News Organizations Signal a Public Debate About What Is And Is Not Racism

Introduction

The media plays an essential role in shaping public opinion on complex social issues. This is why it is critical that journalists are equipped to cover topics of race effectively. The Associated Press signaled the seriousness of public discourse on racism when updating its stylistic guidelines in 2019: “Do not use racially charged or similar terms as euphemisms for racist or racism when the latter terms are truly applicable.” However, neither scholars nor the public have reached consensus on a fundamental definition of racism, and the boundaries around this term have long been debated. Scholar Gavan Titley calls this “the debatability of racism,” or constant deliberation about “what counts as racism and who gets to define it.”  

In this study, Dr. Danielle K. Kilgo explores how media coverage contributes to the perceived subjectivity around racism and how social media interactions can contribute to the dominance of particular narratives over others. By analyzing the Facebook posts of six major U.S. broadcast and newspaper organizations over a three-year period, Dr. Kilgo argues that debatability is triggered in journalism by at least three key presentations: 

• First, subjectivity cues—like embedding topics of racism in opinion pieces or external attributions, prefacing racism with the term alleged, and placing quotes around “racist” or “racism”—signal debatability and allow the author to avoid making any definitive judgement. 
• Second, journalistic descriptions of denial narratives (“I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world”) and reverse racism (describing people of color as aggressors against white people) reinforce the popular perception of racism’s moving boundaries. 
• Third, confining discussion of racism to historic contexts —particularly to historical acts of physical violence—fuels the modern debatability of racism.

Dr. Kilgo is the John & Elizabeth Bates Cowles Professor of Journalism, Diversity and Equality in the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Her research has focused on subjects such as media coverage of social justice issues and protests, social media behavioral effects, and the intricacies of news media presence in social media networks. 

Methods and Findings

To identify how news coverage shared to social media contributes to the debatability of racism, Dr. Kilgo analyzed posts from the Facebook pages of 3 of the most circulated newspapers in the U.S. (The New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal) and 3 broadcast news organizations (ABC, NBC, CBS). The posts were collected in 2017, 2018, and 2019 using the search terms racist and racism. There were 1,644 posts in the final sample; 42.1% of posts were from newspapers, and 57.9% of posts were from broadcast media. The unit of analysis was each individual post, and social media engagement was measured by the total number of interactions.

Dr. Kilgo used a machine learning model as a guide to categorize and code the data, then trained two undergraduate coders to finalize the data. In addition to identifying linguistic and stylistic choices that signaled subjectivity cues and denial discourse, the coders also identified if the post was related to 10 contextual topics (white privilege, white supremacy, blackface, anti-Black racism, anti-immigration racism, antisemitism, foreign countries, historical contexts, racism’s intersections with sexism, and incidents at universities or schools) and 4 actor-oriented topics (Donald Trump’s direct affiliation with racism, other elected political figures, military/police, and celebrities).  

The major findings were:

• When influential people talk about racism, it gets covered. In nearly half the coverage, racism was mentioned through external attribution—particularly by politicians and celebrities. Trump was central to this discussion, appearing in roughly a quarter of coverage. When coverage of racism included Trump, journalists were more likely to cover it, coverage was more likely to depict racism as debatable, and social media audiences were more likely to interact with it. When Trump or other politicians were involved, coverage was least likely to address racism directly, and several subjective cues were more likely to appear.

• In 2019, coverage amplified denials of racism more than racism itself. Racism denial was mostly committed by politicians and celebrities attempting image repair by downplaying the immediacy of racism, thereby contributing to perceived debatability. This emphasis on denials might be a result of media norms obligating coverage of “both sides” of controversial events, ultimately legitimizing false equivalencies and narratives.

• Direct mentions of racism were most likely to appear in historical contexts. Historical discussions of blackface incidents increased the odds that coverage would directly mention racism. This suggests that news coverage on Facebook reinforces the idea that blackface is historically bounded and that racism is primarily a historic, rather than contemporary, phenomenon.

• Discourse about the structures underlying racism—white privilege and white supremacy—infrequently made headlines. The link between white privilege and racism appeared infrequently in posts, accounting for only 2.5% of mentions, and was much more likely to appear in opinion pieces. Minimal narratives in the media about white supremacy, white privilege, and their connection to racism contribute to the ongoing invisibility of whiteness and its effects on society. 

