely to be unemployed. It is particularly surprising that the disparity is so large for high school dropouts. One high-school dropout should be as good or bad as the next.

If one does the same analysis for other major cities, one ends up with similar results. This analysis challenges the education-as-THE-solution perspective, and it also challenges the spatial-mismatch hypothesis. This hypothesis states that blacks have a harder time finding work because many of the jobs have moved out of heavily-black cities and to the predominantly-white suburbs.

But what the figure (and similar ones for other cities) shows is that in the same city proportionately more whites are finding work when blacks are not. Again, white high-school dropouts are having much greater success at finding work than black high-school dropouts.

The findings of this relatively simple analysis are corroborated by the paper "Spatial Mismatch or Racial Mismatch?" by Judith Hellerstein, David Neumark, and Melissa McInerney (NBER Working Paper 13161). These researchers find that only black job density in black neighborhoods predicts black male employment rates, not the overall job density for all racial groups. In other words, black men could live right next door to employers, but if those employers do not hire black men then the employer might as well be on Mars as far as black men are concerned. This finding of the overall job density not mattering for black men is what one would find if black men were facing anti-black discrimination in the labor market.

Returning once again, to the issue of high-school dropouts or the "less-educated," Hellerstein et al. state, "less-educated blacks do live in areas where there are many jobs held by less-educated whites." In fact, they find that the average black male high-school dropout lives in a neighborhood where four non-black male high-school dropouts are working for every resident who is a black male high-school dropout (Table 3). Also, the average employment rate for these black male high-school dropouts is under 50 percent. The authors observe, "This suggests that the problem may not be a lack of jobs at appropriate skill levels where blacks live, but a lack of jobs that are available to blacks" (16). If discrimination is a major factor in black men's unemployment rate, education alone will not fix it.

Hellerstein et al. conduct an interesting simulation. They estimate the effect on black male employment rates of black male high-school dropouts moving from an average black neighborhood to an average white neighborhood. This is the proposed solution to the black male jobs crisis that emerges from the spatial mismatch hypothesis. By their calculations, the average employment rate for black male high-school dropouts is 46 percent. (The average for white male high-school dropouts is 69 percent.) The move to an average white neighborhood is estimated to increase the black male high-school dropout employment rate to 48 percent--2 percentage points--not much change.

In 1967, the black unemployment rate was about twice the white unemployment rate. In 2009, the black unemployment rate is about twice the white unemployment rate. As long as we pretend that this stubborn fact has nothing to do with anti-black discrimination, nothing will change.


Share this article with a friend. Use the email icon below.

--Algernon Austin, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2005-2009 by Thora Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

The Black AIDS Crisis is Not Over

Algernon Austin presents an excellent, concise, and wonderfully read scholarly examination of the complicated landscape of race, class and popular perception. Besides the prison industrial complex, black strides in education, poverty rates, crime and other indices contradict claims that blacks are “moving backward.”
--Jeffrey O. G. Ogbar, Director, Institute for African American Studies, University of Connecticut and author of Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity (The Johns Hopkins University Press), 2004 and Hip-Hop Revolution: The Culture and Politics of Rap (University Press of Kansas), 2007.

Purchase Getting It Wrong: How Black Public Intellectuals
Are Failing Black America by Algernon Austin
Barnes & Noble.com Amazon.com
________________________________________________________________________


In 2007, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports, nearly 200,000 blacks were living with AIDS. This number is the highest for the major racial and ethnic groups although blacks make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population. After an apparent declining number of new HIV/AIDS cases, new HIV/AIDS cases among blacks increased 17 percent from 2005 to 2007. Blacks still have an astronomically high rate of infection (see figure below).
Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009.

Although blacks are generally aware of the epidemic, they still have misconceptions about the basic facts of the disease. (See the section on African Americans in Impressions of HIV/AIDS in America.)

Review the basics. Do you know the answers to these questions?

• How is HIV passed from one person to another?


• Can I get HIV from casual contact (shaking hands, hugging, using a toilet, drinking from the same glass, or the sneezing and coughing of an infected person)?


• Can I get HIV from mosquitoes?


• What can be done to prevent HIV transmission?

Share this article with a friend. Use the email icon below.

--Algernon Austin, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2005-2009 by Thora Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Hard Economic Times Ahead

A New Lecture: “Anti-Black Discrimination in the Age of Obama” by Dr. Algernon Austin

The simplistic idea that impoverished African Americans have only themselves to blame for their poverty, due to their poor cultural values—a notion advanced by many, including black public figures such as Bill Cosby—is believable only if a blind eye is turned to those inconvenient things social scientists like to call “facts.” Algernon Austin soundly refutes the “culture of poverty” argument by paying careful attention to marco-economic data about long-term poverty trends and sociological case studies about persistent discrimination. In other words, unlike the glib punditry, Austin actually looks at the “facts.”
--Dr. Andrew Hartman, professor and audience member, Illinois State University

Contact Dr. Austin to arrange a speaking engagement.
________________________________________________________________________


Even before the current Great Recession, the economic state of black America was not good. Blacks made significant economic progress during the strong economy of the 1990s, but the “jobless recovery” after the 2001 recession put black economic progress in reverse [PDF]. Black incomes declined and black poverty rose from 2000 to 2007.

Now things have gone from bad to worse. We have been in a recession for 17 months and have seen historic job losses. Not surprisingly, blacks have been overrepresented among those losing jobs. The black unemployment rate in May was 14.9 percent, the highest for the major racial groups. For black men, nearly one-in-five is unemployed, up from about one-in-ten two years ago. One-in-ten unemployed is very bad, one-in-five is a disaster.

