Article 2
"Aversive"
Racism and the Need for Affirmative Action
John Dovidio
It is clear that court decisions and other moves against affirmative action
in Texas and California have discouraged minority-group students from applying
and being admitted to college, particularly to professional schools. Certainly
we should re-examine preferential-treatment programs critically and carefully
to determine their benefits and harms. But we also need to ask whether,
as many critics of such programs suggest, the United States now can afford
to pursue a colorblind approach to equal opportunity.
Over the past three decades, nationwide surveys have documented significant
declines in whites' overt racism toward blacks, including expressions of
prejudice, negative stereotyping, and resistance to racial equality. Nevertheless,
substantial differences in the social, economic, and physical well-being
of blacks and whites persist; the gaps in their income levels and unemployment
rates are growing. Blacks continue to report greater distrust of government
and other people than do whites. In one survey, for example, only 16 per
cent of blacks, but 44 per cent of whites, felt that "most people can be
trusted." These data, and similar empirical evidence for other minority
groups, challenge the assumption that racial differences no longer are
a critical issue for our society.
My own research on whites' prejudice against blacks calls into question
whether racism has really declined as much as surveys indicate. Over the
past 20 years, I have conducted research with Samuel L. Gaertner, a professor
of psychology at the University of Delaware, that explores how overt racism
has evolved into more-subtle and perhaps more-insidious forms.
In contrast to traditional forms of prejudice, the emotional reaction of
what I call today's "aversive" racists to minorities is not one of overt
dislike or hostility, but rather one of anxiety or discomfort. As a consequence,
aversive racists attempt to avoid interracial interaction whenever possible.
And although they try not to behave in overtly negative ways toward blacks
(which would threaten their self-image as unbiased), they frequently express
their bias indirectly, by favoring whites rather than discriminating against
blacks and members of other minority groups.
For instance, an employer influenced by feelings of aversive racism might
subtly re-evaluate the most important qualifications for a job, depending
on the race of different applicants. If, say, a white applicant had broader
experience and a black applicant had more up-to-date training, the employer
would decide that experience was more important; if the white applicant
had more-recent training and the black more experience, the employer would
decide that experience was less important. Thus, the aversive racist would
find a way to hire the white applicant without admitting to himself or
herself that racial bias played a role in the choice.
Because aversive racists consciously endorse egalitarian values, they do
not show prejudice in situations in which discrimination would be obvious
to others or to themselves. However, aversive racists do discriminate,
usually unintentionally, when they can rationalize their actions in ways
that apparently have nothing to do with race. Thus, as in the example I
cited above, they will justify favoring one person on the basis of some
factor other than race -- for example, a particular educational background
-- or they will say the criteria involved are ambiguous, allowing them
to favor a white person with, perhaps, better grades over a black person
with better recommendations.
Another way in which aversive racists often unconsciously discriminate
is by providing special favors or support -- such as mentoring or special
opportunities for promotions -- to people with backgrounds similar to their
own. This allows them to avoid thinking of the actions in racial terms.
Whites are most likely to manifest aversive racism by failing to help blacks
or other members of minority groups, without any overt intention to cause
them harm. In one study, for example, Samuel Gaertner and I found that
when whites thought they were witnessing an emergency, they were just as
likely to help a black victim as a white victim -- if the whites believed
that they were the only witnesses and that their personal responsibility
was clear. But if whites believed that there were other witnesses to the
emergency, and they could justify not helping by believing that someone
else would intervene, only half as many of them helped a black victim as
helped a white victim. The presence of other witnesses gave aversive racists
the chance to justify not helping black victims without invoking race:
They could let someone else help the blacks.
The subtlety and unintentionality of aversive racism can contribute to
distrust and tension among racial and ethnic groups. Because aversive racists
are unaware of their own prejudice and discriminate only when they can
justify their behavior on grounds other than race, they tend to underestimate
the continuing impact of race. They certainly dismiss racism as a motive
for their own behavior, and they think blacks or members of other minority
groups see prejudice where it doesn't really exist. Members of minority
groups, in contrast, see aversive racists denying their own bias and yet
sometimes acting in a biased fashion. As a result, it is not surprising
that members of minority groups suspect that prejudice exists everywhere.