Conclusions

The Associated Press style guide changes of 2019 did not seem to generate major changes in journalistic practice. This study “suggests that history counts as racism, and sources, especially politicians, get to define (or blur) its meaning.” For news organizations and journalists, this research suggests the need for industry-wide examination and development of standards about reporting on racism and racists. 

To expand the generalizability of this study’s findings, future studies may explore coverage from a broader variety of news organizations. In particular, research on partisan media and news organizations with alternative ideological positions may advance our understanding of how the debatability of racism is furthered along political lines. Further research on social media platforms beyond Facebook would also support a more comprehensive understanding of news audience engagement and news distribution on social media.

Intersectional Research on Workplace Sexual Harassment of Black Queer Women Is Needed

Introduction

The #MeToo movement has sparked a global conversation about sexual harassment, giving researchers a rare opportunity to advance scholarship on a topic of wide public interest. However, most sexual harassment research describes a narrow group of people: white, cisgender, and heterosexual women. The dearth of literature on sexual harassment experienced by Black women, and Black women with additional marginalized identities, deeply limits our understanding of the ways in which sexual harassment may differ across identities. One group whose experiences have been particularly overlooked are Black queer women, who hold identities that are marginalized on three fronts (gender, race, and sexual orientation). This research oversight is unacceptable, considering that Black women with varying intersecting identities have been at the forefront of calls for social change. 

Evidence shows that workplace sexual harassment is pervasive. Studies have found that, on average, up to 58% of women, 31% of men, and 50% of transgender and gender-nonconforming employees are harassed at work (Aggarwal & Gupta, 2000; Ilies et al., 2003; James et al., 2016). Workplace sexual harassment can have severe consequences, including negative professional, physical health, and mental health outcomes. The limited existing data reveal that Black women report higher rates of sexual harassment compared to white women, and queer women report higher rates compared to straight women. However, little to no psychological research has studied how experiences of workplace sexual harassment uniquely manifest for Black queer women, or what the implications of these negative experiences may be. 

In this article, six researchers from the University of Michigan and University of North Texas apply an intersectional lens to psychological research on workplace sexual harassment. Intersectionality theory states that, in order to understand an individual’s experience, we must consider each of their identities. This theory also emphasizes the importance of power: even within marginalized groups, social hierarchies persist and render some experiences visible and others invisible. The authors detail how an intersectional framing may be used to advance our understanding of workplace sexual harassment encountered by Black queer women, and they make recommendations for how scholars can incorporate an intersectional lens into future research and advocacy. While the authors focus on Black queer women in the workplace, more broad application of intersectionality theory will benefit many other groups. 

Methods and Findings

Although scholars are increasingly applying an intersectional lens when studying experiences of workplace sexual harassment, many analyses do not encompass the experiences of Black queer women. In this study, the authors apply the theory of “selective incivility” to advance understanding of workplace sexual harassment experienced by Black queer women. Selective incivility refers to subtle or rude behavior targeted towards racial and gender minorities in the workplace, such as interrupting, excluding, or ignoring an employee. This theory argues that racial and gender discrimination in the workplace is often masked as incivility, since it is no longer socially acceptable to be overtly racist or sexist. Sexual harassment is one manifestation of selective incivility. To the authors’ knowledge, no research has yet examined how Black queer women experience selective incivility.

The authors offer several key findings:

• Black queer women may experience a unique form of sexual harassment on the basis of their race, gender nonconformity, and sexual orientation. Black women report a unique form of racialized sexual harassment that is not captured by a gender-only framework. This involves demeaning and/or offensive conduct that cannot be separated as either gender-based harassment or race-based harassment. A similar issue arises for queer women, who experience unique stereotypes. Studies suggest that sexual harassment experienced by queer women is simultaneously shaped by their gender and sexual orientation. 
• Being a Black queer woman may lead to “triple jeopardy,” some protective qualities, or both. Studies have found that Black women, who are marginalized on the basis of both gender and race, are particularly susceptible to selective incivility and may receive a “double dose” of discrimination. Black queer women may therefore have a “triple dose” of discrimination and experience further workplace exclusion as a result. On the other hand, Black queer women may be perceived as masculine in the workplace, which may provide partial protection from some forms of discrimination, but their queer identity may make them more susceptible to other forms. 
• The invisibility Black queer women experience likely has consequences. Black queer women are largely ignored by researchers and likely subjected to higher rates of sexual harassment than estimated. In addition, Black queer women may experience different rates of incivility in the workplace than other minorities or nonqueer Black women. Studies have found that consequences of experiencing selective incivility include psychological distress, lower job satisfaction, and greater intention to leave the job. Black queer women may also be at a unique legal disadvantage, as women of color are half as likely to win discrimination cases compared to any other demographic group, and lawsuits focusing on discrimination on the basis of both race and gender are not recognized in court.

