Phillip Atiba Goff: I don’t like talk­ing to peo­ple about what I do for a liv­ing. It’s not that I don’t like my job—I love my job. It’s just it’s not always the most com­fort­able cock­tail par­ty reveal? Right? It’s like, Hey, Steve. Nice to meet you. What is it you do?”

Oh, I’m in acqui­si­tions. Remind me what you do again, Phil?”

Oh yeah, I’m in the end­ing racism and state-sanctioned lynch­ings busi­ness.”

Right, right. Right. Cool cool cool. Cool. I hear that’s like a growth indus­try. Oh hey look, alco­hol.”

Cuz the idea is it’s…it’s awk­ward, right. And it makes sense that it’s awk­ward. It’s a heavy top­ic, right. Because par­tial­ly, the worst things that human beings do to oth­er human beings, they often have the specter of racism on top of them. But it’s also awk­ward because frankly, a lot of peo­ple don’t have a lot of hope that we’re fix­ing racism any­time soon, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the con­tem­po­rary sort of polit­i­cal envi­ron­ment that we live in.

So, today I want to talk to you just a lit­tle bit about how the sci­ence of racism, how racism actu­al­ly func­tions, can bring a lit­tle bit of hope to these dif­fi­cult issues, with­out even need­ing to be espe­cial­ly polit­i­cal. And bet­ter than that, how the sci­ence of racism can lead to some action­able solu­tions to these seem­ing­ly impos­si­ble prob­lems.

Alright, so what kind of prob­lems exact­ly am I talk­ing about? Well for sure, I mean…racism in edu­ca­tion, and hous­ing and policing—that’s the work that I do every day. But I also mean recruit­ing. And HR prac­tices. And mar­ket­ing, right. How we come to under­stand how vul­ner­a­ble com­mu­ni­ties, those very com­mu­ni­ties that are the dri­vers of cul­ture in every coun­try across the world, how vul­ner­a­ble com­mu­ni­ties are gonna respond to prod­ucts. And to brand iden­ti­ties.

The 10th sustainable development goal, reduced inequalities.

See, we’re not just talk­ing about the tenth sus­tain­able devel­op­ment goal. If we do racial equi­ty right, we’ve got impli­ca­tions for all sev­en­teen. In oth­er words this isn’t just a moral issue, this is a P&< issue, right. And as mar­kets diver­si­fy, ignor­ing racial equi­ty is going to leave the com­pe­ti­tion behind in the same way that lag­ging on green ener­gy and gen­der equi­ty has.

So, in my every­day, I deal with racism in polic­ing. But my hope is a lit­tle bit today you all will help me to trans­late from the world I live in to the worlds that are clos­est to you so we can trans­form these awk­ward con­ver­sa­tions about racism, make them just a lit­tle bit less painful, and a lit­tle bit more com­fort­able. Okay, so can I ask you to do that with me a lit­tle bit? Yeah? So it’s okay to speak back, right. Cameras are on me. Thank you.

Alright. So, to get how the sci­ence of racism leaves me opti­mistic, it’s impor­tant we define that term racism.” The most com­mon def­i­n­i­tion of racism is that racist behav­iors stem from defec­tive hearts and minds. And if you think about the ways that we talk about try­ing to solve this prob­lem, you’ll hear it. To fight racism we need to com­bat igno­rance. To fight racism we need to stamp out hatred. Hearts and minds, right.

Now, a lot of my opti­mism comes from not using this def­i­n­i­tion because, and this is impor­tant, it’s total­ly wrong. Okay. Wrong in every way. But before we talk about the def­i­n­i­tion I do use, I actu­al­ly think it’s use­ful to talk about how this hearts and minds def­i­n­i­tion of racism, the wrong def­i­n­i­tion, how it gets to be so sticky. How it’s so hard to get rid of. So I want to use an illus­tra­tive exam­ples.

This is a pic­ture of Emmett Till. And for those of you who don’t know where this is going, Emmett Till was a 14-year-old black boy born in Chicago, Illinois to work­ing class par­ents. And as he grew up, he devel­oped a speech imped­i­ment that made it sound like he was whistling when he spoke.

