Heroin Vs. Crack: Why Inequity Kills

A few days ago, I saw a commercial for a TV show that purported to explain how the crack epidemic began. My husband and I gave each other the side eye because we knew that television show was about to erroneously blame Blacks for an epidemic that devastated the African American community. While there are conspiracy theories for virtually everything, the intelligent folks will ask: how did those drugs get into the Black community? The same African American community that did not own boats, planes or other sophisticated tools to transport large quantities of drugs from one country to another in the 1980's and 90's.

The U.S. government solution to the drug epidemic was to pass strict laws and create cute cliche's such as: 'This is your brain on drugs' and 'Just say NO.' I would like to think that Black families and community-based organizations played a role in reversing the fortunes of African American youth. After all, "the system" (e.g., lack of employment, political corruption, unequal education, aggressive policing, and inadequate health care) was designed to ensure that Blacks failed to combat the issue.

Although the crack epidemic has somewhat subsided, the effects lingered. Black men and women are disproportionately suspected of drug activity, and receive harsher sentencing-- even as their White counterparts receive lenient sentences and second chances. The HIV/AIDS population increased dramatically. Gang and gun violence have become rites of passage. And in some predominately Black areas, schools and stores resemble jails.

The impact on the wealth gap, housing, education and even the population, has been troubling to say the least. The Hispanic population at one time mirrored the size of the African American community, but the U.S. Latino population has grown significantly due to a natural increase in births. Meanwhile the previously fast-growing Black population leveled off. Could systemic racism, entangled with the drug epidemic, be the reason why some segments of the Black population did not flourish?

As we watch the Heroin and Opioid epidemic destroy young and old White lives, one has to ask: "Could this epidemic have been prevented if proper actions were taken 30 years ago?" Instead of treating Black folks like criminals, the system could have been designed to: (1) address the root causes for addiction; (2) identify lessons learned from the past; (3) ensure that there were substantive prevention efforts (besides slogans); and (4) provide better treatment options.

This topic is important because no one cared when Black families were impacted by drugs. But today, everyone cares about drugs because it's in their own backyard. Suburban and rural police and fire departments are administering Narcan to reverse the effects of an overdose. Several police departments have invited addicts to the station-- without fear of arrest, just "in case you overdo it". Some states have started a needle exchange program because the prevalence of HIV/AIDS has increased so significantly. And some government agencies are being urged to classify drug abuse as a "mental health disorder".

The word equity, and the implementation thereof, could have prevented a lot of heartache pertaining to the current drug epidemic. Accordingly, the "populist" movement which was motivated by all of the people who were left behind by globalization, again, witnessed immigrant and minority populations worldwide experience economic disenfranchisement for years. When minorities were 'left behind", it was their fault-- they are lazy, don't want to work, and always seek a handout. Now, we ought to feel bad about the impacts of globalization and hence jeopardize the social and economic growth of the entire nation so that we can (code word) "put America first".

We're not talking about spreading the wealth, socialism or welfare. Equity means "fairness or impartiality; giving as much advantage to one party as to another." Equity does not imply equality, which is giving every one "the same", but it does signify that challenges and constraints will be fairly divided or, in this case, solved. On one hand, we claim that we are a meritocratic society, but on the other hand, we want the burdens to only be carried by certain people. I'll use credit for example.

According to a ProPublica article entitled, Housing Enforcement Group Sues M&T Bank for Discrimination, "In nine separate interactions recorded either with a camera or an audio device, employees at M&T Bank's New York City loan office can be seen or heard treating the white applicants differently than the others, according to a lawsuit. In one instance, a black candidate was told she did not have enough savings to buy a home. A white applicant with slightly lower income and credit scores and $9,000 less in savings was pre-approved for a loan. In another case, a Latina candidate was told she would qualify for a mortgage $125,000 less than the test's white candidate with lower income, poorer credit and less cash." M&T Bank is not alone. This is one example of many over the last 15 years where lenders treated customers differently because of their race. I read one article that described the industry practice of providing Blacks, Hispanics and Asians higher interest loans to subsidize the lower interest loans that Whites received. In fact, discriminatory lending practices factored into the 2008 financial crisis that impacted everyone-- not just people of color. Yet, denial causes some folks to blame those pesky government programs that support homeownership for (code word) "unqualified" folks.

Inequity is not a good business practice because it eventually results in loss. Whether a multi-million dollar lawsuit, lost market share, lost talent, or negative branding, it catches up eventually. Mississippi is a state in the South that is known for discrimination and inequity. As a result, the people who could move did, leaving the rest behind. Is it any surprise then, that Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the union? I use these examples to demonstrate the detrimental impact of inequity in a nation that pledges liberty and justice (i.e., fairness) for all. This means that we have to be intentional and aggressive in eliminating unfair practices and policies. So long as inequity is "allowed" in community policing, education, the workplace (e.g., hiring, compensation, promotions, terminations, etc.) and the marketplace, it will always have a negative effect on everyone-- whether it is today or 30 years later.

One of the solutions is to stop blaming "diversity" and start empowering leaders to drive long-term sustainability through equity and inclusion for all. These leaders must be engaged in strategy formulation and empowered to facilitate culture change and key partnerships in order for organizations and communities to experience meaningful outcomes. Finally, we must eliminate the fear, blame and shame associated with discussing inequities. Participating in "straight talk" will allow us to honestly discuss the historical context, formulate remedies for the present, and proactively create interventions that will be effective in the future.

~~~~~~~~~~

Leah Smiley, CDE, is the President of the Society for Diversity, which advocates for skilled diversity and inclusion strategists at all types of organizations. For more information about the Society for Diversity or its diversity certification programs, log onto: www.societyfordiversity.org.