As bad as these black unemployment numbers are, in a “normal” recession they would be even higher. The black unemployment rate is usually at least twice the white rate, but during this recession it has been a little less than twice the white rate. In May, it was “only” 1.7 times the white rate.

It seems that blacks are, ironically, benefiting some from anti-black racial discrimination. Yes, that’s right—benefiting from anti-black discrimination. During the housing boom many construction jobs were created. Now, during the housing bust, construction has seen massive job losses. Historically, blacks have been underrepresented in the construction industry, likely due to anti-black discrimination. Relatively few blacks were able to ride the construction-job rollercoaster up and now relatively few are riding it down with the construction-job losses.

It is important to understand that blacks have had significant job losses in construction. Even for the relatively small number of blacks in construction, it appears that they are more likely than whites to lose their jobs. Had blacks been better represented in construction, their construction-job losses would likely have been greater.

Even if, relative to whites, the recession is less bad than “normal,” overall this recession is much worse than “normal.” The signs are that the Great Recession will set blacks back substantially in income and wealth. Already, the inflation-adjusted black median weekly wage is down $23 from the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009. None of the other major racial groups have seen weekly wage declines over this period. In fact, they have all seen wage growth during this period.
The Federal Reserve reports that blacks are also alone in showing a loss of wealth from 2004 to 2007. During this period, the net worth of white households increased 10 percent, but the net worth of blacks declined by 24 percent. It is likely that the decline in the black homeownership rate from 2004 to 2007 is driving this finding.
In 2007, the impact of the foreclosure crisis was only beginning to be felt. The AARP Policy Institute estimates that the black foreclosure rate is about three times that of the white rate [PDF]. This higher black foreclosure rate will likely mean that the black-white wealth gap will continue to increase because of the proportionally greater loss of homes among blacks.

Fewer jobs, declining wages, and less wealth all spell increases in black poverty and economic hardship. Unfortunately, it will probably take at least four years before blacks recover from the economic impact of the Great Recession. We should not be surprised if it takes even longer.

More jobs, fewer foreclosures and greater investments in black communities will lessen the economic pain blacks will experience and quicken the black economic recovery. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) is one organization that appears to be focused on helping the communities that are hardest hit by the Great Recession. On June 11th, NCRC is planning a national day of action for Jobs and Homes Now! More needs to be done, but this action seems like a good start.



Share this article with a friend. Use the email icon below.

--Algernon Austin, Ph.D.

The Blindness of Color Blindness

Algernon Austin presents an excellent, concise, and wonderfully read scholarly examination of the complicated landscape of race, class and popular perception. Besides the prison industrial complex, black strides in education, poverty rates, crime and other indices contradict claims that blacks are “moving backward.”
--Jeffrey O. G. Ogbar, Director, Institute for African American Studies, University of Connecticut and author of Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity (The Johns Hopkins University Press), 2004 and Hip-Hop Revolution: The Culture and Politics of Rap (University Press of Kansas), 2007.

Purchase Getting It Wrong: How Black Public Intellectuals
Are Failing Black America by Algernon Austin
Barnes & Noble.com Amazon.com
________________________________________________________________________

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
--U.S. Supreme Court nominee, judge Sonia Sotomayor

Let me begin by saying that I disagree with the statement above. For example, it is possible for black person to have seen the poverty and discrimination experienced by blacks in the Jim Crow South and still become a “Clarence Thomas.” The best example of this is, of course, Clarence Thomas. The sad fact is that it is not uncommon to find people of color who are callous or exploitative to other people of color. There is no guarantee that a Latina woman Supreme Court judge would not be another “Clarence Thomas.”

Having said that, the attack on Sotomayor for making the above statement is ridiculous and outrageous. It is terrible that her long career is being reduced to one poorly-chosen sentence.

Ironically, the criticism of the Sotomayor sentence tends to make the sentence seem more valid than it is. The critics, unfortunately, most prominently white males, clearly don’t get it, when probably majorities among groups of color do.

Scott Simon on NPR’s Weekend Editon (May 30th) raised the question of whether a white man could say that a white man would be a better judge than a Latina woman and not be considered a racist. The logic behind this question has been the starting point of the criticism of Sotomayor. And this logic ignores all the sociological and historical facts. It assumes that we live in a world where white men and Latina women have equal opportunities for success and have always had it.

Christopher Metzler reports, “There have been 110 Supreme Court Justices, and of those only four have been other than White men.” There has never been a Latina Supreme Court Justice.

More generally, in 2007, the unemployment rate for Hispanic women was 1.5 times the rate for white men. Also that year, the median income for white men with a bachelor’s degree and no higher degree was $67,000. For Hispanic women with a bachelor’s degree it was $41,000. The white poverty rate was 8.2 percent in 2007; it was 21.5 percent for Hispanics that same year. These disparities did not just appear in 2007. They have been among the persistent racial disparities in American society.

Against the history where there has never been a Latina on the Supreme Court and where Hispanics generally experience discrimination and disadvantages, it should be understandable that an individual like Sotomayor might push strongly for greater inclusion of Latinas.

It is this current and historical advantage for white males and disadvantage for Latinas that make the similar statements by a white male and a Latina very different. A white male who claims that white men make better Supreme Court judges than Latinas when the Court has never had a Latina is arguing for the continued exclusion and marginalization of Latinas. A Latina making a similar sounding argument is making an argument to promote inclusion and opportunity. Only the colorblind fail to see this.



Share this article with a friend. Use the email icon below.

--Algernon Austin, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2005-2009 by Thora Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved.