Single entities or individuals are much easier for people to take on and feel like they're achieveing than something systemic. It's important, but too often people miss the bigger picture. In a uhl class I took over the summer a couple of years ago, we discussed how it's often very very difficult for people to really conceptualize what a large amount of data means, and to apply that to how it affects individuals. The people being affected become nothing more than numbers. It is therefore easier to focus on Michael Brown or a single police department than it is to reckon with the prospect of millions upon millions of people facing discriminatory practices and policies. The individual like Michael Brown of course deserves attention and justice, but too often we let the isolated incident or the fact that not as many similar incidents go viral get in the way of seeing a wider pattern. I think it also has something to do with guilt. Tackling systems that harm people of color to an extent also means admitting that you yourself may be benefiting from those systems or admitting that you have privelege, which is not always an easy thing for everyone to do.

A lot of public schools have SROs or other type of law enforcement as well... I wonder if the schools in these areas tend to have white officers for that. I know that overpolicing in schools is a pretty major issue that likely makes these racial tensions worse

This has led to things like higher cancer rates in African Americans as well. It has dire health effects, not just economic ones. This is why "cancer alley" exists in the southern US.

goes back to our class discussions about how immigrants and other races are seen as "invaders," and othered to the point of dehumanization. I would not be surprised if the Irish, Chinese, Latino, and other immigrants throughout US history faced or continue to face similar rhetoric and similar issues of discriminatory zoning/housing.

This kind of thing can also have dire environmental and health consequences as well. Communities of color are more likely to be targeted for the location and development of oil wells, factories that generate pollutants that can harm air and water quality, and other environmental and health risks. Sometimes a project initially meant for a white community ends up getting pushed onto a community of color instead because the white population wants nothing to do with it (a recent example would be the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was originally going to pass near Bismarck. The population of Bismarck is over 80% white. The Army Core of Engineers deemed the pipeline too unsafe for Bismarck's drinking water, yet allowed the pipeline to endanger the water supply and sacred sites of the Standing Rock Sioux.

people of color in particular gettigng displaced by eminent domain or similar policies would be worth looking into. I know that the Auraria campus itself has something of a history with this, as the displaced Aurarians tended to be Hispanic or other people of color.

we've seen this today as well with white people calling the police on people of color in predominantly white/wealthy communities or approaching/treating them in an accusatory manner, even if that person of color is there to work (ie delivering a package to an address in a gated community)

I think it would be interesting to see what people consider to be "ghetto conditions," and how some people might try to justify or rationalize bad things that are happening in communities of those conditions because "oh the people are ghetto"