So his moth­er, Mamie Till, decid­ed it’d be a good idea to send young Emmett away to live with his rel­a­tives in Mississippi dur­ing the sum­mer of 1955. So he would­n’t get bul­lied. What she was­n’t expect­ing is that a white woman would lie about her child.

See, in August of that year, a white woman told her hus­band that the 14-year-old Till had sex­u­al­ly propo­si­tioned her. Which he had­n’t. But the result was worse than any bul­ly­ing she could’ve imag­ined. Because on the evening of August 28th, 1955, Roy Bryant and JW Milam—these two gen­tle­man in the white—they showed up armed to Emmett Till’s great uncle’s house. They abduct­ed him at gun­point, tied him up, sav­age­ly beat and muti­lat­ed his face and his tor­so, and when when they real­ized that they’d killed him they tied a cot­ton gin fan to his body to sink it to the bot­tom of the Tallahatchie River.

Pictures of Till’s open cas­ket—and for the squea­mish you might want to look away for a cou­ple of slides. Pictures like this, they sparked not just local but inter­na­tion­al out­rage. Because they shone a light on the racist, vicious vio­lence in the United States. But more than that, by this time in 1955 there’d been over 4,000 of these kind of extrale­gal mur­ders of black peo­ple, includ­ing chil­dren, since the US had abol­ished slav­ery. Four thou­sand.

And see­ing just one image like that, one image like the lynch­ing in Marion, Indiana, like this, where peo­ple brought their chil­dren to see this, it’s easy to imag­ine how you can just reduce this all to evil. This is what evil looks like. What decent per­son could do this to a 14-year-old boy? Our eyes con­vince us that some­thing sick in the hearts and minds of peo­ple is what’s required for this to hap­pen.

But his­to­ry teach­es us what our eyes can’t. Genocide, lynchings—the worst things that human beings can do to oth­er human beings, those things hap­pen at scale. They’re not individual—you can­not reduce them to indi­vid­ual hearts and minds or even a group of peo­ple’s feel­ings. This is not a those peo­ple over there” prob­lem, this is an us prob­lem. And his­to­ri­ans, social sci­en­tists of racism and group con­flict, they’ve known that for some time. For gen­er­a­tions we’ve referred to this as the banal­i­ty of evil—it’s easy for this to hap­pen in large groups.

So if the world has known this for some time, why is it that inter­na­tion­al­ly the lan­guage for racism still reduces to indi­vid­ual feel­ings? Well as a psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­en­tist, I can tell you there’s a great deal to be gained from try­ing to take some­thing that is incred­i­bly uncom­fort­able and make it com­fort­able. And our con­ver­sa­tions about racism? They’re pret­ty uncom­fort­able, right.

So, racism is an uncom­fort­able top­ic but, if I tell you that racism is real­ly just about what’s in your char­ac­ter, all of a sud­den you have the capac­i­ty to be in con­trol of that. Things you’re in con­trol of are way more com­fort­able, right. Cuz if the prob­lem real­ly is just my feel­ings, then all I have to do, all any of us can do, is get our feel­ings right—be of good char­ac­ter. Because if I’m of good char­ac­ter I can’t be racist, when I see racism in the world, I’m not impli­cat­ed. That is way more com­fort­able. And like I said, also wrong.

So there are two ele­ments of that hearts and minds def­i­n­i­tion that are absolute­ly wrong, right. The first is that it’s sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly garbage, and the sec­ond, it makes it hard­er to solve the prob­lem. And here’s what I mean.

