Vol. 8 No. 6 (June 1998) pp. 268-269.

THE COLOR OF CRIME: RACIAL HOAXES, WHITE FEAR, BLACK PROTECTIONISM, POLICE HARASSMENT, AND OTHER MACROAGGRESSIONS by Katheryn K. Russell. New York: New York University Press, 1997. 203 pp. Hardcover $24.95. ISBN 0-8147-7471-7.

Reviewed by Randy Glean, Department of Political Science, Midwestern State University, Texas.

Katheryn Russell is another in a long list of academics, social commentators, journalists and political reformers to attempt an overall assessment of race relations in America. Like her predecessors, she manages to evoke some provocative thoughts, dispel some hard core myths, challenge some flawed paradigms, educate some of the uninformed, and increase the understanding of the problem. However, like her predecessors, she too, does not propose credible solutions.

THE COLOR OF CRIME examines the flaws of a diverse society where two particular race, black and white, live the same events but view the outcomes, processes, and impacts through completely different prisms. The manner in which the races interact but fail to intersect on racially sensitive issues form the core of Russell's evaluation which is presented through a series of interesting case studies, focus groups, descriptive statistics, and critique of existing literature and scholarly thought.

In her account, Russell makes an attempt to be objective, though her perspective as a concerned black scholar is undeniably visible. Representing the annoyance of a group of young, successful, black males with the status quo, she takes particular care to also capture their own fears of other young black males along with their frustration at being stereotyped by whites. Similarly, in presenting a litany of crime victim hoaxes perpetrated by whites on blacks, she notes that blacks too, have victimized other blacks and whites with similar hoaxes.

Russell, however, does not for too long fool with the notion that there are two races simply representing different perspectives. She delves into history to support her argument that today's racial faux pas is a time-adjusted euphemism of yesterday's overt racism. She equates the Charles Stewart and Susan Smith hoaxes, in which they claimed to be victims of black perpetrators only to have the police inconvenience large number of blacks as possible suspects, with the Rosewood incident and the Scottsboro Boys case of earlier this century. Though the white reactions were less extreme in the modern day claims, Russell nonetheless supports her continuity argument.

The media's portrayal of black crime affects white perceptions of blacks. Russell emphasizes that point repeatedly. Looking at the O. J. Simpson case in comparison with the Rodney King trial, she notes that one verdict outraged whites when a black man was acquitted but not as much when two white policemen were acquitted. She shows that though whites believed the policemen to be guilty, their acquittal did not garner the same outrage. Accordingly, she examines the criminal behavior of whites as portrayed by the media. Why is there no reference to "white crime" or "white on white" crime? In both instances, Russell point out that the media's shaping of crimes either specific or general contributes to the white response and backlash.

Further, she examines existing thought on white racism in conjunction with black crime. Specifically, she offers a critique of James Q. Wilson's thesis that white racism is a direct response to the fear of black crime. Wilson posits that white racism will decrease as black crime decreases because white racism is essentially a rational response to black crime. Russell disagrees. She points out the simplicity of Wilson's one causal variable noting that cultural, economic and other competitive phenomena cannot be excluded as explanation for white racism.

Russell makes little attempt to hide her perspective in her analysis. While she highlights a few examples of black insensitivity and irrationality, her primary objective was clearly to highlight the disparities created by the dominant culture's representation of issues using biased indicators. Additionally, she shows her outrage about the structural biases that further erode black progress. She analyses the oft-noted disparity in sentences for crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Blacks, much more likely to use and distribute the former face up to ten times the legal jeopardy compared to their white counterparts who delve in the latter.

THE COLOR OF CRIME is informative, provocative, and innovative. It does not offer
any deep scholarly analysis of any of the subjects examined critically. Still, it would be interesting reading for whites who have not had much social interaction with blacks to gain some insights into the topics discussed often by black intellectuals. In that circle, I have discussed most of what was included in this book, examined the same cases, referred to the same historical examples, and could have anticipated the concerns of all of the men in the focus groups. In effect, Russell has combined many of the enduring concerns and recent events that have created outrage and anger and fueled the recent resurgence of the race debate into one volume. The innovation comes with linking all these social issues to crime as the central theme, thereby structuring the debate into a more manageable dimension.

Finally, while there are neither broad theoretical assertions nor revealing empirical findings in this book, it is nonetheless more than just descriptive venting. If these observed disparities and attitudes are indeed shaped by misrepresented media coverage, structural flaws in our system, demonizing citizens based on flawed assumptions, and various hoaxes, as Russell suggests, then addressing those problem would be a step forward. In that regard, THE COLOR OF CRIME, may succeed in what appears to be its goal: making us start to discuss the problems with the problem of race relations.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________