On Tuesday night I attended a Claremont City Council meeting in which members of the student body, professors from the Colleges, the City Council, and members of the greater Claremont community debated issues concerning the Irvin Landrum shooting. Those who protested the shooting accused the police officers involved of racism, while those who supported the officers fervently denied that they were racist. The City Council and the Chief of the Claremont Police Department repeatedly assured the community that the officers were sworn protectors of the safety of the entire community, and that racism was not involved in the shooting. Many members of the community made statements in support of this theory. At the end of the citizens’ forum, Mayor of Claremont, Karen Rosenthal, made a short speech establishing herself as a person who, by virtue of her having visited Africa, and by virtue of her parents having lived and worked in South America, and by virtue of her having grown up in a multicultural environment, understood what it was like to live in another culture, and understood that there was no racism involved in the Landrum shooting. She was backed up by another council member, who said that by virtue of her religious affiliation she understood what it was like for a black person to be persecuted. Many people reacted to these statements with disbelief, expressed most tellingly by a member of the community who interjected by suggesting that the Mayor’s statement was a rehash of the old, "Well, I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are black!" argument. While I agree this is what the Mayor seemed to be saying, I think the reason she made this statement and the reason so many Landrum supporters reacted with incredulity strikes to the heart of why there was little true communication going on at the meeting, and why there will be no true change as long as the debate continues in this manner.

There were two definitions of the word "racism" used at the meeting, and the fact that neither group recognized the other’s definition barred communication as effectively as though the two sides were speaking in different languages. The definition of "racism" held to by the Mayor and the police supporters is a very old, very pervasive, and, most importantly, very, very comfortable view which allows the believer to trust the police and the government and be fairly happy with the way things are going in this country. The tenants of this view are that a hypothetical person who practices "racism" is one who holds to a specific ideology of white supremacy. This person believes that, for whatever reason, white people are fundamentally superior to black people, and that the current political system in the United States incorrectly affords civil rights to people possessed of any African descent. Because the Mayor holds to this definition of "racism," her chief concern was to establish that she was not a white supremacist. When she established her "multicultural credentials" she was attempting to show the listeners that she in fact believes very wholeheartedly that all races are created equal. She does not have a white sheet in her closet, and she does not have a secret agenda of white supremacy. She believes that racists do exist, and that they are a problem, but she has established to her contentment that Officers Hannah and Jacks are not secretly members of white supremacist groups. Therefore, to the Mayor "racism" was not an issue in the shootings and the people who shouted about racism during the protests were making completely unfounded accusations.

An alternate, much broader definition of "racism," used by many of those who spoke against the City Council, is less socially accepted because it is a much less comforting view and its effects are most often seen by minorities, who often cannot help but notice its effects. At the meeting, this definition of "racism" was expressed most eloquently by Pomona Professors Lemelle and Gaines, who stated that racism is a pervasive social system which moves through all levels of society, leaving nothing untouched. Racism can be found in media portrayals of members of different races, the socio-economic hierarchy of the United States, and the habitual ways members of different races treat one another based on the stereotypes they have been taught since birth. This kind of racism is not necessarily an ideology of white supremacy, and one can detect it in all members of society. The police officer who stops black people more often is not necessarily a white supremacist, nor is the shopkeeper who follows black customers around his or her store. Yet he or she is still committing a racist act because he or she is deploying specific stereotypes about black people as poor and untrustworthy and using them as sole criteria by which to judge strangers.