So for the past cen­tu­ry or so, social psy­chol­o­gists have known that atti­tudes like prej­u­dice are real­ly weak pre­dic­tors of behav­iors like dis­crim­i­na­tion. In fact atti­tudes pre­dict about 10% of behav­iors, at best, through meta-analysis. But even more impor­tant­ly than that, even if atti­tudes were great pre­dic­tors of behav­ior, a hearts and minds def­i­n­i­tion of racism says the solu­tion to racism is what? Salvation? I don’t know about you but sal­va­tion for me is real­ly dif­fi­cult just one on one. And it does­n’t real­ly scale. And that’s the rea­son why this hearts and minds def­i­n­i­tion is a bad diag­no­sis. It’s not just that it’s wrong. It’s that it makes it hard­er to solve the prob­lem. And worse, when we fix­ate on try­ing to change behav­iors, we end up dis­tract­ed by try­ing to reha­bil­i­tate poten­tial­ly racist actors and ignor­ing the accu­mu­la­tion of harms that are hap­pen­ing to vul­ner­a­ble com­mu­ni­ties right in front of us. By defin­ing the prob­lem as hearts and minds, we end up being dis­tract­ed try­ing to fix racist peo­ple instead of fix­ing racist out­comes.

And I was encour­aged to make all of this very dif­fi­cult mate­r­i­al acces­si­ble, so I have a meme that I think explains all of this, very sim­ply.

A variation of the Distracted Boyfriend meme: the guy (labeled "aspiring anti-racist") looks at a woman passing by (labeled "saving souls of racists") while his girlfriend (labeled "changing behaviors") stares at him in irritation

Nobody wants to be this guy. Aspiring anti-racist…not chang­ing behavior…this guy’s not a role mod­el.

But I do have some good news. Which is that in my field, we have a dif­fer­ent def­i­n­i­tion which is both more accu­rate and more action­able. As a psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­en­tist we actu­al­ly define racism as the accu­mu­lat­ed pat­tern of behav­iors that dis­ad­van­tage one racial group and advan­tage anoth­er racial group, as well as the sys­tems to facil­i­tate that.

And this won­der­ful thing hap­pens when you define the prob­lem this way. You can start mak­ing it solv­able, right. And when you can do that, this hope­less thing can become inspir­ing. And we have this great example…but most­ly with sex­ism and cor­po­rate com­pen­sa­tion, that comes to us from our friends at Salesforce.

See in 2015, the folks at Salesforce had a concern…right, some of you are nod­ding your heads—you know this sto­ry. They had a con­cern that they weren’t pay­ing men and women the same amount for doing the same job. So what did they do? Well they mea­sured whether not they were pay­ing men and women the same amount for the same job.

What did they find? They weren’t pay­ing men and women the same amount for the same job. So what did they do? They start­ed pay­ing men and women the same amount for the same job, right.

Now the sur­pris­ing thing for most peo­ple is, the year lat­er when they audit­ed again, they found the same gen­der gap. Because they had acquired dur­ing that year a num­ber of addi­tion­al com­pa­nies that came in with the gen­der gap they’d had before. So the mirac­u­lous thing that should be a sur­prise for exact­ly nobody in the entire town of Davos, the take-home mes­sage is you have to mea­sure the things you care about, ana­lyze them, and then opti­mize for them reg­u­lar­ly. It’s called run­ning a busi­ness with goals. It’s how every busi­ness has ever worked through­out his­to­ry. We just don’t think about all of our val­ues the same way.

So in my day job, I do that kind of thing, but for racism in polic­ing. My cen­ter, the Center for Policing Equity, hosts the largest-known col­lec­tion of police behav­ioral data in the world. It’s a super hum­ble­brag but we can talk about that lat­er, right. And we use that data to diag­nose and ana­lyze racial dis­par­i­ties and racial bias in police behav­ior, and give that back to com­mu­ni­ties and law enforce­ment so they can hold them­selves account­able to those goals.

Now, one of the first things that peo­ple will ask me when they hear about what I do is, Alright be hon­est with me, do police real­ly want to be held account­able to data?”

