Re: denny's

[kelley <kcwalker@xxxxxxx>]

Andy writes:  "In fact, Denny's just
happens to be noted for racial discrimination; one sees the same thing at
Shoneys, etc."


actually, no,  from what i learned yesterday they did sit around and
instruct people to 1. make blacks pay up front claiming they had a rep for
skippingout on check.  2. told employees that they had bad rep for tipping
3. to close up shop when the ratio of balck patrons got too high and 4.
were told to seat black patrons in out of the way places.

i'd still say that this is an example of individual level racism--though
clearly embedded in organizational culture.  their assumptions were that
blacks are bad people, with bad habits and weren't welcome clientele.  your
example of real estate market though is better insofar as it is often
assumed that  people like certain neighborhoods and prefer to live among
their own kind, etc.  i'm doing research on real estate agents and low
income home buying programs right now so this is, indeed, an issue.  don't
get me started, i'll rant all day.

again, when people fail to seat blacks and seat whites ahead in a
restaurant it is because they believe blacks are bad tippers or discourage
business, etc. just because it's patterned and systemic doesnt' make it
structural racism--at least not according to any definition i've ever seen.
 i'm thinking here especially of iris marion young's work, patricia hill
collins, maria lugones.

as young points out, the criteria by which we can distinguish structural
from individual level racism is that some groups suffer deep injustices
that are the "consequence of often unconscous assumptions and reactions of
well-meaning people in ordinary interactions, in structural features of
bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms--in short, the normal
processes of everyday life.  we cannot eliminate the structural oppression
by getting rid of the rulers or making some new laws or educating people,
because oppressions are systematically reproduced in major economic,
political, and cultural institutions through norms which define
institutional imperatives and roles."

iow, more enlightened folks running and working for denny's would have
changed things considerably because their policies explicitly referred to
treating blacks a certain way because they were seen as detrimental to
business in specific kinds of ways because of stereotypes and prejudices.
if they hadn't had those stereotypes and prejudices, iow, they wouldn't
have made people wait, etc.  nor would they be more hospitable to whites at
the G&T schools, etc.

but norms of what constitutes a capable college student at syr. uni
apparently include lots of involvement in extracurricular activities, thus
disadvantaging those who are poor and must work after school.  norms of
what constitutes a good professional or manager often include modes of
comportment, speech, dress, and cultural knowledge which some groups lack,
so they are disadvantaged.  in school, SAT scores and assumptions about the
hierarchy of worthy schools in k-12 education as somehow reflective of the
abilities of students who attend are similarly a racist--though also what
some would call classist too.

of course it is all bound up together and difficult to separate in the muck
of ordinary life.  these are analytic distinctions made for heuristic and
research purposes.  nonetheless, i think they have some bearing on
strategies as to what is most important to focus on and precisely how so.
we've already got plenty of efforts in place to deal with cultural
imperialism of the sort denny's engaged in via educational and curriculum
reform, cultural and racial sensitivity training, as well as outright laws
against that sort of behavior.  but what i want to see people work on as
well is breaking down the hidden, not so obvious sources of structural
racism.  that approach asks us to question the taken-for-granted
assumptions and norms that regulate our social institutions.

kelley