It also means that any presumption that all groups will have identical social outcomes is ludicrous, anti-scientific, nonsense. Since it is nonsense, any attempt to judge public policy on the basis of whether groups have identical social outcomes will be dysfunctional.--LW.
For generations, auto insurance companies in the US have charged higher rates for men, especially young men. No one blinks an eye.
I don’t think any serious thinkers are buying the “systemic racism” causal explanation anymore. It’s been too long. Too much has happened. We have too much data.
At some point you just need to admit that your socially desirable, institutionally convenient account is wrong. And then you need to start asking real questions…
True, except public discourse is dominated by non-serious thinkers. In my town, Evanston, IL...just attempting to advance these ideas would get one smashed.
"At some point you just need to admit that your socially desirable, institutionally convenient account is wrong. And then you need to start asking real questions…"
“This systematic under-provision of effective policing in African-American communities”
1. This analysis is missing a key distinction between high-quantity policing and high-quality policing.
2. Policing is incredibly expensive.
3. Most policing is locally funded.
4. In a world of limited budgets, there is a tradeoff, particularly in poor communities, between the volume of police officers on the streets and the quality of those officers. The politicians will always extol adding more police officers without ever assessing the quality of those officers because the electorate seems largely ignorant of the distinction.
5. As a result, poor communities are more likely to receive high-quantity policing, which can look more like harassment than community engagement. E.g. “Stop and Frisk”
6. The us vs them mentality is therefore perpetuated, which leads to the unwillingness of many in the community to assist police in their homicide investigations and partially explains the low clearance rates.
What constitutes effective policing is a whole discussion in itself. Much of the crime is concentrated in large urban centres, but it is absolutely true that funding structures matter in the way you suggest.
Governments in general tend to under-police “fiscal sink” localities (localities where government expenditure exceeds tax revenue), but this is aggravated the more locality-based funding for police is. It is further aggravated by views that generate cover for under-funding and where those voting for/spending the funding are isolated from effects.
Agree. We would also need to examine the supply side as well.
Most police officers in the U.S. have very average IQs and no college degree, yet we pay them 6 figures in many locales. When they do have a college degree, it is generally from a mediocre university in a gut subject like criminal justice, which is interesting, but is easy and is not really transferable to real-life policing. The rest are usually ex military and what is effective in say Iraq doesn’t transfer very well to policing under constitutional constraints.
See Jordan v. City of New London on how police departments weed out those with above average IQs.
I imagine that the average police officer in urban areas performs worse than his/her peer group more broadly on cognitive tests.
We need our police to be effective problem solvers that do so in a way that doesn’t escalate conflicts and also respects constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the pool of police candidates leaves a lot to be desired in achieving this goal.
Racism cannot explain crime. Racism can't explain ANYTHING. There's simply not enough of it (against black folks) in the United States for that to be a primary causative factor. If there was, we would identify it and root it out assiduously. It rather functions as a kind of vague (but potent) sole explanatory variable for the left, which justifies greater expansions of the administrative state and more redistribution of resources and status.
Anyone who fails to discuss black family structure while analyzing disparities in behavior (for it's not just crime - it's suspensions and CPS reports and antisocial displays of all kinds) HAS to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty at this point. The connections are simply too obvious.
To be fair the police/homicide graph is very likely skewed by the high availability of firearms (particularly handguns) in the USA vs virtually any other country. Access to a gun vastly lowers the threshold of killing someone vs simply wounding them. Adjusting for it may move America right into the median.
What is surprising (possibly accounted-for by the above) is that the prisoner/police stat is right in the middle of the band of comparable nations. Given the USA is so stereotyped as having a harsh sentencing regime this is an interesting data point.
What if we all could not only trace back our ancestry over dozens of generations, but APPRECIATE what kind of people they were, and thus compare them to who WE ARE. Has this ever been tried as a public policy?
African-Americans are about 12% of the population and commit about half the homicides. Those the US Census counts as “white” are 62% of the population. If they did not commit most of the violence, it would be remarkable. The point is about disproportionate share of violence, not total violence.
It also means that any presumption that all groups will have identical social outcomes is ludicrous, anti-scientific, nonsense. Since it is nonsense, any attempt to judge public policy on the basis of whether groups have identical social outcomes will be dysfunctional.--LW.
For generations, auto insurance companies in the US have charged higher rates for men, especially young men. No one blinks an eye.
I don’t think any serious thinkers are buying the “systemic racism” causal explanation anymore. It’s been too long. Too much has happened. We have too much data.
