This is really good work. Clear and concise and well written.
If you find the rest of my comment unwelcome here, please delete it. I won't take it personally. Some writers want their space focused only on their work and I see nothing wrong with that.
I found it so difficult to discuss systemic racism with people, especially conservatives, I did some homework. Here is one of the tools I found that helps people get on the same page when talking about “systemic” racism. When the Critical Race Theory upset started, people I’d talked with about systemic racism knew exactly what it was. Guess people never read The People v Hall said my conservative friends.
The “Case Law Project” from Harvard University offers people a quick way to explore the slow journey of law. Links below.
Between 1854 and 2015 The People versus Hall has been cited in other court decisions 22 times. 11 times before the 1965 passage of the Civil Rights Act and 11 times after (including 4 times since 2000 alone).
The People versus Hall provides an example of blatant racism. Using the case law project tools, it takes two minutes to follow the glacially slow process required to overcome these racist laws. I warn people, it is difficult to read the language that Supreme Court Judges in the state of California entered into the record of history. Nonetheless, I suggest people read it.
The People versus Hall revolves around eyewitness testimony that resulted in Hall’s murder conviction. The defendant appealed his conviction on the basis that the eyewitness was Chinese. A couple excerpts offer insight into the judges thinking. I quote:
“The 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, provides that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action or proceeding in which a White person is a party.
The 14th section of the Act of April 16th, 1850, regulating Criminal Proceedings, provides that “No Black or Mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man.”
The true point at which we are anxious to arrive is, the legal signification of the words, “ Black, Mulatto, Indian and White person,” and whether the Legislature adopted them as generic terms, or intended to limit their application to specific types of the human species.”
The decision goes on to discuss race from Columbus in 1492 onward. Again, I strongly recommend people read it for themselves. The Supreme Court judges continue, writing:
“We are of the opinion that the words “white,” “negro,” “mullatto,” “Indian,” and “black person,” wherever they occur in our Constitution and laws, must be taken in their generic sense, and that, even admitting the Indian of this continent is not of the Mongolian type, that the words “black person,” in the 14th section, must be taken as contradistinguished from white, and necessarily excludes all races other than the Caucasian.
The same rule which would admit them to testify, would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls.
This is not a speculation which exists in the excited and over-heated imagination of the patriot and statesman, but it is an actual and present danger.”
Having established a clear precedent, the court overturns Hall’s conviction and a white murderer is set free.
Link to decision in The People v Hall
https://cite.case.law/cal/4/399/
Link to 22 cases citing The People v Hall between 1854 to 2015