The sur­pris­ing answer for lots of peo­ple, is that they already do. Not just in North America, but in Latin America, Europe, Oceania, Africa, South and Southeast Asia, all over the globe increas­ing­ly law enforce­ment is using a tool called CompStat. Now CompStat when used prop­er­ly, used appro­pri­ate­ly, is a tool that allows you to track crime data, iden­ti­fy pat­terns, and then hold your­self account­able to pub­lic safe­ty goals. And it usu­al­ly works either by direct­ing resources or chang­ing behav­ior once folks show up. So if I’m using CompStat and I see mug­gings in this neigh­bor­hood, I deploy more patrols in this neigh­bor­hood. If I’m using CompStat and I find out that this com­mu­ni­ty is not giv­ing me tips any­more, they’re not talk­ing to us, I want to change how I’m talk­ing to that com­mu­ni­ty. And when you define racism in terms of mea­sur­able behav­iors, you can do the same thing. You can cre­ate a CompStat for jus­tice.

Now, to be fair jus­tice is kind of tricky to mea­sure. I can’t just count the num­ber of Asian folks who get pulled over and then com­pare that to the num­ber of Asian folks who live in a neigh­bor­hood. That’s called a cor­re­la­tion and I’m a sci­en­tist so…I’m kind of aller­gic to that.

But what we can do, we can col­lect let’s say police use of force data. And then I can inte­grate that with local data on pover­ty, and crime, and hous­ing inequal­i­ty, and employ­ment inequal­i­ty, and health out­comes, and edu­ca­tion­al out­comes. And then when we ana­lyze those data, we can cal­cu­late rough­ly the por­tion of racial dis­par­i­ties that might be able to be attrib­uted to things that police can’t be account­able for, they can’t con­trol. Like crime and pover­ty. And the por­tion of the racial dis­par­i­ties that police might be account­able for. Like their poli­cies and behav­iors. So if you want­ed to do bet­ter, at least you’d have a place to start.

Let me give you an exam­ple of how this might work. In fact how it did work. In Las Vegas, we were able to look at their data and help them to see that a dis­pro­por­tion­ate num­ber of their use of force inci­dents, they actu­al­ly fol­lowed from foot pur­suits. Now why would that be? Why would a foot pur­suit lead to a dis­pro­por­tion­ate num­ber of use of force inci­dents?

Well if I’m an offi­cer, if I’m chas­ing after some­body, I am con­vinced that they are a bad guy, right. Nobody runs from the law but the bad guys; at least that’s what offi­cers think. But I’m also run­ning in heavy gear and poly­ester (not a breath­able fab­ric). That means my heart rate is up. And I’m sweatin’ and my adren­a­line’s high. That means even if the sus­pect sur­ren­ders at the end and say, Please don’t hurt me,” they’re get­ting a shot to the kid­neys for the price of mak­ing me run.

And as soon as we gave that infor­ma­tion, just those analy­ses, back to the depart­ment and to the com­mu­ni­ty they said, We can train offi­cers bet­ter than this.” Like any mar­riage coun­selor, we can teach you to count to ten. Or don’t touch them until your back­up has shown up.

So the fol­low­ing year, across the board—not just in foot pur­suit, across the board, Las Vegas Metro reduced their use of force by 23%. And in the dozens of depart­ments where we’ve worked and we’ve employed these sim­i­lar sorts of strate­gies, we’ve had sim­i­lar­ly pos­i­tive out­comes. So whether it’s foot pur­suit in Las Vegas, or it’s immi­gra­tion enforce­ment in Salt Lake City and Houston, or it’s the home­less prob­lem in Minneapolis, or just low-level enforce­ment of low-level rules vio­la­tions in Baltimore, across our dozens of part­ners we’ve seen an aver­age of 25% few­er arrests, 26% few­er use of force inci­dents, and 13% few­er officer-related injuries. This is healthy for them as well.

Another way to put this is, if you give peo­ple a solv­able prob­lem, they’ll get busy try­ing to solve it. I mean, these are lit­er­al­ly detec­tives, right. They’re gonna try and solve a prob­lem you put in front of them, like any­body in any orga­ni­za­tion ever.