Critics of affirmative action frequently argue that "reverse discrimination"
-- in which members of minority groups are favored over whites who are
equally or even more qualified -- is now a greater problem than racism.
Empirical research, including some of my own work, demonstrates that reverse
discrimination does occur. However, it occurs primarily when the bias carries
few personal consequences for the individual favoring minority groups.
In more personally significant situations, discrimination against minority
groups is still more likely to occur. For instance, we have found that
white students favored the admission of qualified black students to colleges
as a general principle, but were biased against qualified black applicants
who sought admission to their own college or university.
Approaches to dealing with traditional, overt racism -- such as passing
laws that require desegregation -- generally are not effective in combating
the aversive racism that we see today. Simply providing colorblind equal
opportunity is not enough, because aversive racists are not colorblind.
A growing body of research demonstrates that, upon meeting black people,
whites immediately think first about the individuals' race rather than
about other characteristics, such as sex, age, or socio-economic status.
Thus, any negative stereotypes and attitudes that whites have about blacks
are automatically activated. My colleagues and I recently have found that
when whites see a black person, they experience negative thoughts and feelings
even if the whites report -- and often truly believe -- that they are not
racially prejudiced.
Three key elements of affirmative-action programs make them more effective
against aversive racism than equal-opportunity policies are. First, affirmative-action
programs are designed to assemble, in a self-conscious way that can counteract
the effects of subtle bias, a diverse pool of fully qualified candidates
for admission to educational programs or for employment or promotion.
Second, affirmative-action programs produce statistics that allow organizations
to gauge their progress toward diversity. Systematic monitoring of racial
disparities -- for instance, in student or faculty attrition, or in the
number of employees promoted above a certain level -- can reveal the cumulative
effects of aversive racism that might go unnoticed, even by the victims,
on a case-by-case basis.
Third, affirmative-action programs focus on outcomes, not intentions. Demonstrating
intent to discriminate is difficult in cases of aversive racism, where
bias typically is not intended.
It is important for us to understand that although aversive racism may
be unconscious, unintentional, and subtle, it is neither inevitable nor
immutable. Significant changes can occur in individuals and society. Expressed
racial attitudes have changed dramatically since Congress enacted civil-rights
legislation 30 years ago. The personal, social, and economic well-being
of blacks, women, and other traditionally disadvantaged groups has improved
since the advent of affirmative action.
We should not delude ourselves, however, into thinking that equality has
been achieved, that equity is now guaranteed, or that our society is beyond
bias -- regardless of court rulings and other actions hostile to affirmative
action. Racism is not a problem that will go away on its own if we ignore
it, as more than 200 years of history prove. Proponents of affirmative
action must work aggressively to find ways to get scholars' research data
before the courts, because it is clear that we still need to combat racism
actively and self-consciously. Good intentions alone are not sufficient
to guarantee equality. Affirmative action is not a perfect solution, but
it is still needed.
John Dovidio is professor of psychology at Colgate University.
---------------------------------------------------
LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR
The Persistence
of Racism
To the Editor:
John Dovidio's "'Aversive' Racism and the Need for Affirmative Action"
(Point of View, July 25) is the best piece of reporting I have ever read.
I can only hope that the members of my congressional delegation will read
the copies I plan to send to them. John Dovidio joins John Howard Griffin
(author of Black Like Me) as one of America's premier researchers on the
socio-psychology of racism. He is surely right in saying that Congress
should get more researchers before their committees as they ponder the
proper course to take in this matter.
The Chronicle's piece echoes a similar analysis in Change by Samuel Myers,
which documents what Myers labels as "new age racism." Myers's observations
of the quiet, subtle, yet vicious, behavior of some faculty members on
elite campuses mirror much of what Dovidio reveals in his research.
It is unrealistic to hope that 30 years of progress have been enough to
eliminate the emotional underpinnings of racism among white people, polls
notwithstanding. Witness the huge majority of Virginians who said in polls
that they planned to vote for L. Douglas Wilder for Governor of Virginia.
Yet Wilder barely won. Or the joyful multiracial advertising campaigns
of Texaco and the scurrilous reality of racism in that corporate culture.
