Benevolent Racism: Upholding Racial Inequality in the Name of Black Empowerment

Abstract

Our aim in this paper is to develop an alternative conceptualization of post-civil rights racism-one primarily, although not exclusively, directed against people socially defined as Black-that we refer to as benevolent racism. Unlike other forms of post-civil rights racism, benevolent racism is not predicated on the usual process of de-racialization. That is, rather than invoking the liberal ideal of "neutrality " or color-blindness as a way to dodge, deny, or defend the racialized social system that supports White privilege (as with other types of post-civil rights racisms), benevolent racism ostensibly acknowledges and often condemns a system of White privilege. However, it does so in a way that further legitimizes and reinforces racist attitudes, policies, and practices in the name of "benevolent" aims-le., in the name of supporting, empowering, and/or defending the Black community. After providing a brief history of racial benevolence within US racist discourse, we address how its current manifestation differs from previous renditions and draw from various sources to provide current examples of benevolent racism. We conclude with a brief statement about the importance of understanding benevolent racism for contemporary research and anti-racist activism.

Headnote

Abstract

Our aim in this paper is to develop an alternative conceptualization of post-civil rights racism-one primarily, although not exclusively, directed against people socially defined as Black-that we refer to as benevolent racism. Unlike other forms of post-civil rights racism, benevolent racism is not predicated on the usual process of de-racialization. That is, rather than invoking the liberal ideal of "neutrality " or color-blindness as a way to dodge, deny, or defend the racialized social system that supports White privilege (as with other types of post-civil rights racisms), benevolent racism ostensibly acknowledges and often condemns a system of White privilege. However, it does so in a way that further legitimizes and reinforces racist attitudes, policies, and practices in the name of "benevolent" aims-le., in the name of supporting, empowering, and/or defending the Black community. After providing a brief history of racial benevolence within US racist discourse, we address how its current manifestation differs from previous renditions and draw from various sources to provide current examples of benevolent racism. We conclude with a brief statement about the importance of understanding benevolent racism for contemporary research and anti-racist activism.

Introduction

A large body of social scientific literature addresses different types of racisms that developed in the United States during the post-civil rights era. What recent writers have referred to as symbolic racism (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Hughes, 1997), laissez faire racism (Bobo, Kluegel & Smith, 1997), and color blind racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003a; Bonilla-Silva, 2006) are all examples. While there are significant differences among these variants, none relies on the idea of innate racial hierarchies (e.g., White supremacy as a "biological fact"), nor are they manifested in the form of blatant prejudice and legal discrimination, as during the Jim Crow era. Instead, all the aforementioned strains of post-civil rights racism operate on the basis of liberal ideals such as meritocracy, egalitarianism, self-reliance, and free markets. Specifically, liberal values that are presumably racially neutral are invoked by members of the dominant group (i.e., Whites) to, among other things: (1) reject policies such as affirmative action that are designed to challenge racial inequality (e.g., Bobo and Kleuegel, 1993; Drake and Hollsworth, 1996; Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997; Pierce, 2003; Augostinos, Tuffin, & Every, 2005); (2) assert the presumed moral or cultural deficiencies among those who demand such policies (Kinder & Sears, 1981 ; Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Hughes, 1997); and (3) normalize a system of White privilege (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Brandt, 2007). Post-civil rights racism thus entails a constellation of assumptions, attitudes, and/or practices that defend, either deliberately or unintentionally, the prevailing racial order (and hence the prevailing system of White supremacy) as neutral and fair. As a result, existing racial inequalities in areas such as income and wealth (e.g., Wise, 2009), education (Orefield & Less, 2007; Blau, 2003), employment (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004; Pager, 2003), housing (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013), and criminal justice (Alexander, 2010) are treated as outcomes related to non-racial categories such as age and class-e.g., see Gallagher's (2008) idea of "incidental racism"-or otherwise attributed to "personal" considerations such as a lack of proper values, a lack of moral character, or a reluctance to capitalize on available opportunities (e.g., Esposito, 2010).

Taking all this into account, there should be little doubt that, in one way or another, all forms of postcivil rights racism described in the literature operate through a process of de-racialization. That is, efforts to challenge or even address racial inequity or antipathy against people of color are typically framed as corrupt/ dishonest attempts to discredit an otherwise fair and decent society where race no longer has any significant impact on people's life chances. This process of deracialization involves, among other things, attempts to: (1) discourage treating Blacks and other racial minorities as a "special class" of people with a unique set of experiences and problems; (2) encourage racial minorities to see themselves as individuals responsible for their own positions/situations (as opposed to seeing themselves as members of a victimized racial group); and (3) urge Blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities to abandon any values or habits (typically associated with urban minority cultures) that might hinder integration and upward mobility within mainstream US society.

Our aim in this paper is to develop an alternative conceptualization of post-civil rights racism-one that is primarily, although not exclusively, directed against people socially defined as Blackthat we refer to as "benevolent racism." Though the term "benevolent racism" has been previously utilized by Rasheed Araeen (2000) to describe the process by which Eurocentrism is perpetuated in the world of modem art, our use of this term differs markedly from Araeen's in the following way. For Araeen, "benevolent racism" is a process by which minority, "writers and artists who are 'lucky' enough to be allowed to enter the Western arts world get support and recognition if, and only if, they remain within the limits of their national/ethnic tradition" (Aleksic, 2002, p. 351). Araeen makes the case that it is largely through the championing of token minority artists whose work and ideology conform to Western stereotypes and standards that Western art institutions protect the neocolonial structures that perpetuate White privilege.

We on the other hand, conceptualize benevolent racism not simply as a system of co-optation and suppression of minority group members in a particular societal sphere, but as a new form of systemic racism that cuts across societal spheres and institutions. While there are some minor parallels between Araeen's conceptualization of benevolent racism and our own (chiefly the perpetuation of White privilege as the ultimate outcome) we believe our conception of benevolent racism is substantially different and constitutes an original contribution to the scholarly literature.

Although consistent with other forms of post-civil rights racism in several ways, what distinguishes our conception of benevolent racism is that this variant is not predicated on the usual process of de-racialization. That is, rather than invoking the liberal ideal of "neutrality" or color-blindness as a way to dodge, deny, or defend the racialized social system that supports White privilege (as with other type of post-civil rights racism), benevolent racism ostensibly acknowledges and often directly condemns a system of White privilege. However, it does so in a way that further legitimizes and reinforces racist attitudes, policies, and practices in the name of "benevolent" aims-i.e., in the name of supporting, empowering, and/or defending the Black community. Benevolent racism promotes these outcomes by : ( 1 ) emphasizing racial accommodation to the racial status quo rather than the need for a transformation of the prevailing racial system; (2) espousing a utilitarianlike logic whereby discriminatory policies and practices are condoned as "necessary evils" that will in due course bring about the "greater good" for the Black community and society as a whole; and (3) discrediting policies designed to correct structural racial inequities as not only "unfair" or "unjustified" (as with other types of post-civil rights racisms), but also counterproductive and ultimately detrimental to Blacks. We contend that the logic underpinning this type of racial discourse is discernible among various politicians, judges, journalists, civic leaders, and scholars of all races and across political lines.

