WHY "PREJUDICE + POWER = RACISM" IS BAD, a thread:

If you're in any kind of politics/social justice-related social media and real-life circles, you have no doubt heard from many an anti-racism activist the suggestion that the word "racism" has a new definition. (1/23)

According to this stipulative definition, two elements are required in order for racism to exist: racial prejudice, and social power to codify and enforce this prejudice into an entire society. Essentially, "Prejudice + Power = Racism". (2/23)

In conversation this often manifests in the form of "white people can't experience racism", on the premise that whites, having institutional power as a racial group in America, cannot experience "racism". "Reverse racism doesn't exist" is common as well. (3/23)

Many anti-racism activists, especially younger ones, will claim that "prejudice plus power" is the "sociological" or "academic" definition. Not only is this a mischaracterization, it is also blatant erasure of the work of prominent civil rights activists in history. (4/23)

The “Prejudice + Power = Racism” definition was developed by Patricia Bidol-Padva in her book “Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multimedia Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level”. (5/23)

She has a B.A. in Biology, M.S. in Educational Psychology, and Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology. Her work has consisted mainly of organization consulting and public sector mediation. All that to say, she's not a sociologist. (6/23)

Judith Katz popularized this definition with her own book 'White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training', which was written in 1978 but power-contingent definition of racism still did not become "mainstream" until much later. (7/23)

She has an Ed.D, and an M.S. in Organization Development and Counseling Psychology. Info on her Bachelor's Degree is strangely inaccessible (perhaps she never received one), but she went to CUNY in 1968. Again, all that to say, she's not a sociologist. (8/23)

Both Pat and Judith work primarily with Organization Development, with much work specifically done on diversity training. That's not to discount anything they've done. Their achievements and contributions are beyond what most people will even grasp at. (9/23)

However, to cite that definition as the "sociological definition" or the "academic definition" is factually incorrect. You'll actually find them using the term "institutional racism" throughout their other literature. (10/23)

If racism were inherently institutional as their definition implies, the term would be redundant! Why even bother with the continued use of "institutional" as a qualifier if racism was indeed truly inherently institutional on its own? (11/23)

Ironically, "institutional racism" as a term was coined by Kwame Ture and Charles V. Hamilton –– two black men –– five years earlier than Bidol-Pavda’s equation, in their own book “Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.” (12/23)

Ture received a B.A. in Philosophy from Howard University in 1964 and was a civil rights activist throughout the rest of his life. Hamilton graduated from Roosevelt University in 1952 with a B.A. in Political Science. (13/23)

Hamilton went on to receive an A.M. from the University of Chicago in 1957, a Ph.D in Political Science at the same institution in 1964, and served as a professor at several prominent universities. (14/23)

Both Ture and Hamilton were long-term activists that directly engaged and educated minority communities; out of “Prejudice + Power = Racism” and “institutional racism”, theirs (the latter) was by far the more accessible term to those it most mattered. (15/23)

Several actual sociological books posit that any "-ism" denotes inherently institutional discrimination, which is incongruous with various other sociological textbooks and — more importantly — linguistically incorrect, both etymologically...(16/23)

...(as evidenced by dozens of words that such an assertion is not true of) and currently.

The books’ definitions should be understood as self-referential for clarity while reading the book itself, not illustrative of the consensus among the sociology field as a whole. (17/23)

Even textbooks should be read with a grain of salt and a dash of skepticism!

Regardless, even if it were the sociological definition, it would still differ from the *colloquial definition*, which in turn determines the denotation. (18/23)

This is how language works: the primary way people use a word literally determines how it's defined. Outside of limited and niche activist and/or academic circles, the colloquial definition of racism is fairly straightforward: discrimination on the basis of race. (19/23)

Either way one looks at it, it is nonsensical to make a claim such as "white people can't be subjected to racism" by imposing a narrow, non-standard definition without operationalizing and specifying that such a claim is not based on the primary definition of that word. (20/23)

Therefore, not only is "Prejudice + Power = Racism" 1) rooted in incoherent and inaccurate sociological and linguistic analysis, and 2) an erasure of the work of prominent and leading black civil rights activists, it is also 3) counterproductive and harmful to the cause. (21/23)

The point of anti-racism activism is to effect change, which begins with changing minds. Defaulting to rhetoric that implies power is inherently a zero-sum games and makes incredibly bold assumptions about the uniformity of prejudicial attitudes across demographics...(22/23)

...is an incredibly inefficient and often blatantly self-defeating form of communication and messaging to the people that one wants to reach.

Therefore, for future discourse: the below diagram may prove far more useful to one who wishes to engage in anti-racism activism. (23/23)

CODA: This thread was built upon the work laid out by my many conversations with many activist friends through the years, and I have their contributions to thank, specifically one who shall remain unnamed but gave me the permission to share their write-up/research. (/END)