Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Most racist states
Executive summary
Multiple recent efforts try to rank “most racist” U.S. states by using different proxies — hate-crime reports, counts of organized hate groups, social-media scraping for slurs, and analyses of racially charged search terms — and they produce different state lists depending on method. For example, organizations using Twitter-slur counts have flagged West Virginia or parts of the rural Northeast and South as high on some lists [1] [2], while other data-driven rankings place states such as South Carolina in a higher category of concern [3]; the Southern Poverty Law Center shows hate groups are active in all 50 states but reports varying group counts by state [4].
1. What researchers actually measure — a map of proxies, not a single truth
There is no single objective metric for “most racist state”; reporters and researchers use imperfect proxies. WorldPopulationReview and other compilations cite methods including hate-crime reports, counts of hate groups, analysis of racist tweets, and Google-search patterns to estimate where racist sentiment is more visible [1] [2] [3]. Each proxy captures a different phenomenon — criminal incidents, organized groups, online speech, or private search behavior — so they point to related but not identical problems [1] [2].
2. Social-media and search-data studies: what they tell us and their limits
Analyses that scraped millions of tweets for racial slurs or examined Google search terms can reveal where racist language or interest is most concentrated online; one project using Twitter data identified West Virginia as especially high on racist tweets [1] [2], and another analysis of Google searches highlighted rural pockets of the Northeast and South [1]. These approaches capture visible online behavior but miss offline discrimination, underreporting in hate crimes, and demographic context — and they can be skewed by differences in internet use, population size, and sampling periods [1] [2].
3. Hate-crime statistics and organized hate groups: institutional indicators
Official hate-crime reports and hate-group tallies are frequently used in rankings. The Department of Justice publishes state-level hate-crime data that researchers reference [5]. The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a hate-map showing that hate groups exist in every state and gives state-by-state group counts; the SPLC reported thousands of hate and extremist groups nationwide and provides per-state breakdowns [4]. These indicators measure organized and criminal activity but depend on reporting practices, law-enforcement capacity, and definitional choices [5] [4].
4. Diverging lists reflect methodology and intent — beware aggregate “most racist” labels
Different outlets’ lists diverge because they combine or weight measures differently. Datapandas’ 2025 ranking put South Carolina in a higher concern category among southern states [3], while other lists order states differently using social-media metrics or composite scores [1] [2]. Some media summaries borrow one organization’s composite score (for example, WorldPopulationReview) and present it as definitive, but the underlying choices (what to count and how to weight items) shape the result [1] [3].
5. What these rankings miss and why context matters
Available sources do not mention several critical contextual factors in a single unifying dataset: local histories of segregation and exclusion, everyday discrimination in employment and housing, demographic composition, policing and prosecutorial practices that affect reporting rates, and remedial or reform efforts. Some measures (like “integration” scores highlighted for states such as Hawaii) look at socioeconomic gaps rather than slur counts, offering a different view of racial dynamics [6]. A comprehensive understanding requires combining institutional records, lived-experience research, and careful attention to how data are collected [6] [5].
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas in the sources
Data-driven projects that highlight online slurs or searches can sensationalize visible behavior and may implicitly frame internet expressions as equivalent to structural racism; commercial or click-driven sites compiling rankings may republish others’ lists without methodological critique [1] [2]. Advocacy organizations like the SPLC focus on organized extremism and public safety threats and emphasize the persistence of hate groups across states [4]. Academic or policy-focused indexes examine socioeconomic gaps or SDG progress for marginalized groups, which centers policy outcomes rather than speech [7].
7. Practical takeaway for readers asking “Which states are most racist?”
There is no single, uncontested answer in current reporting: different measures point to different states and regions — for instance, Twitter/search studies highlight rural Northeast and Southern pockets and name states like West Virginia in some lists [1] [2], while other rankings flag South Carolina or identify many Midwestern and Northeastern states as “above average” on certain scales [3]. To move beyond headlines, consult multiple sources (hate-crime data, SPLC hate-group maps, social-media studies, and socioeconomic integration indexes) and scrutinize the methods each source used [5] [4] [1] [3].