Just think about how this works on the flip side. How many indus­tries talk a good game about equi­ty, diver­si­ty and inclu­sion, and mea­sure noth­ing. I can’t tell you the num­ber of uni­ver­si­ties that’ve asked me to show up and look at their strate­gic diver­si­ty policy—which mod­el is usu­al­ly sit­ting right next to their cap­i­tal cam­paign, with all of its lead­ing met­rics, right, on fundrais­ing and suc­cess. But there’s their strate­gic diver­si­ty pol­i­cy, and it says We at Blank University are com­mit­ted to diver­si­ty!” And that is the end of the strate­gic pol­i­cy. No met­rics, no sen­ti­ment sur­vey, noth­ing, right. And I got­ta say, if that is how you think about doing diver­si­ty…you’re not help­ing.

And I got­ta say anoth­er way to think about this, I’ll let you in on a lit­tle secret. I have been black my entire life. I took like a week off in col­lege, but oth­er than that straight through. And I have nev­er felt the sweet relief of jus­tice because some­one told me they were com­mit­ted to feel­ing bet­ter about me.

Let me flip that around a lit­tle bit. That white woman whose lie cost Emmett Till his life, she’s still alive. And she recent­ly admit­ted to the lie, and talked about the change of heart she’d had. How awful she felt. How ter­ri­ble that was. No one could’ve deserved that.

And I ask you, does that change of heart make it bet­ter? Or is Emmett Till still dead? Because that’s the stark­ness of think­ing about racism as hearts and minds ver­sus behav­iors. So if we’re think­ing about reme­dies, we have to keep that in mind.

So I don’t know what reme­dies the peo­ple in this room, or the peo­ple who’re watch­ing this else­where care most about. Maybe it’s the stuff I do every day. Great. We’ll have a great con­ver­sa­tion going for­ward. Or maybe it’s the new hir­ing pol­i­cy that has fan­tas­tic prin­ci­ples but no met­rics attached to it. Or it’s the com­mu­ni­ty engage­ment ini­tia­tive that gives you fan­tas­tic sto­ries, but has no clear way of mea­sur­ing the ben­e­fit to the com­mu­ni­ty, or to the com­pa­ny for that mat­ter. Or it’s the mar­ket­ing strat­e­gy for the oppor­tu­ni­ty zone with real­ly thin KPIs. But the point that I think you’re pick­ing up on, if an orga­ni­za­tion, if any busi­ness, has­n’t fig­ured out how to mea­sure the ways it facil­i­tates racially-disparate impacts on the com­mu­ni­ties of touch­es, it is at both moral and finan­cial per­il, at risk. We already know this from envi­ron­men­tal impact. We know this for eco­nom­ic impact. But how many envi­ron­men­tal and eco­nom­ic impact plans actu­al­ly have met­rics built in look­ing at racial dis­par­i­ties? How much of what busi­ness­es are doing right now are designed to mea­sure what hap­pens to the most mar­gin­al­ized?

Now if the folks in this room know, fan­tas­tic. Please share. And if you don’t, the good news is that means there’s some con­crete things you can do as soon as you leave the room. And believe it or not, that’s why I actu­al­ly love my job. Why I think lots of peo­ple can love doing this work. Because every day, I get to wake up and try and solve a prob­lem that most of the world thinks is impos­si­ble.

It is also why I hate talk­ing about my job when oth­er peo­ple think that my job is about their char­ac­ter. When they imag­ine that the racism I’m work­ing to erad­i­cate every day reduces to what’s in their hearts and their minds and it’s my job to tell them whether or not they’re racists.

Another lit­tle secret: I don’t care. I don’t care about whether or not some­body’s racist. I don’t want to have that con­ver­sa­tion. That con­ver­sa­tion is awk­ward, but worse it’s frus­trat­ing. And it is use­less. I would much rather live in a world where our con­ver­sa­tions about racism, are con­ver­sa­tions about what we can do. How we can best mea­sure the prob­lems and deliv­er solu­tions to the com­mu­ni­ties that need them. Because solv­ing impos­si­ble prob­lems, for real is a growth indus­try. And it does­n’t need to be uncom­fort­able to talk about at all. Thank you guys for lis­ten­ing. And let’s have a con­ver­sa­tion.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.