Conclusions

The researchers conclude with a call to action and recommendations for ways that scholars may incorporate an intersectional framework into future research and advocacy. They underscore the urgent need for future research to do justice to the workplace sexual harassment experiences of Black queer women. 

Scholars engaging in this work must unpack whether queer Black women experience partial protective qualities, a “triple dose” of discrimination, or both. Further research must assess whether and how often Black queer women experience incivility at work, how this compares to overt discrimination they may experience, and which consequences arise from experiencing the combination of both. Both sexual harassment research and selective incivility research must apply an intersectional lens to understand the unique forms of sexual harassment — and barriers to justice — encountered by Black queer women. This lens may help us better understand the experiences of other marginalized people. For example, research about how LGBTQ stereotypes affect Black queer women may help us understand how Black queer men may be treated in a similar context. 

Scholarship with an intersectional lens has great potential to inform interventions and policies that will uplift Black queer women and promote systemic social change. In particular, psychological research can illuminate the underlying factors that make sexual harassment so pervasive and pinpoint the best sites for intervention for bystanders, perpetrators, and individuals targeted by sexual harassment. For researchers interested in applying an intersectional approach, the authors suggest (1) identifying which systems of power are present, (2) assessing which identities are present and how the context may interact with these identities, (3) determining how systems of power render certain identities invisible or visible, and (4) applying an intersectional lens responsibly by challenging how intersecting systems of oppression affect Black queer women and their ability to thrive in the workplace. 

Implicit Bias: A Review of the Research

Introduction

Often, our intentions conflict with how we behave. These gaps between our intentions and actions can influence many social issues, including discrimination. For example, an organization may espouse racial equity but hire a white candidate over an equally qualified candidate of color. In response to disparities caused by unintentionally biased behavior, some researchers have suggested a solution: change automatic mental processes, then behavior influenced by those processes will change. Researchers have been particularly interested in “implicit measures” and “explicit measures.” Implicit measures are often associated with automatic processes, whereas explicit measures are often associated with deliberate processes. For example, an implicit measure refers to how long it takes someone to classify the words “good” or “bad” when preceded by the word “flower,” while an explicit measure refers to how someone rates flowers on a scale of good to bad.

In this study, Forscher et al. synthesized hundreds of studies to investigate how effective different approaches were in changing implicit measures. Their analysis was driven by six central questions, including: which approaches to changing implicit measures are most influential, and how do changes in implicit measures correspond with changes in behavior? In the first large-scale quantitative analysis of research on change in implicit measures, Forscher et al. found that implicit measures can be changed, but the type of approach used to change implicit measures mattered greatly. They also found little evidence that changes in implicit measures translated into changes in explicit measures and behavior. 

Seven researchers contributed to this publication, and Patrick S. Forscher and Calvin K. Lai are joint first authors. Dr. Forscher is a Research Scientist at Université Grenoble Alpes, and Dr. Lai is an Assistant Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and chairs the Scientific Advisory Committee at Project Implicit. The study’s other authors—Jordan R. Axt, Charles R. Ebersole, Michelle Herman, Patricia G. Devine, and Brian A. Nosek—have extensive experience conducting and coordinating research on implicit bias and implicit social cognition.

Methods and Findings

To compare many different procedures that aim to influence implicit measures, the researchers imported a technique from the medical sciences called multivariate network meta-analysis. Since meta-analysis requires careful consideration of which studies are relevant to the research question, the researchers set a number of inclusion criteria. For example, the researchers excluded studies that were not written in English, and experimental procedures had to fit into a single procedure category to be included. Researchers created procedure categories iteratively to capture the breadth of approaches in the literature. The researchers also focused on randomized studies, which gave them an opportunity to go beyond correlational evidence and examine whether procedures that attempt to change implicit measures also produce change in explicit measures. Their final sample represented 87,419 participants and included 492 studies. More than half of the articles under study were published in 2011 or later, one-third were published from 2006-2010, and the remaining articles were published between 1995-2005. 