Our discussion is organized as follows: First, we discuss the history of "benevolence" within US racist discourse and address how its manifestation during the post-civil rights era differs from previous renditions. Second, we provide further details on how benevolent racism differs from laissez faire racism, symbolic racism, and color blind racism. Third, we draw from various sources-including scholarly articles, newspaper articles, Supreme Court rulings, television news media transcripts, and press conferences-to provide current examples of benevolent racism. Lastly, we address why the concept of benevolent racism is important for contemporary research and anti-racist activism.

History of Benevolence in Racist American Discourse: From Paternalism to Egalitarianism

Although often associated with overt racial enmity and physical brutality, the system of White Supremacy within the context of U.S. history has often taken a benevolent guise. From the 18* century up until the early part of the 20* century, the notion of White benevolence was largely paternalistic. Perhaps the best known example of this tendency is found in Rudyard Kipling's famous poem The White Man's Burden, published in 1899. In this work, Kipling warned the United States-which had seized many of the Spanish colonies after the Spanish American War, including the Philippinesabout the racial responsibilities of empire-building. Specifically, Kipling urged the United States to join his native Britain in taking on a paternalistic sense of responsibility for what he referred to as the "sullen peoples, half devil half child" (Kipling, 1899). White Americans, stated simply, were encouraged to take on the "burden" of looking after the inferior races they colonized (see also Foster and McChesney, 2003). Kipling thus advocated a paternalistic form of benevolence that resonated with the US political elite at the time, notably President William McKinley, who believed that Filipinos were unfit for self-government and that the United States had an obligation to "uplift and civilize and Christianize them" (as quoted in McCartney, 2006, p. 200).

The same sort of paternalistic racial benevolence is easily discernible throughout much of the history of White-Black relations in the United States. Indeed, various writers have addressed how the racial prejudice many Whites expressed towards Blacks, particularly up until the early part of the 20* century, was not based on hatred but rather on the idea that Blacks are fundamentally inferior to Whites. For example, in his classic work Race and Racism: a Comparative Perspective, sociologist Pierre L. Van den Berghe suggests that in the Antebellum South (as in other pre-industrial contexts), race relations were based on a "paternalistic" model whereby "the dominant [White] group. . . rationalizes its rule in an ideology of benevolent despotism and regards members of the subordinate group [i.e., Blacks] as childish, immature, irresponsible, exuberant, improvident, fun-loving, good humored, and happy-go-lucky; in short, as inferior but lovable as long as they stay in 'their place'" (Van Den Bergh, 1967, p. 27).

Also referring to Black-White relations, historian Winthrop D. Jordan traces paternalistic White benevolence in US racial discourse to the rise of humanitarianism in the 18* century, which resulted in the "increasingly humane treatment of slaves" (Jordan 1974, p. 141). Rejecting the notion, popular during the 17* and early 18* centuries, that Black slaves were not fully human and hence did not experience pain in the same way as Whites, the humanitarian movement drew from environmentalist thought, which held that human misery and suffering were not fixed features of the human condition but rather contingent outcomes related to "the surroundings in which man was placed." Furthermore, humanitarianism was influenced by a growing rationalism in the 18th century that made it increasingly difficult to justify suffering as simply part of a divinely ordained social order. In light of all this, the humanitarian movement sought to end the often brutal treatment of slaves by advancing the idea that Blacks had the same basic feelings and felt as much pain as Whites. Nonetheless, Jordan argues that "by concentrating on [the] elimination of inhumane treatment, the humanitarian impulse helped make slavery more benevolent and paternal and hence more tolerable for the slave owners and even for the abolitionist" (Jordan 1974, pp. 141-142). White benevolence, in effect, sustained patterns of racial oppression.

As is well known, the eventual abolition of US slavery and the subsequent Reconstruction Era ( 1865-1877) led to a particularly vicious racist backlash in the South that challenged White racial paternalism. During this time, images of Blacks as sub-human savages who were a threat to White society became very popular. Those who held this viewpoint argued that emancipation had actually promoted and/or magnified undesirable tendencies within the Black race that slavery had managed to suppress. Blacks, in short, were no longer perceived by many Southern Whites as innocuous, faithful servants. These sorts of sentiments are captured quite well in Phillip Alexander Bruce's (1889) influential book The Plantation Negro as a Freeman. According to Bruce, abolition had caused the Black race to degenerate. This degeneracy was presumably manifested in, among other outcomes, increased crime rates-notably an increase in incidents of sexual assaults on White women by Black men. Furthermore, Social Darwinism and similar perspectives gave Whites' fear of Blacks a "scientific" justification. Prominent social scientists of this time, such as Lester Ward, argued that Black men had a biological drive to want to rape White women as an attempt to "improve" their racial stock (Graves, 2001 ). Unsurprisingly, the sexual assault of White women by Black men became among the most popular pretexts for White lynch mobs (Tolnay & Beck, 1995).

Yet even at the height of anti-Black racist zealotry and campaigns for Jim Crow, the argument of "Black degeneracy" and Black savagery did not manage to gain universal acceptance in the US South (Frederickson, 1971, pp. 283-319). Indeed, by the late 19lh and early 20th centuries, a more benevolent form of racism once again gained popularity, particularly among a group of White Southern liberals who called for racial harmony and moderation. Among these White liberals, the best known was Edgar Gardner Murphy, an Episcopal clergyman and social reformer from Alabama. Spurred by the spirit of the Progressive era, Murphy and many other prominent Southern liberals-which included people like Berea College President, Willis D. Weatherford, and Roanoke College President, Julius D. Dehrer-rejected extreme racism. However, far from calling for racial equity, these Southern liberals, much like many of their Northern progressive counterparts, held on to the belief that Blacks were a biologically inferior race that could also be peaceful, docile, and productive if treated with fairness and kindness (Frederickson, 1971, pp. 286-288). In fact, in a speech at the Southern Sociological Congress, Weatherford argued that Blacks still possessed "those fine qualities of character displayed by the faithful slave," which included fidelity, gratitude, and generosity (Frederickson, 1971, p. 290). It was up to Whites, therefore, to nurture these Black "racial" qualities. In doing so, Blacks could be better integrated into the prevailing status quo in a way that would avoid racial tension and confrontation.

