Systemic Racism: “I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means”

Systemic racism.

This term has become a staple in the vocabulary of advocates of racial justice in the craft beverage industries. It has come to connote a higher echelon of political awareness, graduation to a critical understanding of power and social stratification, and the ability to accurately identify the true nature of the challenge that social justice activists currently face. At least…it is supposed to.

The work that I have been engaged in–advocating for and attempting to bring about social justice (including racial justice) in the craft beverage space–has often been disheartening in recent months. But I have to be honest, much of my despair has not come from our challenging statistics, the seemingly plodding pace of change, or from grim stories about members of our community behaving atrociously. This worrying share of my distress has come from observing the ongoing conversation about the lack of racial diversity in craft beer, cider, wine and spirits–from those who have enthusiastically signed up to fight the good fight.

There are two understandings of racism that dominate current discourse about social justice in our industries. The systemic understanding of racism is central to antiracist thought. In fact, I argue that it is impossible to make progress on ridding our industries of racism without fully embracing this concept. The interpersonal understanding of racism is, conversely, central to racist thought. This understanding not only restricts progress toward achieving racial justice, it is the very system of thought and rationalization that allows racist policies to thrive. I have been saddened, frustrated, and felt completely helpless in recent weeks because so many advocates, activists, and allies vocally espouse an interpersonal understanding of racism that I firmly believe works against our shared goal of bringing more inclusion, equity, and justice to the spaces we share.

“…If We Focus On Power Instead of People”

I believe that the distinction between these two constructs is so important that I have been writing about it for years. Still, I will dedicate some time to enumerating their differences below.

Perhaps the most important difference between these two constructs is that they inspire different responses from our community of activists, advocates, and allies. Systemic racism must be challenged through vigilant self-examination, ongoing education, and enacted though policy change. It presupposes that we are ALL products of the historic and contemporary systems that produce racial inequity and must work together to make progress. Systemic change is the goal and progress toward this goal is necessarily slow and often unspectacular. Interpersonal racism is challenged by the relentless critique of perceived transgressors. It presupposes that we are somehow immune to racist socialization and they are too evil, too stupid, or too unwilling to give up their privilege to rise above the fray. Punishment is the goal and retribution is swift, public, and often performative. It should be obvious from my word choices that I am an advocate of the former course of action and find the latter to be dangerously counterproductive. It should also be said, that interpersonal expressions of racism DO exist. There most certainly ARE bad and ignorant actors who consciously and intentionally work to wound, injure, and gain and advantage over other people because of their racial identities. However, a systemic understanding of racism accepts that these expressions are the effect of racist systems, not the cause. Ibram X. Kendi puts this fundamental prioritization succinctly in his germinal text, How To Be An Antiracist. An antiracist world “can become real if we focus on power instead of people, if we focus on changing policy instead of groups of people.”

Going On The Record

“The Brewers Association is harboring racists.” Though I have not publicly engaged this critique, I have certainly read it many, many times. I will be honest. The vitriol with which this accusation (and a host of others) has been made has been difficult to navigate, as I continue to serve as the Brewers Association’s Diversity Ambassador (though in a somewhat more limited role due to the exigencies of COVID-19). Let me finally go on record with a response to this accusation.

Of course it is. So is every other sizable American organization or institution.

My commitment to antiracism is first and foremost a commitment to fostering a systemic understanding of racism. That commitment means that I believe that a complex assemblage of logics and policies (most of which are not unique to our industries) have lead to widespread patterns of racial inequity in the craft beverage space. It means that I use the adjective “racist” to accurately describe this state, not to insult or punish any single person or business. It means I believe that the racist thoughts and acts that our community of activists, advocates, and allies need to be most concerned about aren’t conspicuous and overt, but inconspicuous, unintentional, and embedded in seemingly colorblind policies in which many good, thoughtful and kind people participate. It means that I believe it would be literally impossible for any American trade association to have a membership that was somehow miraculously exempt from a normalized component of American socialization. It means, ultimately, that I believe retribution-focused efforts have limited utility in the struggle for racial equity. Because honestly, once a business has been adequately tarred and feathered on social media…what then? When people have been fired, humiliated, boycotted…is racism somehow fixed?

Of course it’s not. Nevertheless, we seem to be focusing all our efforts on the symptoms and ignoring the underlying disease.

I have been a small part of the extensive ongoing process of creating the Brewers Association’s code of conduct and complaint process. I understand this to be an effort to make change at the level of policy. Because an existing policy (or lack there of) created a condition where observable disparities in the experiences of industry members from different racial/ethnic groups at one member organization could go unquestioned and unaddressed. If, in the years to come, I can claim to have left some partial fingerprint on the code of conduct and complaint process, I hope it is that I helped to create a collective accountability structure designed to facilitate the kind of self-examination, education, and organizational change that the project of dismantling systemic racism requires and not a vengeful tribunal.

“So ____________ just gets a pass? F*ck that!”

Someone has read this far and filled in the requisite blank. Perhaps they didn’t need to read this and already uttered those words in response to the revelation that the BA code of conduct only applies to incidents that will occur or continue to occur after its creation. Sometimes difficult decisions produce unsatisfying results.