The main findings were:

• Implicit measures can be changed, but the effects are often relatively weak. 
• Approaches that changed implicit measures the most were those that invoked goals or motivations (such as the goal to weaken bias), associated sets of concepts (such as strengthening or weakening associations), or taxed mental resources (such as completing mentally effortful tasks during the implicit task). 
• Approaches that changed implicit measures the least were those that induced threat (such as threatening to put one’s integrity at risk), affirmation (such as giving feedback that a participant is moral or unbiased), or specific moods/emotions (such as anger or disgust). 
• Evidence from bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to their true population values. 

• Generally, the approaches under study produced trivial changes in behavior. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a smaller degree than implicit measures. 
• Changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior. 

Conclusions

The researchers described limitations in the studies’ generalizability. For example, most studies were conducted with samples whose demographic traits (students, mostly white and female) strongly resemble the make-up of American introductory psychology courses. Although the samples’ gender composition was not associated with the size of effects, both the racial composition of the samples and whether the samples were drawn from college student populations were. In future studies, the authors recommend directly testing whether effects are generalizable to other populations since combating social problems like racial discrimination requires broader sampling and exploration of how problems operate across settings. 

The research raised theoretical and empirical puzzles for the authors. To reconcile possible explanations for their findings, the researchers recommend developing a new paradigm. Ideally, the paradigm would involve an approach that produces a clear causal impact on the automatic associations underlying implicit measures, across multiple domains. The researchers recommend starting with domains in which implicit, explicit, and behavioral measures are more intercorrelated, such as political preferences, which would enable high-powered investigations. 

For practitioners seeking to address problems presumed to be caused by automatic associations, the results of this research present a challenge, since there was little evidence that change in implicit measures will result in changes in explicit measures or behavior. This is particularly true for the domains of intergroup bias, health psychology, and clinical psychology; results suggest that current interventions attempting to change implicit measures in these domains will not consistently change behavior. The authors note that innovations may yet reveal stronger evidence for the causal importance of implicit associations, and they stated their hope that researchers take their findings as a challenge to advance our understanding of human cognition.

Shifting Focus from Internalization to Appropriation of Racial Oppression

Introduction

Scholarship has examined many forms of racism, but research on how racism impacts individuals’ everyday experiences is still developing. Some scholars have studied how racism can be internalized by members of oppressed groups. For example, psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s famous experiment presenting Black children with Black and white dolls continues to be referenced as an example of internalized self-hatred among Black people. More recent scholars, however, have proposed a shift away from the term “internalized racism,” arguing that it limits the impact of racism on people of color, narrowly focuses on negative self-image, and places the blame of oppression on marginalized groups. 

In this article, Versey et al. support emerging research that recommends a new framing known as “appropriated racial oppression.” This term refers to the process of both oppressed and non-oppressed groups appropriating, or taking up racial oppression through repeated exposure to racial messages centered on whiteness. Appropriated racial oppression can be a response to, or strategy for, navigating normative white ideals in society. This framing centers white supremacy, rather than individual pathology, as the driver of racism and the source of race-related stress. Appropriated racial oppression has consequences for mental health and public health more broadly, both for dominant and marginalized groups. 

H. Shellae Versey is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Fordham University. Dr. Versey is a psychologist and critical health researcher, and her research explores health and intersectionality. Courtney D. Cogburn is an Associate Professor at the Columbia School of Social Work. Dr. Cogburn directs a research group that uses innovative means to characterize and measure racism and evaluate its effects on mental and physical health. Clara L. Wilkins is an Associate Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Wilkins is a social psychologist whose research examines prejudice, stereotyping, and the self. Nakita Joseph is an adjunct lecturer at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and a ParentCorps Educator at NYU Langone Health. Ms. Joseph is a graduate of the Columbia School of Social Work, where she researched systemic oppression, trauma, and inequality.

