Racism Packet: Part One
This entire document, either in whole or in part,  may NOT be copied, reproduced,
republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that
you may download one copy of it on any single computer for
your personal, non-commercial CLASSROOM use only, provided
you keep intact this copyright notice.
The copyright to this document is vested in those so indicated below.

Issues of Race and Racism: I

Article 2

Copyright (c) 1997 by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. http://chronicle.com
Date: July 25, 1997 Section: Opinion Page: A60
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Not for public circulation. For classroom use only.


   "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.

       ---------------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1997 by The Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com
Date: 09/19/97 Section: Opinion Page: B12

 

   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

 


END OF DOCUMENT