This photo provided by the Nichols family shows Tyre Nichols, who had a passion for photography and ... [+]
The world is reeling from body cam footage that was just released of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old driver who was beaten to death by five Memphis police officers. At the time of this article, each of the five officers has been charged with second-degree murder, aggravated assault, two charges of aggravated kidnapping, two charges of official misconduct and one charge of official oppression. It’s important to note that both Nichols and the five officers involved were Black. The speed at which the officers were fired is a topic of conversation on social media, with many commenting on how fast the justice works when the perpetrators are Black. The horrific case of Nichols’ killing points to a phenomenon that deserves further interrogation: representation is not enough. The solution to group homogeneity and a lack of representation isn’t simply to invite more people from underrepresented and marginalized backgrounds in. We don’t talk enough about how those from marginalized communities learn quickly to align themselves with the oppressive class under the false premise that doing so will allow them to shield themselves from harm.
In the last few decades, as a result of the many publicized killings of unarmed Black people, the public discourse has focused on whether there are ways to reform the American policing system. Some opponents of the prison and police abolition movement have suggested that increasing racial diversity on police forces could remedy the racial profiling and discrimination that occurs at a systemic level. But the case of Tyre Nichols provides additional evidence that representation will not solve the issue. There has been extensive research on police bias. More than 20 years ago, researchers Joshua Correll, Bernadette Park, Charles M. Judd and Bernd Wittenbrink conducted a study to investigate the decision to shoot or not shoot armed and unarmed targets. Key findings of their research indicate that participants were more likely to shoot a target when he was Black compared to white and that participants were quicker when deciding not to shoot an unarmed white target compared to an unarmed Black target. What was most interesting about their research was that these findings were shown across both white and Black participants. Correll and associates replicated these results with different samples including police officers, community members and college students. In a separate 2019 study of fatal police officer-involved shootings, researchers found that Black and Hispanic civilians were more likely to be shot by same-race officers. These studies further elucidate why a focus on diversity and representation will not address the systemic issues that allow anti-blackness to persist.
Researchers found that Black and Hispanic civilians were more likely to be shot by same-race ... [+]
In the book Caste, Pulitzer-prize winner writer Isabel Wilkerson wrote “one does not have to be in the dominant caste to do its bidding,” and explains that “the most potent instrument of the caste system is a sentinel at every rung, whose identity forswears any accusation of discrimination and helps keep the caste system humming.” One of the reasons why anti-blackness is so pervasive is because those wielding the sword are often part of oppressed communities themselves. Being able to point to representation as an example of progress or a reason why an environment is safe and should be spared from critique, is one reason why anti-blackness is able to persist.
Many institutions invite people in for the sake of diversity while failing to investigate the root cause of harm. No amount of diversity will fix an institution if the systemic issues are not addressed. What are the ways in which our structures allow anti-blackness to continue? We need to recognize that the presence of Black people alone does not eliminate anti-blackness. Even within Black structures, anti-blackness, class oppression and power differentials prevail. What are the specific ways that your system is holding people accountable for their anti-blackness? Are you assessing anti-blackness at the door? Why are people able to engage in anti-black behaviors in the first place? What questions could be asked to assess inherent anti-black biases when entering an institution? Is there space being provided to have discussions about anti-blackness? Are you offering education so that every individual understands their role in continuing anti-blackness and how it is a global issue that has seen different iterations? How are you helping individuals reckon with their own internalized anti-blackness? Nothing will ever change if 1) we are not examining the specific and nuanced ways that institutions allow anti-blackness to continue and 2) if we fail to put accountability measures in place to address the myriad ways that anti-blackness is perpetuated.