An imperfect thought experiment…let’s imagine that in a month it is discovered that when lactose interacts with high concentrations of isomerized alpha acids in solutions that contain approximately 5% – 10% alcohol by volume, a carcinogenic byproduct is produced–triggering the outlawing of milkshake IPAs. Perhaps this new law wouldn’t have an impact on the day-to-day operations of the majority of brewers, but certainly some would have to make some changes to adapt to the new policy–perhaps even uncomfortable changes. Overwhelmingly, however the community is vested in the safety and wellbeing of beer lovers and applauds the change. Now imagine that the TTB, ATF or the FDA (whatever organization would be charged with enforcing this new policy) began citing every brewery that made a milkshake IPA in the past five years. Though they might recognize the necessity of a new policy, many would be justifiably confused and outraged. After all, how can you be cited for breaking rule that did not exist when you broke it?

Of course, if a brewery was aware that their milkshake IPAs were carcinogenic for years prior to the creation of the policy and sold them anyway, that would bring about a whole different set of questions that exist outside of the scope of the new policy–ones that would likely be addressed in both a court of law and in the court of public opinion. A legal court might find that this hypothetical brewery acted without malicious intent or that they recklessly endangered consumers. Or it is conceivable that the matter would be ended with some sort of class action settlement. Moreover, consumers more and more frequently make values-based choices when it comes to household purchases. Many may make the conscientious decision to swear off this brewery’s products forever. These are all plausible, coexisting outcomes.

The point I am making with this bizarre metaphor is about scope and jurisdiction. The TTB, ATF, or FDA is not in the business of civil litigation, criminal justice, or karmic retribution. I suspect that they have neither the expertise nor the resources to do so. And why would they need to? Venues for these processes already exist. These organizations are built to create compliance structures that apply to the organizations over which they can claim oversight, for the activities over which they can claim oversight–to create policies intended to learn from and prevent repeating mistakes made in the past.

Does this feel as if there is space for someone to have “gotten away with something” there? Sure. But I will pose a question that returns to the distinction I made in the beginning of this post. Is it more important to dole out righteous retribution to bad or ignorant actors or to attempt to enact change at the level of policy that supports self-examination, education, and collective growth and accountability?

You may find it unsatisfying, but my answer is crystal clear.

We Don’t Need More Police

For the third year in a row, I am writing a blog post that makes the statement, “I am not the diversity police.” In the first, I called for a shift “from the harsh pinpoint focus of a policing spotlight to the broad, omnidirectional gaze of problem-solving.” In the second, I shared “serious concerns that the cause of social justice is suffering from a lack of tactical and strategic diversity—that we prioritize criticism and blame-assignment over problem-solving, organizing, nurturing, coalition-building, self-reflection, creativity, consciousness-raising, strategic planning, recording history, performing analysis, educating, and more.”

2020 casts a new light on my use of the term “policing.” The collective public eye has yet again been drawn to severe disparities between the experiences of being policed by members of different racial/ethic groups. The call to reallocate monetary resources from institutions and policies that reproduce racial inequity to fund evidenced-based strategies for empowering communities and reducing crime is one that recognizes racism to be systemic. This reallocation (or defunding) is not about punishing bad actors it is about identifying and changing policies and systems of thought that rationalize racist actions as matters of public and personal safety, as politically advantageous performances of being “tough on crime,” or as the deserved consequences of a presumed life of depravity. The call for reallocation suggests that the current set of criminal justice policies in place criminalize poverty, prioritize personal property over human lives, and waste public resources (as proven community-building measures are far less expensive than policing, trying, and incarcerating people). Dr. Kendi summarizes a particularly heart-breaking truth when he writes, “we are particularly poor at seeing the policies lurking behind the struggles of people.”

Community policing and other alternatives promote organizational strategies and the use of partnerships and problem-solving to proactively address the conditions (systems and policies) that give rise to problems experienced in a community. They do not seek to make lasting change by throwing more police on the streets, creating harsher sentences, or single-mindedly targeting those with criminal records. They understand that policing, as an act of consolidating and using power, can go horribly wrong no matter who is wearing the uniform, because it is a system in which the desired ends justify the means.

Personally, the last thing I would want (and I would hope the last thing anyone would want) is for the Brewers Association to become to the diversity police. A single-minded focus on kicking brewery members out is akin to the equally ineffective focus on “locking people up.” Attempting to create a policy that relies on collective accountability and education is certainly a tougher road, but I wholeheartedly believe it’s the road that honors a commitment to seeing and effectively responding to systemic conditions that produce problems in our community.

Fighting Systemic Racism Together

You don’t have to agree with me or my methods for the work we share. I am well aware that my dogged commitment to preventative education and compassionate remediation is highly unpopular to many. I believe there is room for all types, all tactics, as long as we are all rowing in the same direction. After all, complex challenges require complex solutions.

So what direction are we rowing in?

I’ll be presumptuous here and say that we should always be moving toward the greater adoption of a systemic understanding of racism so that we can do the long, slow, unsexy work of tracing and unraveling that system. I believe we should move in a direction that does not over-simplify racism because denying its complexity is the first step to denying its impact. I believe we should move in a direction that acknowledges the pervasiveness and utter ordinariness racism because when racism becomes the bad deeds of bad people, we let ourselves off the hook. I believe a committed group of individuals, all acting within their capacity to act can affect tremendous change.

Though it might be unclear from all I have written above, I also believe in holding people accountable for the harm they have caused. I do not leave the symptoms of illness untreated. However, I recognize that failing to address the underlying disease–the systems that produce racial inequity–means we will have to deal with the same unbearable symptoms over and over again. I do not claim to get this right all the time. I have been wrong, often. But I am proud as f*ck that I have these mistakes, failures, and shortcomings in my past, because they are evidence of how hard I have tried to get it right.

Be well. Be strong. Be fearless, my friends. We have a long road ahead.