Blue on Black (and Brown) Crime

There's an editorial in today's New York Times that discusses the disproportionate percentage of Black and Latino police officers who are shot by White officers' friendly fire. Just last month a White NYPD officer shot and killed Omar Edwards, a Black officer, as he chased a suspect. While I agree with much of what the piece says, I have some problems with the following proposed solution,

To fight this problem, police departments need to do a much better job of preparing officers to work in an environment where colleagues come in all colors and ethnicities — and of raising awareness about how even unconscious racial stereotypes affect how they see the world.

I agree with the sentiment that police officers need to be trained and educated about those they serve, and those they serve with. This should include some training on issues related to identity, though I would advocate for a broader approach that includes training on issues related to gender, power, sexual identity, nationality, and so on. I do, however, think that the articulation of the causes of these horrific incidents as "unconscious racial stereotypes" is problematic, bordering on racist.

First off, the internalization of stereotypes, race-based and otherwise, may occur on the subconscious level, but rarely if ever do they occur when a person is unconscious. That's more of an issue of language, but it is one of my many pet peeves related to language. Even if I accept the fact that the use of the word unconscious is meant to mean subconscious, I still find this statement incredibly misleading.

The fact that police officers, or anyone else for that matter, internalize stereotypes in a manner that reflects a belief in their accuracy by their subsequent actions is not an accidental occurrence. It may not be the result of critical thought at the individual level, and it may not be intentional. A person may act in a manner that reflects thoughts and beliefs they did not even know lay inside them until the stimulus that brings about the behavior presents itself. This is interesting, and somewhat important, but it still reflects a misplaced focus on individual thoughts and behaviors. Such focus on the individual is the usual path taken when discussing issues related to discriminatory and/or racist behaviors (and sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc.). But this discourse is itself a representation of the problem.

If we accept the fact that the majority of White officers who shoot Black and Latino officers do so not as the result of conscious racist beliefs and intent to kill a person of color, but rather as a result of buying into the racist ideology that permeates our culture, we simultaneously dismiss the notion of these racist ideas being unconscious or subconscious. The individual who acts in a manner that manifests their internalized racist beliefs, such as a White officer shooting a Black or Latino officer, may internalize racist ideologies individually and subconsciously, but the bigger problem is the source - the stimuli that cause this process.

While the process of internalization occurs within an individual, it is influenced, in many cases even controlled by external forces. By using the language the editorial board at the Times uses, the carefully and methodically constructed intent behind the production and dissemination of racist ideologies is softened. This further perpetuates the notion that we are a culture that has advanced past racism being a powerful force; that harmony is the norm and hatred the exception.

This advances the myth that in contemporary America only a small number of select individuals, crazy people living in the margins, harbor a racist worldview. The days of widely-held racist ideologies and the behaviors that follow are a thing of the past. They are not. This is the goal, but it is not where we are. Language like that employed in this piece paints a rosier picture than the one that exists, and it only serves to make reaching that goal more difficult.

And the Times should know better, as the piece that makes this claim is the very same piece that highlights the importance that racism plays in the disproportionate number of minority officers being shot by their White colleagues.

Finally, what's up with the use of the phrase friendly fire? I understand the meaning of the term, and am fully aware that it simply indicates that a member of law enforcement or the military has been shot by someone on the same side and not a suspect, enemy, etc.; but perhaps it needs some reworking. I'm pretty sure that those who are injured and/or killed under such circumstances probably don't find the fire to be so friendly.