The central point at this juncture is that White benevolence in American racial discourse, at least up until the early part of the 20th century, was predicated on a paternalistic logic that presupposed Blacks as innately inferior and called for Whites to play a central role in uplifting the Black race through better treatment and guardianship. Booker T. Washington gained national prominence as the Black spokesperson for this view, which he famously articulated in his Atlanta Compromise speech. Washington's call to integrate Blacks through industrial training for positions as manual laborers, domestic servants and skilled field hands was well received and financially supported by Whites who wanted to perpetuate a system of White supremacy. By the mid-20th century, however, this sort of racial paternalism was largely abandoned. Rather that attempting to find ways of maximizing Blacks' potential within the prevailing system of White supremacy, the idea was to reform US society in such a way that Blacks and other minorities would finally be regarded and treated as equals. Racial paternalism thus gave way to the principle of racial egalitarianism, and aims to reform the racial order were guided by the belief that Blacks were just as capable as Whites if given the opportunity to capitalize on their efforts and talents. In fact, the aim to promote racial egalitarianism (i.e., a society in which people of all races have equal worth and equal rights) was one of the central objectives that motivated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Civil Rights Movement and Beyond: Repackaging Racism

As has been widely documented, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s dramatically changed race relations in the US by challenging (and largely eliminating) legal forms of racism. Perhaps more importantly, the Civil Rights Movement managed to influence public attitudes (at least to a large extent) in accordance to the social scientific scholarship, started decades earlier, that debunked scientific racism. Stated simply, the idea that racial inequality was an outcome fixed in heredity or biology came to be seen as not only flawed but supportive of oppression and injustice. Dr. Martin Luther King's famous plea to judge people by the content of their character as opposed to the color of their skin became part of the country's normative discourse. These developments encouraged a large segment of the American population to genuinely believe that by treating all people as individuals, rather than members of a particular racial group, the so-called American dream would finally be attainable to all people who could show sufficient talent, effort and motivation.

Consistent with this sort of optimism, for the past several decades, the claim is often made that Americans live in a so-called "post-civil rights era" in which racism is an anomalous practice that has little influence on people's life chances. As argued by William Julius Wilson (1980) over three decades ago, race has "declined in significance." The fact that today the United States has an African-American president and various other individuals of color in position of power seems to further corroborate the notion that racism, while not entirely absent, is no longer an insurmountableor even significant-obstacle to mobility and success in the US (Esposito and Finley, 2009).

Yet according to various contemporary writers, it is precisely this claim that race no longer matters that has spawned newer, more subtle forms of racism in the post-civil rights era. Rather than attributing existing racial inequalities to innate racial differences or a persisting system of White supremacy, these newer forms of racism are covert and justify racial inequalities by pointing to ostensibly non-racial factors that include personal responsibility, educational attainment, financial literacy, a proper work ethic, and adequate values and habits (which Blacks and other racial minorities are often perceived as lacking) that encourage upward mobility. In effect, large numbers of Blacks and other racial minorities lag behind Whites socially and economically not because of racism but because of poor personal choices that entrap them in poverty and culturally bankrupt environments. Any meaningful solution to the problem of racial inequality is therefore assumed to be a personal one. That is, Blacks and other racial minorities need to stop blaming White society, stop asking for "handouts," and make the necessary personal adjustments that will allow them to succeed in the US. Thus, for example, Blacks are urged to speak proper English, teach their children proper values (including a proper work ethic), take school more seriously, and stop having children out of wedlock as a way to challenge their disproportionate unemployment, poverty, and social marginalization. However, in emphasizing these sorts of personal solutions, what Feagin (2006) has identified as the systemic nature of American racism is ignored. Thus, the unique structural disadvantages faced by African-Americans-e.g., the wealth disparities between Blacks and Whites that can be traced to a history of accumulated racial advantages and disadvantages; the disproportionate lack of good schools and decent jobs in Black communities; the sorts of stereotypes that link Blacks to crime and violence; the fact that Blacks are rewarded less for their accomplishments and punished more severely for their crimes, etc.-are largely downplayed in American racial discourse. All this obscures the prevailing system of White supremacy and rationalizes the racial inequalities that are structured therein. Three of the most cited conceptualizations of post-civil rights racism that draw from these general observations include laissez racism, symbolic racism, and color blind racism. In the next section, we further discuss these specific strains of post-civil rights racism and later show in more depth how they differ from benevolent racism.

Post Civil Rights Era: Laissez Faire Racism, Symbolic Racism, and Color Blind Racism

Proponents of laissez faire racism focus predominantly on racial attitudes and explain the reluctance among Whites to favor the political implementation of racial equality through race conscious policies such as affirmative action as an insidious attempt to defend White privilege (Bobo and Kluegel, 1993; Bobo, Kleuegel, & Smith, 1997). Drawing from Herbert Blumer's (1958) group position theory, Bobo, Kluegel and Smith (1997) contend that in the post-civil rights era, and especially since the Reagan-Bush era, Whites often make appeals to free competition and meritocracy in order to defend the dominant position they consider to be rightfully theirs. According to these writers, as the economic and political foundations of the Jim Crow system weakened (e.g., as demands for Black agricultural labor diminished, industrialization increased, and the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum), the sort of overt racist ideology that bolstered the Jim Crow system also began to wane. However, as the racial order shifted and Blacks gained more rights, "Whites perceived Black demands as threatening incursions on their interests and prerogatives. Hence [...] laissez faire racist attitudes emerged to defend White privilege and explain persistent Black disadvantage under the sharply changed economic and political conditions" (Bobo, Klegel and Smith, 1997, p. 22). These laissez faire racist attitudes involve "persistent negative stereotyping of African Americans, a tendency to blame Blacks themselves for the Black-White gap in socioeconomic standing, and resistance to meaningful policy efforts to ameliorate U.S. racist social conditions and institutions" (Bobo, Kluegel & Smith, 1997, p. 16). In short, in laissez faire racism, Whites defend their dominant positions by pointing to a presumably "neutral" free market, thereby justifying inequalities between Whites and Blacks as if they were apolitical (i.e., products of differences in talent, drive, etc.). What is obscured, in effect, is the prevailing racial structure that sustains White privilege, as evidenced by the fact that Black high school graduates have higher unemployment rates than White high school drop outs (Wise, 2010); or that Whites with a criminal record have a better chance of being hired compared to Blacks without a criminal record (Pager, 2003); or that Blacks are less likely to get a business loan compared to Whites, even when they have comparable credit scores (e.g., Tozzi, 2013).

In symbolic racism, the focus is placed on social learning and the psychological-effective nature of racial attitudes (Sears & Kinder, 1971 ; McConahay «fe Hough, 1976; Hughes, 1997). Instead of focusing on group interest, perceived group position, and the threat factor proposed in laissez faire racism, symbolic racism relies on moral imperatives and the social learning of racial stigmas and stereotypes to explain racism and prejudicial attitudes. More specifically, symbolic racism relies on a combination of (1) the prevalent belief that the United States is a fair and equitable society where everyone has ample opportunity to succeed through hard work and talent; and (2) the social learning of stereotypes that depict Blacks as violators of traditional American/market values. These two factors interplay to promote a widespread belief among many Whites that Blacks "want more than simply the rights that everyone else has. Blacks are too pushy, too demanding, too angry. .. and they are getting more than what they deserve" (McConahay and Hough, 1976, p. 38). In short, according to proponents of symbolic racism, Whites will oppose policies such as affirmative action not because they believe this represents a threat to members of their group, but rather because the recipients of such policies-the majority of whom are presumed to be Black-violate sacrosanct American values associated with discipline, hard work, self-reliance and perseverance.