Methods and Findings

In this commentary, Versey et al. describe how managing racism may be as harmful to health as exposure to racism. Responses to racism can be both negative and adaptive, which is an important distinction the authors make. For groups of color, appropriated racial oppression can include responses to “fit in” or navigate white norms and practices. The authors illustrate this with two examples:

• Respectability and vigilance: Respectability behavior, such as mimicking whiteness to counter negative stereotypes about one’s group, is considered to be a form of appropriated racial oppression. While respectability provides social benefits, anticipating discrimination can be taxing and yield more costs than benefits. Researchers have found that vigilantly guarding against racial stereotypes is correlated with negative health outcomes, including risk of chronic disease and increased depressive symptoms.
• Code-switching: To accommodate different social contexts and avoid evoking negative stereotypes, Black people and other racial/ethnic groups may modify speech in ways that are aligned with normative whiteness. While code-switching may be effective in achieving ‘success’ by some metrics, it may be psychologically damaging when practiced over time. Moreover, by focusing on individuals who practice (or fail to practice) strategies like code-switching, we divert attention away from white supremacy and fail to address systems that force people of color to code-switch in the first place.

The authors also discuss how white people are harmed by racism. This may seem counter-intuitive, as whiteness is a system that produces gains and privileges for white people as members of the dominant group. But when expectations of success are not met, when losses to economic or social positions do occur, and when the system of racism does not confer benefits as expected, appropriated racial oppression can lead to negative health outcomes. Versey et al. describe three ways this can operate:

• Threats to worldviews: When experiences violate a white person’s worldview (such as a job loss), they may feel threatened by a perceived loss of status in an increasingly diverse world. These threats may have meaningful consequences for individuals’ mental health and broader health policy.
• Perceived loss of status and mental health outcomes: Political events and demographic shifts may evoke fear among dominant groups and compromise their feelings of safety and security. For example, some research has shown that, compared to other groups, white people’s perceived loss of status is associated with increased emotional stress. One way that white people may be able to shift their interpretation of such events is by developing a critical consciousness, or an understanding of how social, economic, and political systems contribute to inequity. 
• Health policy:  If white Americans are unaware about how the system of whiteness makes certain privileges possible, then any policy perceived to level the playing field can contribute to feelings of threat, resentment, or anger. These feelings can be heightened by inaccuracies that play on racial stereotypes, such as the misperception that the Affordable Care Act primarily benefits groups of color. When such feelings lead to health policy changes that hurt everyone, then the process of appropriated racial oppression can undermine one’s own health.

Conclusions

This article makes two novel contributions to emerging research on appropriated racial oppression. First, by providing examples in which white supremacy affects both non-oppressed and oppressed groups, the authors highlight how appropriated racial oppression has implications for mental health and public health more broadly. Second, by discussing how people, particularly oppressed groups, negotiate racism on an individual level, the authors suggest new opportunities to research how racism influences people’s attitudes and behaviors.

Versey et al. conclude that, if we accept that appropriated racial oppression is an inevitable by-product of racism, then we must examine the full range of consequences associated with responding to normative whiteness. The authors pose questions for future research, including: In the long-term, are the strategies of code-switching and respectability more toxic or beneficial? How is the process of appropriated racial oppression interconnected with assimilation, health disparities, and racial identity? How can worldviews be rebuilt? How can we promote dialogue about the symptoms of racism, including appropriated racial oppression, in a way that both addresses and changes the systems of power that created those symptoms?

Promoting Gender Justice: A Look at Research on Race and Gender

Introduction

Organizations, companies, and public sector institutions are increasingly concerned with gender equity. From national and municipal gender budgeting to corporate gender equality tracking, these and other worldwide efforts are trying to answer a central question: How can we treat people of all genders fairly and provide equitable opportunities and outcomes for everyone? This vision, known as ‘gender justice,’ is the focus of a 2019 report by Janay Cody, Rachel D. Godsil, and Alexis McGill Johnson in association with Perception Institute. Written for anyone who is working towards gender justice, this report provides an in-depth review of recent gender research by academic scholars. 

The authors look at the challenges that people face when seeking gender justice ⁠— and how those challenges can guide a way forward. A key part of their report focuses on the intersection of race and gender. Although race and gender are independent categories, they interact with one another, are accompanied by stereotypes, and deeply impact how we see ourselves and others. By understanding how gendered and racialized stereotypes operate, including how women of color are chronically excluded and made invisible, the authors aim to understand how to work against our biases and develop positive stories and strategies.