I don't know when we can eliminate mandates prohibiting discrimination
and mandates specifying indications of progress in equal opportunity. One
day, we must hope. Not now, however.
William
F. Brazziel
Professor Emeritus of Higher Education
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Conn.
--------------------------------------------------
To the Editor:
John Dovidio's argument for continued affirmative action is completely
undermined by the illogic of his "aversive racism" thesis. If whites are
guilty of being "aversive racists" by "avoid[ing] interracial interaction
whenever possible," it follows that blacks and other minorities who display
the same sort of clannish behavior on college campuses are, according to
Dovidio's definition, also "aversive racists." Is a black or Asian student
an "aversive racist" when his behavior toward whites "is not one of overt
dislike or hostility, but rather one of anxiety or discomfort"? Are blacks
and other minorities "aversive racists" when they provide "special favors
or support -- such as mentoring or special opportunities for promotions
-- to people with backgrounds similar to their own"? I am sick to death
of psychobabblers like Mr. Dovidio who, lacking evidence of real racism
and discrimination to support their arguments for continued affirmative
action, rely instead on spurious claims of hidden, subconscious instances
of white perfidy.
Lastly, Mr. Dovidio seems to endorse the view held by some radical minority
activists that "people of color" cannot be racists, since they are not
part of the power structure of the country.
Tom
Gordon
Director Monroe College
Library
Monroe College at
New Rochelle New Rochelle, N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
To the Editor:
John Dovidio's Point of View covers much territory. What he says about
aversive racism and affirmative action is timely. Too bad that he and others
like him were not appointed to the President's commission on race.
It has long been my view that racism, aversive or otherwise, will not begin
to decline in the United States until the concept of biological race is
debunked throughout the social sciences, especially in psychology, as it
has been in genetics and anthropology. Then American society in general
may begin to evolve away from racism, as have most developed societies.
Like a venomous chameleon, race has many meanings through which to perpetuate
itself, as can be seen in Dovidio's essay. ...
Biological race should not be confused with social class, ethnicity, origin,
I.Q., behavioral characteristics and potentials, etc. As the American Anthropological
Association and Unesco have long stated, biological race is a pseudoscientific,
meaningless idea. Unfortunately, a similar stand has not been taken by
the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological Association.
Since Dr. Dovidio is an A.P.A. member, as am I, perhaps he will help to
demolish racism at its source: the notion that "race" determines and differentiates
human behavior and leads to aversive racism, etc.
Albert
H. Yee
Missoula, Mont.
------------------------------------------------
To the Editor:
I read John Dovidio's article with great interest, and I agree with his
views. His comments, supported by empirical research, ring ever so true
in expressing the opinions of supporters of affirmative action. It is crystal
clear to me that the media and conservative entities, including politicians,
purposefully utilize buzz words that have negative connotations (e.g.,
"quotas") to inflame the emotions of the uninformed. In doing so, the true
meaning of affirmative action is skewed, thereby creating hostile feelings
manifested in consciously and unconsciously racist behaviors and actions.
Affirmative action should not be interpreted as negative; it is not a handout.
Since the Hopwood decision in Texas, we have seen an 80-per-cent decline
in the number of African Americans accepted to the University of Texas
Law School. America, this is not something to be proud of! It is, in fact,
a travesty and speaks volumes to the need for affirmative action to promote
equal access and opportunity. All things considered, no one, informed or
uninformed, should dispute the fact that the playing field is, indeed,
warped.
The lack of affirmative action denies opportunity to minorities. It also
creates a window of opportunity for overt racists to hide under the dark,
ever-expanding cloak of "aversive" racism. Historically proven, the policy
has been instrumental in facilitating opportunities and insuring that overt
and covert racists are held accountable for their actions. The lack of
this mandate, and subsequent accountability and assessment measures, makes
it nearly impossible to gauge intentions and, of course, determine appropriate
retribution for racist behavior.
A "colorblind" approach to equal opportunity is ludicrous and obviously
not the best solution, particularly when minorities are the only ones who
"see" and feel the impact of such a policy. Race, as Cornel West has so
eloquently documented, does indeed matter! Affirmative action is definitely
needed.
Christina
Abby
Student Advisor
Cuyahoga Community College
Cleveland