A more recent variant of post-civil rights racism in the U.S. is what Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has termed color blind racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003,2006). In a general sense, color blind racism encourages a denial of racial differences while emphasizing the notion that everyone is the same. In doing so, "all meaningful challenges to the racial status quo are discredited and/or seen as forms of reverse discrimination" (Esposito and Finely, 2009, p. 165). According to Bonilla-Silva (2003, p. 68), colorblind racism "is centrally anchored in the abstract extension of egalitarian values to racial minorities and the notion that racial minorities are culturally rather than biologically deficient." Color blind racism operates through a series of frames-i.e., a series of narratives employed to legitimize or challenge a particular racial order-that Bonilla-Silva (2003, p. 69) identifies as: (1) abstract liberalism: a frame that relies on an ahistorical/ decontextualized form of liberalism whereby liberal ideals associated with individualism and equal opportunity are employed to obscure White privilege and justify racial disparities; (2) naturalization: a frame which suggests that racial phenomena, such as racial segregation, is simply natural (e.g., Blacks and Whites simply prefer to live with "their own kind"); (3) biologization of culture: attributing specific cultural values and tendencies as "natural" to Blacks and other minorities (e.g., regarding tendencies such as having too many babies or not taking school seriously as "Black tendencies"); and (4) minimization of racism: a frame that minimizes or trivializes continued patterns of racial discrimination and accuses Blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities of being "hyper-sensitive" or "playing the race card" when they point to such patterns.

In all the variants of racism noted above, there is a tendency to assume that racism operates through the presupposition that contemporary American society is fundamentally equitable and people's positions and situations reflect personal choices, values, competitiveness and efforts (or lack thereof). It is by appealing to the orthodoxy of American free enterprise, individualism, meritocracy or egalitarianism that those who defendeither consciously or unconsciously-the racial status quo are not only able to deny or dodge the reality of White privilege but also accuse those who openly challenge White privilege of being combative, seeking unfair special treatment for racial minorities, and/or of being racist (against Whites).

Benevolent Racism

Unlike laissez faire racism, symbolic racism and color blind racism, benevolent racism does not necessarily depend on the presupposition that the United States is a fair, equitable, or color blind society. Stated differently, benevolent racism does not rely on rationalizing or normalizing White privilege by invoking the ideal of racial neutrality. Instead, as discussed above, benevolent racism operates in the name of uplifting/ empowering Black/minority communities and often employs a utilitarian-like logic that condones specific instances of racial inequality in the name of the "greater good" (i.e., these instances of racial inequality are simply part of the larger struggle towards racial equality). Ultimately, however, minority empowerment becomes synonymous with accommodation into the prevailing order. Below we provide three examples of how attitudes and/or practices that are consistent with benevolent racism play out in several areas-including affirmative action, policing, and gun control.

Rejecting Affirmative Action in the Name of Black Empowerment

Whites' rejection of affirmative action-something that is addressed extensively in the literature on post-civil rights racismis a good first example that illustrates how benevolent racism differs from other styles of post-civil rights racism. Stated simply, when understood through the prism of benevolent racism, the reason most Whites oppose affirmative action would not be explained as an insidious attempt to defend White privilege (as in laissez faire racism), nor would it be seen as a "hand out" to morally and culturally deficient racial minorities (as in symbolic racism), nor would it simply be regarded as an unjustified policy predicated on "playing the race card" in an otherwise fair or meritocratic society (as in color blind racism). Instead, those who consciously or inadvertently perpetrate benevolent racism would add to all these claims by suggesting, as Ward Connerly and many others have repeatedly argued, that affirmative action is a bad policy predicated on the idea that Black folks are inferior and incapable of competing with Whites as equals (O'Neil, 2012). In addition, such a policy encourages in racial minorities themselves a sense of inferiority and self-doubt that stifles their full potential. This sort of sentiment was expressed by US Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, in a recent case (argued on October 15, 2013 and decided on April 22, 2014) titled Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. In this case, the US Supreme Court, in a 6-2 ruling, decided to uphold Michigan's ban on affirmative action in admissions to state colleges and universities, which had been approved through a ballot initiative in 2006. In his written opinion, Justice Roberts, in response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent where she warned that ignoring race as a strategy to fight racism is to be out of touch with reality, argued the following:

The dissent [i.e., Sonia Sotomayor] states that "[t] he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race." And it urges that "[r]ace matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here.'". But it is not "out of touch with reality" to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and. . .that the preferences do more harm than good (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 2013, p. 2).

In effect, affirmative action is rejected as a policy that promotes a sense of self-doubt among Blacks and other racial minorities, holds them to lower standards, and hence "debilitates" their progress in US society. Therefore, the presumed aim to promote Black empowermentas opposed to the usual claim of "reverse discrimination" or Black cultural and moral bankruptcy stressed in other styles of post-civil rights racism-appears to be the primary rationale for rejecting such a policy. Somehow lost in this discussion is the fact that a ban on affirmative action led to a sharp decline in the number minority students (particularly Black and Hispanic students) in California, Texas, Michigan, and, to a lesser degree, Florida (How Minorities have Fared in States with Affirmative Action Bans, 2014).

Furthermore, from the standpoint of benevolent racism, affirmative action is rejected on the basis of a utilitarian principle. That is to say, individual instances of racial disadvantage are tolerated in the name of uplifting the Black community (and minority communities more generally) as a whole. Thus, for example, the fact that some Black students might not be admitted into certain universities, or might not be hired into certain workplaces without such policies, is justified under the assumption that ending affirmative action policies will ultimately make Blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities in the United States more competitive and self-reliant.

Lastly, the emphasis on promoting minority empowerment by encouraging competence and selfreliance is motivated by an accommodationist logic that calls for the upward mobility of Blacks within the prevailing status quo. Thus, although a system of racial inequity in US society is acknowledged and presumably rejected, those who inadvertently perpetrate benevolent racism tend to assume that White privilege can only be challenged in a piecemeal manner, at the personal level. Specifically, Blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities are encouraged to effectively navigate their way around the U.S. racial status quo by taking the proper steps and making the right choices (e.g., never "live up" to racial stereotypes, make sure you excel in school, etc.). Throughout, however, the quest to defeat or "maneuver around" the prevailing system of White privilege at the personal level overshadows efforts towards promoting racial justice/equity.

Race and Policing: Racial Profiling as a Tool Save Black Lives.