This report is part of the Story at Scale project, a yearlong collaboration of researchers, data scientists, artists, advocates, and organizers aimed at determining how best to promote gender justice by using narrative to reshape culture. Janay Cody is a consultant and applied political scientist who works with political organizations, educational institutions, and socially responsible businesses to make positive change. Rachel D. Godsil is Co-Director and Co-Founder of Perception Institute and Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar at Rutgers Law School. Alexis McGill Johnson is President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and is currently on leave as Co-Director and Co-Founder of Perception Institute.

Methods and Findings

Reviewing academic literature in social psychology and related fields from roughly the last five years, the authors looked for studies about negative gender stereotypes across racial groups, the changing nature of gender identity and expression, and the power and strength women exercise in daily life. Drawing on more than 100 sources, the authors identified important limitations in the research:

• Far too many studies have failed to accurately reflect the experiences of women of all races and ethnicities, and far too few have included transgender and/or non-binary people in their studies. Because research on women of color and transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people is thin, the authors included studies that go beyond the five-year mark.
• Research about gender often treats “women” as synonymous with “white women.” A majority of studies have drawn upon samples of people who identify as white cisgender women and men, and the images of people used as stimuli in studies are usually white or assumed to be white. 

The authors use the following key terms and definitions throughout their literature review:

• The term women is based on how the authors of each study define it, which in most cases refers to a cisgender person of the “female” sex.
• The term intersectionality, first used in 1989 by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, refers to analysis that examines the disempowerment experienced by people who face multiple lines of identity-based discrimination.
• The term intersectional invisibility, coined in 2008 by Valerie Purdie-Vaughns and Richard P. Eibach, refers to the distinctive forms of oppression experienced by women of color and people with intersecting marginalized identities. 

Beyond recognizing that all women—not just white women—need to be part of the story of gender, the authors call for practitioners and researchers to both acknowledge and challenge the different stereotypes about Black, Latinx, Asian, and Native women. For example:

• Harmful stereotypes about Black women need to be recognized and rectified. As there is a highly prevalent cultural association of “Black” and “poor,” it is important to unlink Blackness and poverty, to authentically show Black women in different social classes, and to overcome negative stereotypes associated with poverty, in general, and Black women who are poor, in particular. 
• Seemingly positive framing of Latinx women in the media, such as “success,” can be associated with more destructive stereotypes, such as “hardworking” and “family sacrifice.” By contrast, qualitative research has been a source of genuinely empowering and multi-faceted stories about Latinx women.
• As academic research focusing on Asian American women is minimal, it is important to distinguish their experiences from Asian American men and to unpack how women face both broader stereotypes about Asian Americans and implicit gender bias. 
• As Native women are rendered invisible by the media, and as harmful stereotypes associated with Native women have not been replaced or expanded by current representations, new narratives must be part of communications with and about Native women. The authors highlight the Reclaiming Native Truth initiative as a source of new narratives.

Conclusions

The authors recommend three ways forward for people working towards gender justice, rooted in counter-stereotypic research and narratives of hope. 

First, drawing on existing research on racial discrimination, the authors highlight five strategies that have shown some success in long-term reduction of the effects of discrimination: stereotype replacement, counter-stereotypic imaging, individuating, perspective taking, and increasing opportunities for contact. Researchers have found that people who engaged in these practices were more likely to notice bias in the world, label any bias as wrong, and have interracial interactions with relative strangers. 

Second, although gender and race cannot be understood in isolation from each other, strategies to address gender stereotypes will have some important differences from strategies to address race-based stereotypes. The authors suggest that stereotypes linked to race and ethnicity are often rooted in a lack of intergroup contact and a reliance on media representation, whereas people of different genders tend to come in contact frequently.

Third, stories that authentically depict people in a variety of contexts can create powerful new mental associations. Stories can allow you to see the world differently, particularly protagonists who differ from you by gender, race, ethnicity, or other identifying characteristics. The authors also recommend emotional stories, as these can create feelings of connectedness. While stories are not a replacement for peer-to-peer contact, research shows that culture can provide a type of indirect contact that can shift attitudes.