At some point you just need to admit that your socially desirable, institutionally convenient account is wrong. And then you need to start asking real questions…
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/white-supremacy
True, except public discourse is dominated by non-serious thinkers. In my town, Evanston, IL...just attempting to advance these ideas would get one smashed.
"At some point you just need to admit that your socially desirable, institutionally convenient account is wrong. And then you need to start asking real questions…"
It's like you've never met a Democrat.
I've been writing about this ever since the George Floyd riots kicked off in Minneapolic in 2020. See https://www.johnlocke.org/research-identifies-benefits-of-spending-more-on-police-not-defunding-it/, https://www.johnlocke.org/intensive-community-policing-can-save-the-lives-of-black-children/, and, most recently, https://www.johnlocke.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/More-Cops-Less-Crime-Revised.pdf.
“This systematic under-provision of effective policing in African-American communities”
1. This analysis is missing a key distinction between high-quantity policing and high-quality policing.
2. Policing is incredibly expensive.
3. Most policing is locally funded.
4. In a world of limited budgets, there is a tradeoff, particularly in poor communities, between the volume of police officers on the streets and the quality of those officers. The politicians will always extol adding more police officers without ever assessing the quality of those officers because the electorate seems largely ignorant of the distinction.
5. As a result, poor communities are more likely to receive high-quantity policing, which can look more like harassment than community engagement. E.g. “Stop and Frisk”
6. The us vs them mentality is therefore perpetuated, which leads to the unwillingness of many in the community to assist police in their homicide investigations and partially explains the low clearance rates.
Also, the quality of the police officers hired can be affected by pressures to hire blacks to meet DEI objectives regardless of ability.
What constitutes effective policing is a whole discussion in itself. Much of the crime is concentrated in large urban centres, but it is absolutely true that funding structures matter in the way you suggest.
Governments in general tend to under-police “fiscal sink” localities (localities where government expenditure exceeds tax revenue), but this is aggravated the more locality-based funding for police is. It is further aggravated by views that generate cover for under-funding and where those voting for/spending the funding are isolated from effects.
Agree. We would also need to examine the supply side as well.
Most police officers in the U.S. have very average IQs and no college degree, yet we pay them 6 figures in many locales. When they do have a college degree, it is generally from a mediocre university in a gut subject like criminal justice, which is interesting, but is easy and is not really transferable to real-life policing. The rest are usually ex military and what is effective in say Iraq doesn’t transfer very well to policing under constitutional constraints.
See Jordan v. City of New London on how police departments weed out those with above average IQs.
I imagine that the average police officer in urban areas performs worse than his/her peer group more broadly on cognitive tests.
We need our police to be effective problem solvers that do so in a way that doesn’t escalate conflicts and also respects constitutional rights. Unfortunately, the pool of police candidates leaves a lot to be desired in achieving this goal.
Racism cannot explain crime. Racism can't explain ANYTHING. There's simply not enough of it (against black folks) in the United States for that to be a primary causative factor. If there was, we would identify it and root it out assiduously. It rather functions as a kind of vague (but potent) sole explanatory variable for the left, which justifies greater expansions of the administrative state and more redistribution of resources and status.
Anyone who fails to discuss black family structure while analyzing disparities in behavior (for it's not just crime - it's suspensions and CPS reports and antisocial displays of all kinds) HAS to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty at this point. The connections are simply too obvious.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/terminal-degeneration
Well said.
To be fair the police/homicide graph is very likely skewed by the high availability of firearms (particularly handguns) in the USA vs virtually any other country. Access to a gun vastly lowers the threshold of killing someone vs simply wounding them. Adjusting for it may move America right into the median.
What is surprising (possibly accounted-for by the above) is that the prisoner/police stat is right in the middle of the band of comparable nations. Given the USA is so stereotyped as having a harsh sentencing regime this is an interesting data point.
Still means not enough police for the level of homicide risk.
What if we all could not only trace back our ancestry over dozens of generations, but APPRECIATE what kind of people they were, and thus compare them to who WE ARE. Has this ever been tried as a public policy?
Treating ethnicity or other marks of ancestry has absolutely been part of public policy in various ways. Often not very good ways, however.
Look for the connection of male violence and aggression to witches in their lineage!
I have repeatedly seen memes with statistics indicating that most murders and violent crimes in the US are committed by Caucasians.
Is this true?
African-Americans are about 12% of the population and commit about half the homicides. Those the US Census counts as “white” are 62% of the population. If they did not commit most of the violence, it would be remarkable. The point is about disproportionate share of violence, not total violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Example:
2025 Chicago homicide rate for Black residents was 39.5 per 100,000, Latino (9.3), and white (1.8).
Disproportionate impact 😉