The well-known controversy surrounding the policing strategy commonly known as "stop and frisk," particularly as this program has been recently defended by city officials in New York-notably former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former NYPD Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly-clearly illustrates benevolent racism. Stop and Frisk is a police program that started in the mid-1990s under Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the NYPD Police commissioner at the time, William Bratton. This program is rooted in James Wilson's and George Kelling's "broken windows theory," which posits that cracking down on lower level crimes, and anything that might be regarded as a sign of physical or social disorder, will prevent more serious offenses (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Drawing from the general premises of this theory, the NYPD has, for years, engaged in an aggressive, pro-active style of policing in which officers stop thousands of pedestrians annually and search them for, among other things, potential contraband and weapons. As reported by several major newspapers, over the past decade, approximately 5 million people have been stopped and frisked in New York City and about 87 percent of those stopped and searched are Black and Hispanic. This, despite the fact that, combined, these Blacks and Hispanics make up about 54 per cent of the city's overall population (Peltz, 2013).

Predictably, many have regarded this program as racially discriminatory and unconstitutional. In fact, in August of 2013, a U.S. District Court Judge, Shira A. Schiendlin, ruled that the NYPD's stop and frisk program amounted to a policy of "indirect racial profiling" and hence violated the constitutional rights of racial/ ethnic minorities in New York City (Goldstein, 2013). Although Schiendlin did not call for the complete elimination of the stop and frisk program, she did call for a series of reforms, including the use of body-worn cameras for some police officers and a federal monitor of the NYPD's stop and frisk program. Although the current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has most recently agreed to such reforms (Weiser and Goldstein, 2014), former Mayor Bloomberg and former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly had appealed Judge Schiendlin's ruling, stating that the NYPD's stop and frisk program has been the central reason for why New York City's violent crime rates-including its murder ratehave declined to historic lows. Apparently, a majority of Whites (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics) seem to agree with former Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly. In fact, according to a 2012 poll, 57 percent of Whites in New York approve of the NYPD stop and frisk program, compared to 53 percent of Hispanics and 25 percent of Blacks (Poll: NYC racially divided over "Stop and Frisk")

What is particularly relevant for purposes of this discussion is that subsequent to Judge Schiendlin's ruling that the stop and frisk program amounts to a system of city-sanctioned racial profiling, both Bloomberg and Kelly (unlike de Blasio) defended the program by arguing that racial minorities benefit the most from the NYPD's aggressive policing of high-crime neighborhoods. For example, on CBS's Face the Nation, Kelly noted that 97 percent of shooting victims are Black or Hispanic. Therefore, considering the stop and frisk program is considered to have been vital in reducing murder rates, eliminating or significantly reforming the program would disproportionately put Blacks and Hispanics at risk of being murder victims. Elsewhere, Kelly has noted that minority communities actually want more of the stop and frisk program because they understand this program is saving lives in minority communities (Coleman, 2013). Similarly, former Mayor Bloomberg criticized the Judge's ruling for ignoring "the real world realities of crime"-i.e., the fact that crime rates, particularly violent crime rates, are significantly higher in minority communities, which justifies tighter policing strategies in these communities (Bruinius, 2013). Bloomberg has also echoed Kelly's argument that the stop and frisk program has disproportionately saved Blacks and Hispanic lives, and further suggested that this program's power to deter crime has also led to declining incarceration rates in New York (presumably something which also disproportionately benefits minority communities, as Blacks and Hispanics in particular are disproportionately incarcerated).

In all the statements noted above, a racially discriminatory policy has, for years, been supported by invoking a "benevolent" aimthat is, minimizing homicides, particularly in crime-ridden minority communities, thereby saving Black and Hispanic lives and reducing the number of minorities going to prison. In defending the stop and frisk program, Bloomberg, Kelly and many of those who support the NYPD stop and frisk program did not justify their positions by emphasizing the usual claims associated with cultural pathology and other presumed deficiencies in the Black community, as in other styles of post-civil rights racism (i.e., the idea that minorities lack proper values, do not do enough capitalize on the ample legitimate opportunities that US society offers all people living in the country, and this is why they commit crime). Rather than employing the usual idea of racial neutrality and blaming minorities themselves, their logic seems to be that racial inequality is a structural reality, concentrated poverty and a lack of opportunity exists in these minority areas, and the resulting high crime rates must be dealt with through aggressive policing strategies as a benevolent service to those communities and to the larger city. Therefore, even if more Blacks and Hispanics (compared to nonHispanic Whites) are stopped and frisked because, statistically speaking, they commit more crime as a result of their disproportionate poverty and lack of resources, the stop and frisk program nonetheless promotes the "greater good" within the Black community. Overlooked, of course, is the fact that despite all the hype, nothing illegal is found on close to 90 percent of the individuals who are stopped and frisked (NYCLU, 2013). Also overlooked is the fact that such a program does nothing to deter-and, in fact, diverts attention away fromwhat many consider the more damaging crimes of wealthy, mostly White corporate executives on Wall Street. Furthermore, the stop and frisk program also ignores the idea that even if, as former NAACP president Benjamin Jealous has argued, higher murder rates do exist in low income minority neighborhoods, this should not result in a policy/program in which all individuals in those communities (i.e., all dark skinned minorities) are looked at as potential criminals (Peltz, 2013). As should be noted, New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, agrees with these sentiments and has sought to withdraw the city's appeal against Judge Schiendlin's ruling to reform the stop and frisk program, having stated publicly that his administration believes "in ending the overuse of stop-and-frisk that has unfairly targeted young African-American and Latino men" (as quoted by Weiser and Goldstein, 2014, para. 3). At the same time, in recent months, police unions and others in NYC have expressed their desire to oppose proposed reforms to the stop and frisk program in the name of keeping the public safe (Beekman, 2014).

Opposing Gun Controls as a Way to Empower/ Protect Black people

In light of the several, widely reported mass shootings that have taken place in recent years, the long standing debate about gun control in the United States has once again intensified. The role that race plays in this debate has also received quite a bit of attention (Carlson, 2012; O'Brien, Forrest, Lynott, «fe Daly, 2013). While a recent study finds a significant correlation between gun ownership, Whites' opposition to gun control, and symbolic racism (O'Brien, Forrest, Lynott and Daly, 2013), various opponents of gun control claim that racism has historically been (and continues to be) linked to Whites' support for tighter gun controls. Specifically, the history of gun control in the United States is rooted in a racist agenda to control impoverished racial minorities. According to Stefan Tahmassebi (1991, p. 1), for example, "the first gun control laws [which were part of the notorious so-called "Black Codes"] were enacted in the ante-Bellum South forbidding Blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain Blacks in their servile status." An ostensible rejection of this racist legacy was at the heart of the landmark 2010 gun rights case, McDonald vs. The City of Chicago, in which the US Supreme Court ruled (in a 5 to 4 decision) that the Second Amendment guarantee of people's right to keep and bear arms is applicable against local and state gun controls via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Summary of the Recent McDonald v. Chicago Gun Case, 2010). Those who voted in favor of this ruling (notably Justice Clarence Thomas) emphasized the right to self-defense as fundamental to the principle of liberty, and, as an effort to justify protecting Second Amendment rights against state or local gun regulations, made ample references to the United States' racist history and how gun controls were once used in Southern states as a way to disarm and control newly freed slaves. In effect, to rationalize their decision, supporting members of the Court emphasized a history of gun controls as part of a racist agenda that is antithetical to freedom and democracy.