I will take myself as an example of one who non-racist in the first definition but is severely implicated in the second definition. My "multi-cultural credentials" are similar to the Mayor’s. I spent part of my childhood in the Philippines and I have had close friends from many different classes, races, and nationalities. (In other words, "Some of my best friends are black!") I have never been taught any racial ideology other than equality. As a child I believed in racial equality, and I still believe in it. Yet at the same time I was instilled with uncountable racial stereotypes. I was taught by the media, members of my immediate society, politicians, teachers, and other pedagogues that the black male is violent, is a gang member, is uncivil, is a potential murderer or rapist, is an angry subversive who wants a bigger chunk of the economic pie than he deserves, is someone who cries "racism!" when he wants to place responsibility for his own actions on the shoulders of others. All of these stereotypes are not necessarily based on white supremacist beliefs because they purport to find their grounding in "real life" behavior, or crime statistics, or polls. White supremacist beliefs can be, and often are, derived from these stereotypes ("Blacks statistically commit more violent crimes. Therefore blacks are inherently more criminal than whites"), but it is common to digest these stereotypes without a specific white supremacist ideology. I have digested these stereotypes and they act on me in both conscious and unconscious ways. When I am walking in the dark, alone, and I see a young, unknown black man walking near me, I am less comfortable about my own safety than if he were white. Class is involved as well, for I also process whether or not he is wearing gang-related clothing or a suit and tie, and gender is involved, for it is crucial whether or not the other person is male or female, but in essence I am treating this black man by the standards of racial stereotypes. I am taking the popular perception of a group and using it to judge a member of that group. I have met many, many black males who have nothing to do with violence, but the stereotypes remain, perhaps fueled by the people I have met who are violent. Such is the way stereotypes perpetuate themselves. When I really think about it I have met more violent whites than blacks, but because I have the stereotype of black violence floating in my head I am more apt to use examples of violent black males to confirm this stereotype.

By the definition of Gaines and Lemelle, I am practicing "racism." I am not practicing "racism" by the popular definition held to by the Mayor and the City Council, for I do not have a white supremacist ideology. I once held to the popular definition of racism, for it was the more comfortable one. All I needed to do to avoid being a racist was to know that I didn’t think races were fundamentally different. There was some discomfort in the knowledge that other people, such as the KKK, held white supremacist beliefs, but they didn’t really affect me and it wasn’t my fault that they held such views. It’s sad, I said to myself, but what can I do besides remind them that yes, the races are equal? Now that I have opened my eyes to the ways in which people relate to one another, and the ways in which society manufactures stereotypes and expects us to abide by them, and the unconscious ways in which we act based on these stereotypes, I have switched to the second definition of racism. It is much less comfortable to hold to this definition because the focus shifts from an outside group of radical white supremacists to me. I need to ask myself how I am contributing to a society which treats people differently based on the color of their skin. I constantly need to ask myself why I am, for example, more afraid of black males, how things I do and say contribute to stereotypes of black people, how the society I move in and the privileges that are accredited to me are given to me based on the color of my skin, and how the seemingly objective standards of society are designed to keep me in a certain place and other people above or below me.

Having accepted the second definition of racism, how do I act? How should the police officers act? Taking responsibility goes a long way. When I see a black man in a dark alley, I try to take responsibility for my own fear rather than seeing him as responsible. He is not scary. It is I who am scared. This way I can examine how my fears were produced, what stereotypes fuel them, and then perhaps work through them in a fairly rational way. For a police officer, taking responsibility for the act of racial profiling would go a long way. Considering what an officer’s job entails, and how he or she is taught to go about it, it would be amazing to believe that Landrum’s race had nothing to do with the shooting. Black males are the target of suspicion. There are official (if controversial) police profiles which suggest the targeting of black males, not because they are racially inferior but because they are statistically (according to the police, anyhow) more likely to commit crimes. I am not suggesting that CPD has racial profiles, but they must see black males in a different light than, say, white females. The stereotypes are too pervasive for them not to. They must take responsibility for their use of these stereotypes and do their best not to allow situations to escalate based on mutual fear. There was no responsibility (and therefore no potential for change) taken at the City Hall meeting, because those who were asked to take responsibility were also those who saw racism as a matter of whether or not one was a white supremacist. When protesters called Officer Jacks a "racist" his response no doubt went along the lines of, "Uh, no, I think all races are equal." If they had taught him what they meant by "racist" he might be more willing to say, "Hmm. Well, I do do some of those things…" If the City Council and the CPD changed their definition, perhaps they could examine the ways in which they and the CPD contribute to an environment of racism. Perhaps the modern epithet "racist" will transform from a slur into a learning tool.