The Epistemic and Psychological Mechanisms Perpetuating Racism Within the Criminal Justice System

Abstract Many attempts have been made by philosophers, political activists, psychologists, historians, social advocates, and others to explain the mechanisms at play in the perpetuation and resulting manifestations of systemic and institutional racism. On one side of the debate there lies a theory that there is an epistemic failure at the root of racial bias towards Blacks, white ignorance, a collective amnesia regarding what has and does take place in society, as it pertains to their oppression and isolation, like the view of philosopher Charles W. Mills. According to Mills, this type of ignorance, or non-knowing, is a cognitive phenomenon in which race plays a causal role. The other side consists of a refutation of the myth white ignorance, like the perspective of philosopher Tommy Curry. Under this stance, racist acts and ideologies are part of a deliberate and malicious strategy to keep Blacks in subordinate societal positions, where whites can comfortably maintain their social, political, and economic supremacy. In Curry’s opinion, the assignment of whites as ignorant conveniently salvages their virtue, so they are then unaccountable for the suffering Blacks endure. This discussion provides an in depth philosophical, epistemological and psychological analysis of white ignorance, by incorporating cognitive dissonance; an internal conflict occurring when what we hold true is challenged, and the phenomenon psychologist Robert Jay Lifton calls doubling. In my analysis, I take the stance that even if white ignorance is not a sufficient explanation for certain instances of racism against Blacks, it can certainly prove helpful in explaining disparities within the criminal justice system. This includes not only the use of excessive force by white police officers, but also the arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing of Blacks

TEF Special Edition – Editors’ Introduction

We present a range of voices expressing their perspectives on the TEF. As might be expected in a collection of articles of this kind, and at this moment of transition, there is some overlap of views. This very fact, however, gives credence to the attitudes held about the TEF and indicates the strength of feeling across higher education. Reading these scholarly opinions confirms that academic practitioners are themselves already putting into place relevant self-critical measures to enhance learning and teaching, and that principles of collaboration, communities of practice and student/staff empowerment underpin their strategies. The metrics are examined, as is the TEF’s very rationale, but the authors also seek positives, and show their genuine desire to raise the game of the entire sector in the UK