Similarly, in a 2013 interview, the current president of the National Rifle Association, David Keene, stated that "when you go back in our history ... the initial wave of [gun-control laws] was instituted after the Civil War to deny blacks the ability to defend themselves" (McKay, 2013, para. 4). Keene went on to say that this is the reason why, for example, Condoleeza Rice supports the Second Amendment. Specifically, Rice supports the Second Amendment because "she remembers her house being surrounded by neighbors with firearms to protect them from a white mob back during the worst days of the civil rights struggle" (McKay, 2013, para. 4).

Rice's sentiments reflect a much larger pattern among those who oppose gun controls, as a significant segment of this community regards these measures as part of an elitist and racially discriminatory agenda that deprives poor Blacks (who are more likely to be victims of crime and do not enjoy the safety found in more affluent communities) of their only viable means of protection. Tahmassebi (1991, p. 1) writes:

Blacks, and especially poor blacks, are disproportionately victims of crime. Yet, these citizens are often not afforded the same police protection that other more affluent and less crime ridden neighborhoods or communities enjoy. This lack of protection is especially so in the inner city urban ghettos. Firearms prohibitions discriminate against those poor and minority citizens who must rely on such arms to protect themselves from criminal activity to a much greater degree than affluent citizens living in safer and better protected communities.

Consistent with all this, David Keene has recently pointed to the high homicide rates in Chicago's urban Black community as an example of how this pattern is part of a racist legacy associated with gun control. He stated "the relatively poor black residents of Chicago are unarmed, they are the victims, they are the pool of people who suffer at the hands of criminals who get firearms" (NRA President: Gun Control Movement founded by Racists, 2013, audio).

Perhaps one of the most striking recent calls against "racist" gun controls was disseminated in the form of a 2013 video advertising a pro-gun campaign titled Never Again (The Never Again Campaign 2013). The 30 second video, produced by the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), was made in response to President Obama's call for tighter gun controls- including universal background checks-and depicts a Black man dragged from his bed by White men in hoods and ultimately lynched. In-between these graphic images, viewers are given the message that "a call for background checks invokes painful memories of Jim Crow and Black Codes." Viewers are also reminded/ informed about a Mississippi Black Code in 1865, which mandated that "no ffeedman, Negro, or mulatto, shall carry or keep firearms or ammunition." On their website, CURE describes Never Again as a campaign to:

... illustrate the very real link between gun control and the Historical Black experience. Literally from Jim Crow until present day, black urban communities have been under siege and they cannot protect themselves, and the inability and/ or reluctance of law enforcement to protect them. During the Black Codes the right to bear arms was taken away and perpetuated during Jim Crow. Today 16 percent of Black Americans are armed, and in communities like Chicago where there is the most stringent of gun regulations, murder rates from gun violence are the highest in the nation. The link is indisputable. The full measure of the 2nd amendment must be upheld. It is in the best interest of all Americans, and especially African Americans (Never Again Project, 2013, para. 2).

At a 2013 press conference organized by the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, prominent African American supporters of the Never Again Campaign voiced their opinions against tighter gun controls and all agreed that these measures have racist roots. As an example, Harry C. Alford, CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce, thanked the NRA for its anti-racist legacy, claiming that it was started by "religious leaders who wanted to protect free slaves from the Ku Klux Klan. They would raise money, buy arms, show those free slaves how to use those arms and protect their families." Alford went on say "god bless them.. .many of us would not be here today if it was not for the NRA." At the same meeting, Niger Innis, national spokesperson for "Congress of Racial Equality" said that "gun control for Black Americans has ultimately been about people control. It sprouts from racist soil" (Star Parker: Gun Control is Racist, 2013, video).

While gun advocates such as those noted above might be well intended and genuine in their beliefs, their efforts to oppose gun controls as a way to protect and empower the Black community can be understood as another example of benevolent racism. There are at least two central reasons for this. First, while it is undeniable that, historically, Whites have indeed demanded strict gun controls for Blacks and other groups that they considered "threatening," the argument can also be made that, today, Blacks are, by far, more likely than Whites to be victims of gun related homicide (typically at the hand of other Blacks), and thus the Black community would disproportionately benefit from tighter gun controls. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 2002 to 2011, the average homicide rate for Blacks was 6.3 times higher than the rate for Whites (Cooper & Smith, 2013). In fact, in a recent report published in the American Journal of Medicine, Charles H. Hennekens and his co-authors conclude that the number one cause of death among young African-American males aged 18-24 is homicide, more than car accidents, suicide, and diseases combined (Hennekens, Drowos, & Levine, 2013). It should be stressed, furthermore, that over 90 percent of these homicides are gun related (Black Homicide Victimization in the United States, 2012). According to a 2010 Pew Report, although Blacks represent 13 percent of the US population, they account for 55 percent of all gun related homicide victims (Blacks Suffer Disproportionate Share of Firearm Homicide Deaths, 2013). In contrast Whites account for 65 percent of the US. population and 25 percent of all gun related homicide victims. Furthermore, a recent study finds that Black young men are ten times more likely than White young men to be hospitalized for gun related injuries (Leventhal, Gaither & Sege, 2014).

Although there is debate about whether or not tighter gun controls can reliably decrease rates of homicide and other forms of violent crime, it is clear that easy accessibility to firearms, combined with the structural conditions typically found in low income urban minority communities (e.g., concentrated poverty, high unemployment rates, lack of access to legitimate opportunity structures, etc.), contribute to the high rates of gun related homicide and injury in these communities (e.g., Stewart, Schreck & Simons, 2006; Kaufman, 2005). And while it is clear that tighter gun controls alone will not likely resolve the problem, there should be little doubt that opposing gun controls in the name of Black self-defense/protection/safety is counterproductive and contributes, or, at best, does nothing to counteract the disproportionate rates of gun related homicide and injury in urban, low income Black communities. In this sense, this pro-gun argument supports (perhaps inadvertently) prevailing racial disparities in the name of "Black protection/empowerment."

