Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Understanding systemic discrimination to address inequality

Understanding systemic discrimination to address inequality
Getty Images

Niki is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network. She has served as a consultant for the U.S. Departments of Labor and Commerce and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. She has contributed to the New York Times debates on low-wage workers.

Persistent racial and ethnic inequality in the United States necessitates a comprehensive understanding of systemic discrimination. Despite substantial investments in under-resourced schools and well-intentioned social experiments, Black unemployment rates remain twice as high as those of whites, while racial gaps in wages, income, and wealth continue to worsen. It is imperative to determine whether these issues stem from inadequate funding or deeper-rooted factors. In order to address these issues, we must understand how systemic discrimination is at the root of these issues, and how to tackle them.


Why Systemic Discrimination?

It’s essential to recognize that even Black people and white people with the highest levels of education and occupational status experience significant wage and wealth disparities. These disparities challenge the validity of traditional narratives which attribute racial inequality solely to individual choices and behavior. It leads us to demand alternative explanations. Although recent endeavors such as anti-racism and critical race theory have made significant contributions, further clarity and specificity are needed to drive meaningful change.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Understanding Systemic Discrimination

Systemic discrimination encompasses a network of racialized structures, including segregation, mass incarceration, and political disenfranchisement. All of these collaborate to generate and perpetuate inequality. By viewing social issues like food insecurity as components of a larger system, rather than isolated problems, we can address them more effectively. Food insecurity, for example, is influenced by segregation, poverty, employment discrimination, zoning policies, and the economic decisions made by national and local food suppliers. The framework of systemic discrimination allows for a comprehensive examination of these interconnected factors.

The Mechanisms of Systemic Discrimination

To comprehend how systemic discrimination operates, an analysis was conducted on a unique database of structural characteristics in metropolitan areas, considering residential segregation, school segregation, wealth distribution, incarceration rates, policing, joblessness, health disparities, occupational segregation, racial attitudes, minimum wage, political ideology, and unionization.

Through this research and studies conducted by others, several key findings have emerged:

● Measurability of Systemic Discrimination: Metrics have been developed to identify and quantify systemic discrimination, facilitating the determination of prevalent racial structures within specific geographic areas. This knowledge enables policymakers to devise precise strategies to combat it effectively.

● Stability of Racialized Structures: These structures persist due to their consistent defense and reinforcement. Consequently, interventions must be disruptive to dismantle the system effectively.

● Interdependence of Racialized Structures: The efficacy of efforts to hinder minority voting rights, for instance, relies heavily on other structures such as residential segregation and incarceration. Understanding these interdependencies is crucial in dismantling systemic discrimination.

A Systems Approach to Combating Systemic Discrimination

Adopting a systems approach necessitates policy prescriptions that address systemic racial inequality at the community, organization, and institutional levels. The following examples highlight ongoing initiatives at each level, demonstrating their potential to effect significant change if properly scaled up:

● Community-Level Initiatives: Operation Ceasefire, a successful homicide-reduction program, employs a 360-degree approach. By engaging rival gang members, respected community figures, social service agents, and law enforcement officials committed to halting arrests, violence reduction is achieved. This community-wide involvement addresses issues comprehensively, attacking them from multiple angles.

● Institutional-Level Initiatives: Numerous federal agencies collect essential data for monitoring and assessing systemic discrimination. For instance, the Federal Reserve Bank mandated the collection and reporting of race data on all loan applications, uncovering racial disparities in loan approvals and predatory lending practices. Such data informs policy development and legal remedies. It is imperative to support and demand similar data collection across federal agencies, breakdown by race, and utilize it to refine policies and coordinate efforts.

● Academic Initiatives: Researchers are developing tools and scoring metrics to track systemic discrimination in metropolitan areas and states. These tools assist changemakers by identifying interconnected subsystems relevant to specific social problems. Collaboration with other advocates addressing related issues enhances the development of more effective solutions, ultimately eradicating racial inequality.

To address persistent racial and ethnic inequality, it is crucial to grasp the dynamics of systemic discrimination. By recognizing its interconnections and adopting a systems approach, policymakers can design comprehensive strategies that effectively combat multiple racialized structures. Initiatives at the community, institutional, and local levels can disrupt the stability of systemic discrimination, leading to a more equitable society. By implementing policy solutions grounded in systemic discrimination theory, organizations, communities, and institutions can work together to dismantle these structures and eliminate racial inequality once and for all.

Read More

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

A view of destruction as Palestinians, who returned to the city following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, struggle to survive among ruins of destroyed buildings during cold weather in Jabalia, Gaza on January 23, 2025.

Getty Images / Anadolu

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

Ceasefire agreements are like modern constitutions. They are fragile, loaded with idealistic promises, and too easily ignored. Both are also crucial to the realization of long-term regional peace. Indeed, ceasefires prevent the violence that is frequently the fuel for instability, while constitutions provide the structure and the guardrails that are equally vital to regional harmony.

More than ever, we need both right now in the Middle East.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

“One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less