argument top image

How do we think about institutional racism in the American police force? Show more Show less
Back to question

On June 8 2020, Minneapolis City Council announced it would be dismantling its police force. In its place, they pledged to introduce a new model for public safety, free from the institutional racism that had plagued its police. The decision was unprecedented, and yet, it has been followed by similar moves across the US, for police budget cuts and investigations into how they are run. At the heart of this debate is the question of institutional racism: where it comes from, how it manifests, and how it can be overcome. Following George Floyd's murder, pressure has grown for perceived systemic oppression to be addressed. Others argue that this is a myth, and that police are being victimised for the ills of society. The way that people are mobilising around this question reveals the fundamental ideas that drive their perspectives. So, who are these groups, what do they stand for, and why?

'The police are not the issue!': The police should not be blamed for the problems of a racialized society Show more Show less

This position believes that the police are the standard bearers of law and order. Limited government is fundamental to protect individual liberty. Strong police are required to protect limited government. Whether institutional racism is real, or a myth, focusing on the role of the police is both misleading and counterproductive.
< (2 of 3) Next position >

To be anti-police is to be anti-American

America is systemically anti-racist. The current debate has been souped up by a liberal elite desperate to turn the country into a war-torn political battleground before the 2020 election. Black poverty is at a historic low. Trump's government has ushered in a series of laws to reduce racial inequality, such as the First Step Act, which freed thousands of non-violent black inmates from prison. The idea that inequality stems from systemic racism is cheap and false. And part of a liberal political agenda to seed resentment instead of deal with the causes of these issues. Proponents include The Australian Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan.
< (7 of 7) Next argument >

The Argument

Counter arguments

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

    Vote

    Not sure yet? Read more ↑

    Discuss

    This page was last edited on Tuesday, 9 Jun 2020 at 14:25 UTC

    Explore related arguments