A second and perhaps more compelling reason as to why these pro-gun arguments that call for Black protection and empowerment can be classified as a form of benevolent racism has to do with the fact that they emphasize a personal solution to what is a social/ structural problem (i.e., they emphasize personal accommodation to the prevailing racial status quo). In effect, pro-gun advocates like David Keene, Star Parker (founder of CURE and the "Never Again" campaign), and several others emphasize the need for Black folks, particularly those who are poor and live in violent urban neighborhoods, to have easy access to firearms as a way for them to exercise self-reliance and protect themselves against the dangers that threaten them. Consistent with the utilitarian logic that underpins benevolent racism noted above, the idea seems to be that although guns are used in a disproportionate number of Black homicides, ensuring easy access to guns as a mechanism for personal protection will ultimately promote a safer community for all. After all, low income urban Black folks often cannot rely on the police and do not have the resources (e.g., sophisticated alarm systems, security guards, etc.) that more affluent people can rely on to ensure their personal safety. Therefore, although access to guns can obviously lead to tragedies, this possibility is overshadowed by the claim (emphasized by the NRA and other groups opposing tighter gun controls) that potential criminals will not target armed citizens.

The problem, however, is that this emphasis on self-reliance and personal protection as solutions to violent crime ignores or downplays the multitude of structural and environmental factors-and their social-psychological effectsthat promote high rates of homicide and interpersonal violence in urban Black communities. These factors include, among others: ( 1 ) feelings of stress, anger, and frustration that stem from racial discrimination and economic deprivation; (2) a lack of equal access to good schools, secure jobs, and other opportunities; (3) the effects of mass incarceration on the legal rights and life chances of Blacks and that of their children (e.g., Black children are over seven times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison); and (4) the influence of deviant sub-cultures that develop in reaction to a lack of legitimate opportunity structures-what Elijah Anderson (1999) refers to as the "code of the street"-and encourage violent behavior. According to various criminologists, these factors have consistently converged to effect AfricanAmericans, and especially African-American males, more than any other group in US society (Stewart, Schreck, & Simons, 2006; Kaufman, 2005; McNulty & Bellair, 2003).

Ultimately, calling for easy access to firearms as a way to deal with violence, and opposing gun controls as "racist," not only diverts attention away from the aforementioned structural/environmental conditions that promote interpersonal violence in urban Black communities, but reinforces an individualistic (and accomodiationist) ideology that discourages the necessary structural interventions to deal with this issue in a meaningful way (i.e., making the necessary investments in these communities so as to alleviate the effects of concentrated poverty, challenging sub-cultures of violence, challenging our current system of mass incarceration; reforming existing institutions, opening up structures of opportunity, etc.).

Conclusion

The preceding three examples of benevolent rac- ism (in the areas of affirmative action, policing, and gun control) were selected because they are consistent with what Max Weber (1977) referred to as an "ideal type." In other words, the examples utilized contain the essential characteristics of the abstract phenomenon that we have labeled benevolent racism. While benevolent racism can and does occur in various other contexts, space constraints limited us to these three exemplary areas of US racial and ethnic relations.

As described earlier, racism is an ever-evolving practice that has consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt to the social and legal strategies implemented to eradicate it. The post-civil rights racisms we have discussed have been particularly sophisticated in their ability to hide in plain sight and remain resilient against racially progressive policy prescriptions. Still, some progress toward racial and ethnic equality continues to be made, and, concomitantly, new ways to impede that progress are developed. While the post-civil rights era strategies of de-racialization and advocacy in favor of so-called colorblind policies continue, this new, seemingly benevolent style of racism is becoming more prevalent. As such, we urge researchers and activists interested in racial justice not only to remain vigilant about the detrimental effects of colorblindness to Blacks and racial and ethnic minorities, but to take this a step further and critically evaluate how attitudes and practices that presumably help, empower, or protect communities of color can often support and reinforceeither deliberately or inadvertently-a system of racial domination.

We agree with Bonilla-Silva (2003b) about the need to break from treating racism as a "free floating" ideology expressed in attitudinal variations among individuals, and the importance of connecting racial beliefs to a system of racial domination. Indeed, understanding (and challenging) US racism requires a critical examination of its operative beliefs and rationalizations as well as the policies, practices, and relations that sustain White privilege. Yet while various writers have attempted to take some variant of this approach when analyzing post-civil rights racism, they have typically assumed that those who perpetrate this racism believe the United States is a fundamentally fair and decent society. As a result, most variants of post-civil rights racism are understood by recent scholars as a series of beliefs and practices that seek to discredit challenges to the prevailing racial status quo as unwarranted, unfair, self-serving (for Whites), or products of cultural and/ or character flaws among Blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities. While there is certainly merit in this position, our aim has been to show how post-civil rights racism is also very often perpetrated among people who acknowledge White privilege, do not necessarily see the prevailing racial order as neutral and equitable, and seek to uplift racial minority communities.

In closing, the purpose of this paper was to introduce a novel conceptualization of benevolent racism and identify its characteristics. It is our hope that by introducing this concept as a variant of post-civil rights racism that has received little if any attention, anti-racist activists will be better equipped to identify, label and combat policies and practices that, despite claims to the contrary, are ultimately anti-minority. We are also hopeful that the introduction and popularization of our version of benevolent racism will lead to further research and attention on strategies to neutralize the use of this concept as a rhetorical tool of oppression.

References

References

Aleksic, T. (2002). "Benevolent Racism: Can the Other Represent Itself." Facta Universitatis.Series Linguistics and Literature, 2(9), 349-357.

Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.

Anderson, E. ( 1999). T he Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton.

Araeen, R. (2000). "The Art of Benevolent Racism." Third Text, 14(51 ), 57-64.

Beekman, D. (2014, January 2). Police unions trying to beat Mayor de Blasio to the punch in NYPD stop-and-frisk case. The New York daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nvdailvnews.com/new-vork/de-blasio-faces-battle-stop-andfrisk-article-1.1564529

Bertrand, M, & Mullainathan,S. (2004). "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.

Black Homicide Victimization in the United States. (2012). The Violence Policy Center. Retrieved from http://www.vpc.org/ studies/blackhomicide 12.pdf

Blacks Suffer Disproportionate Share of Firearm Homicide Deaths. (2013). Pew research Center. Retrieved from http://www. pewresearch.org/daily-number/blacks-sufferdisproportionate-share-of-firearm-homicide-deaths/

Blau, J. R. (2003). Race in the Schools: Perpetuating White Dominance? Boulder, CO: Lynner Reiner Press.

Bobo, L., &. Kuegel, J. R. (1993). "Opposition to race-targeting: Self-Interest, Startification, Ideology, or racial attitudes?" American Sociological Review, 58, 443-464.

Bobo, L., KJuegel, J. R. & Smith, R. A. (1997). Laissez-faire Racism: The Crystallization of a Kinder, Gentler, Antiblack Ideology. In S. A. Tuch & J. Martin (Eds.), Racial Attitudes in the 1990s (Pp. 15-42). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without Racists: Color Blind Racism and the persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003a). New Racism, Color Blind Racism, and the Future of Whiteness in America. In A. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White Out: The Continued Significance of Racism (pp. 271-284). New York: Routledge.

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003b). Racial Attitudes or Racial Ideology? An Alternative Paradigm for Examining Actors Racial Views. Journal of Political Ideologies, 8, 63-82.

