What do you mean by, 'it's too vague to confer any kind of understanding'
An example of putting forth a concrete, actionable model and proposing a solution might be (and note that this is only an example):
* jurors are more likely to convict a black defendant than a white defendant
* we believe that jurors see racial disparities in crime committance and project them onto defendants
* to combat this, we might try promoting cultural integration to reduce the racial disparities in crime committance as well as advocating for colorblind antiracism so jurors are less likely to see a defendant as a token of his race
The important thing is that the example (1) puts forth a testable model for how the system works and (2) proposes solutions based on that model. You may find yourself disagreeing with our hypothetical model, and that's fine. Note that you can even debate it because it's testable (you can probably conceive of data which rebut it). This is in contrast to esoteric debates about systemic racism, which seem more religious in nature than useful for combatting unjust disparities.
But if you know that black people are more likely convicted than a white person(they also get longer sentences for the same crimes), then why are you asking as if you don't know. Overall, you've ended up raising more questions than answering...
I don't know how to parse this. What are you trying to communicate here?
> This is why I point you to research books or articles.
I'm pretty widely-read on this subject, and yet there is no indication that this is converging on something useful.
> Or even follow actual politicians on what work they are doing
If the literature isn't forthright, why would a politician be different? Who are the honest, forthright politicians to whom I should be listening?
> But if you know that black people are more likely convicted than a white person(they also get longer sentences for the same crimes), then why are you asking as if you don't know.
I'm not asking whether black people are more likely to be convicted or not, I'm asking what utility there is in framing the problem with esoterics.
> Overall, you've ended up raising more questions than answering...
Right, I'm asking a question, and explicitly not positing any answers, so of course I'm raising more questions than answers.