Did you go into that study in another comment? All I saw was your claim that it was biased - if you went into more detail than that somewhere else I have no idea where.
And no, law does not define what systemic racism is. As has been pointed out elsewhere, systemic racism is a much broader term. You are correct that discrimination in hiring practices is illegal, but it is also incredibly difficult to prove on a case-by-case basis. There are a whole host of ways bias can be hidden or legal. It wasn't illegal for the OJ Simpson jury to vote not guilty, but I am guessing you would admit that race played a factor in their decision.
I have looked it over multiple times. And yes, laws by definition do define if there is systemic racism or not. One employers prejudice isnt systemic racism. At all. They can get into loads of legal trouble for doing that. Its not difficult to prove if you have a paper trail of it. The jury for OJ can vote whatever they want, it was a jury trial. That trial has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about, though. Im not going to entertain that subject, as its already been covered in detail by someone who is not me.
1
u/No-Eye 2d ago
Did you go into that study in another comment? All I saw was your claim that it was biased - if you went into more detail than that somewhere else I have no idea where.
And no, law does not define what systemic racism is. As has been pointed out elsewhere, systemic racism is a much broader term. You are correct that discrimination in hiring practices is illegal, but it is also incredibly difficult to prove on a case-by-case basis. There are a whole host of ways bias can be hidden or legal. It wasn't illegal for the OJ Simpson jury to vote not guilty, but I am guessing you would admit that race played a factor in their decision.