Brandt, J. (2007). Understanding and Dismantling Racism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Bruinius, H. (2013, August 13). How to Revamp NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy? That's the Hard Part. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0813/How-to-revamp-NYPD-s-stop-andfrisk-policy-That-s-the-hard-part

Center for Urban Renewal and Education (Producer). (2013). The Never Again Campaign [Video] Retrieved from https://www. voutube.com/watch?v=uMV 1 hNXt 1JM

Carlson, J. (2012). I Don't Dial 911 iAmerican Gunb Policies and the Problem of Policing. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1113-1132.

Coleman, C. (2013, November 18). Say What?! New York Police Chief Ray Kelly says Harlem Loves Him and Minorities want More Stop and Frisk. Global Grind. Retrieved from http://globalgrind.com/2013/ll/18/new-york-policecommissioner-ray-kelly-playboy-interview-harlem-loves-him-minorities-want-more-stop-and-frisk-details/

Cooper, A. & and Smith, E. L.. (2013). Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement, 2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863

Department of Housing and Development (2007, April 3). Housing Discrimination Complaints at an All-Time High. Retrieved from http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr07-032.cfm

Drake, W.A. & Hosworth, R.D. (1996). Affirmative Action and the Sealed Quest for Black Progress. Urbana, IL: University of Illiniois Press.

Esposito, L. & Finley, L.L. (2009). Barack Obama, racial progress and the Future of Race Relations in the United States. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 33, 164-175.

Esposito, L. (2010). Post Civil Rights Racism and the need to Challenge racial/ethnic Inequality Beyond the limits of Liberalism. Theory in Action, 3, 38-63.

Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York, NY: Routledge.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/ offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

Foster, J. B. & McChesney, R.W. (2003). Kipling, The White Man's Burden, and U.S. Imperialism. Monthly Review, 55,1-11.

Gallagher, C. (2008). America's New Racial Doxa: Incidental Racism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

Goldstein, J. (2013, August 12). Judge Reject New York's Stop and Frisk Policy. The New York Times. Retrieved from http:// www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

Henekkens, C. H., Drowos, J., & Levine, R.S. (2013). Mortality from Homicide Among Black Young Men: A New American Tragedy. T he American Journal of Medicine, 126, 282-283.

How Minorities have Fared in States with Affirmative Action Bans (2014, April 22). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html

Hughes, M. (1997). Symbolic Racism, Old Fashioned Racism, and Whites' Opposition to Affirmative Action. In S. A. Tuch & J. Martin (Eds.), Racial Attitudes in the 1990s (pp. 45-75). Westport, CT: Praeger

Hurwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (1997). Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of racial Stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, 41,374-401.

Kaufman, J.M. (2005). Explaining the race/Ethnicity-Violence Relationship: Neighborhood Context and Social Psychological Processes. Justice Quarterly, 22, 224-251.

Keating, D. (2013, March 13). Guns Deaths Shaped by Race in America. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www. washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

Kinder, D. R., & Sanders L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats tothe good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,414-431.

Kipling, R. (1899, February). The white man's burden. Mclure Magazine, 12.

Leventhal, J. M., Gaither, J. R., & Sege, R. (2014). Hospitalizations due to firearm injuries in children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 133(2), 219-225.

McCartney, P. T. (2006). Power andprogress: American national identity, the War of1898, and the rise of American imperialism. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

McKay, T. (2013, February 2). Gun control is racist. New.Mic. Retrieved from http://mic.com/articles/24726/gun-controldebate-nra-president-david-keene-claims-gun-control-is-racist

McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P.E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social capital. Justice Quarterly, 20, 1-31.

Never Again Project. (2013). CURE. Retrieved from http://cureprotectingfreedom.Org/neveragain/#

New York Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Stop and Frisk Data. Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data

NRA President: Gun Control Movement founded by Racists. (2013, February 2). The Daily Caller. Retrieved from http:// dailycaller.com/2013/02/02/nra-president-david-keene-gun-control-laws-are-historically-racist-video/

O'Brien, K., Forrest, W., Lynott, D., & Daly, M. (2013). Racism, gun ownership and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites may influence policy decisions. Píos One, 8(10). doi:10.1371/joumal.pone.0077552.

O'Neil, T. (2012, December 6). Equal treatment under the law: Activist Ward Connerly sees end of affirmative action on the horizon. The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved from http://freebeacon.com/equal-treatment-under-the-law/

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the needfor new integration strategies. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Psychology, 108(5), 937-975.

Peltz, J. (2013, August 19). NYPD head attacks ruling on police stops: Says minority communities will be harmed. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/08/18/police-commissioner-says-stop-friskruling-will-hurt-minorities/crftA2T 1 xjDOfFnHBGVfOL/story.html

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2013, March 12). Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now the Top Reason. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

Pierce, J. (2003). Racing for innocence: Whiteness, corporate culture, and the backlash against aflfirmativeaction. In A. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: The continued significance of racism (pp. 199-214). New York, NY: Routledge.

Poll: NYC racially divided over "stop and frisk". (2012, August 16). CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/ news/poll-nvc-raciallv-divided-over-stop-and-frisk/

Rose, V. (2010). Summary of Recent McDonald v. Chicago Gun Case. Hartford, CT: Connecticut General Assembly: Office of Legislative Research. Retrieved from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. 572 U.S. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/ opinions/13pdf/12-682_8759.pdf

Schuman, H., Steeh C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Star Parker: Gun control is racist. (2013, March 28). Joe for America. Retrieved from http://joeforamerica.com/2013/03/ star-parker-gun-control-is-racist/

Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons R. L. (2006). I ain't gonna let no one disrespect me: Does the code of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43,427-457.

Tahmassebi, S. B. (1991). Gun control and racism. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 2, 67-99.

Tolnay, S. E. & Beck, E.M. (1995). Festival of violence. Chicago, ILL: University of Illinois Press.

Tozzi, J. (2013, April 29). Race matters in funding small businesses. BusinessWeek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek. com/articles/2013-04-29/race-matters-to-funding-small-businesses

The Daily Caller (Producer). (2013). NRA President: Gun control movement is historically racist [Video]. Retrieved from http://dailvcaller.com/2013/02/02/nra-president-david-keene-gun-control-laws-are-historicallvracist-video/#

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2013). Racial and Ethnic Minorities' face More Subtle Housing Discrimination (HUD Publication No. 13-091). Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD7snWpress/ press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo. 13-091

Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner.

Weiser, B. & Goldstein, J. (2014, January 30). Mayor says New York City will settle suits on stop-and-frisk tactics. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.eom/2014/01/3 l/nyregion/de-blasio-stop-and-frisk.html?_i=0

Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. ( 1982, March). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 29-38.

Wilson, W. J. (1980). The declining significance of race: Blacks and changing American institutions. Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press.

Wise, T. (2009). Between Barack and a hard place. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.

Wise, T. (2010). Color-blind: The rise ofpost-racial politics and the retreat from racial equity. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.