Limited-Government Values and the Subtlety of “New Racism”

Introduction

This study responds to the public debate on why some white people oppose large-scale government programs. Several researchers argue that “old racism” may influence some white Americans’ policy attitudes. This theory holds that some white people oppose race-conscious policy, or any policy explicitly intended to benefit Black people because they perceive Black people to be biologically inferior. Examples of these race-conscious policies include affirmative action and government spending on aid for Black communities. In contrast to these perceptions, other researchers argue that “old racism” may have diminished over time, revealing a more subtle, yet still present, form of “new racism.” Proponents of this theory argue that, rather than opposing race-conscious policy on the grounds of overt racism, some white people object to such policies on the basis of promoting traditional American values, such as individualism and self-reliance. 

Dr. Jason Gainous suggests there is another more subtle objection to race-conscious policy which, unlike individualism, does not rely on descriptions of people or their personal characteristics. This theory, termed  “new racism” focuses on limited-government values, or opposition to big government, as a cover for some white people’s opposition to race-conscious policy. In this study, the author examines whether the effect of limited-government values in guiding white people’s attitudes about race-conscious policy is conditional on white people’s levels of racial prejudice. His findings suggest that this conditional effect does indeed exist. 

Dr. Gainous is a Professor and Department Chair at the Department of Political Science at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. His areas of expertise include research methods, political psychology, public opinion, and political behavior. Dr. Gainous is the co-author of two books, including, “Rebooting American Politics: The Internet Revolution” (2011). He has also authored and co-authored more than 35 journal articles, five book chapters, and numerous other academic publications.

Methods and Findings

To assess if the effect of limited-government values in determining white people’s perceptions regarding race-conscious policy is conditional on racial prejudice, Dr. Gainous used survey data from the 2008 American National Election Studies (ANES). The unit of analysis was the individual, and there were 1,667 white respondents in the sample, although several questions were not asked to the full cohort. Each of the study models includes a series of control variables, including feelings toward the beneficiaries of government aid programs. 

Before performing the main multivariate test, Dr. Gainous contextualized his test by first assessing differences in limited-government values and racial prejudice across a series of demographic variables, such as gender, age, income, education, and political party identification. This initial assessment resulted in several findings: 

1. Regarding both limited-government values and racial prejudice measurements, respondents identifying as either Republicans or males have significantly higher results than their respective counterparts. This implies that if there is, in fact, subtle racism in how limited-government values are applied to race-conscious policy attitudes.

2. White respondents at or above the median income tend to have stronger limited-government values but show no signs of heightened racial prejudice. Similarly, those above the mean age tend to have stronger limited-government values but do not show elevated signs of racial prejudice.

Dr. Gainous’ multivariate test directly assesses whether the effect of limited-government values on race-conscious policy opinions is conditional on levels of racial prejudice. The interactive results of this assessment confirm this relationship and provide persuasive evidence in support of the author’s “new racism” theory. However, the findings suggest that the effect of limited-government values on white people’s attitudes about racially ambiguous social welfare policy is not conditional on racial prejudice. Such policies seek to alleviate social and economic disadvantages generally rather than on the basis of race. This suggests that the way in which limited-government values are conditionally applied depends on the policy beneficiaries being explicitly Black.

Conclusions

“New racism” may operate with greater subtlety than previously understood. This study suggests that by relying on limited-government values, some white Americans have found a way to make racially based objections to race-conscious policy without expressing overt racism. This implies that white people’s policy opinions mask underlying racism in even subtler ways than claims of “by-your-bootstraps” individualism. 

The findings of this study indicate that white Americans are not absent of principle, values, and beliefs when developing an opinion pertaining to race-conscious policy. In fact, values may not be the only factor in such attitudes. Racial prejudice plays a key role and appears to work together with values.

It is important to note that the author is not contending that limited-government values are not a meaningful source of policy opinions and attitudes. Rather, the author claims it is possible that, for some white Americans, the way in which limited government values are applied to race-conscious policy attitudes may be rooted in racial prejudice.

Towards Organizational Transformation: White Allyship of Afro-Diasporic Women

Introduction

In this conceptual article, lead author and Afro-Latina doctoral student Samantha E. Erskine and Dr. Diana Bilimoria explore how white allyship can support the career development and leadership advancement of Afro-Diasporic women in the workplace. Afro-Diasporic women, or Black women from across the African diaspora, are critically underrepresented in corporate and senior leadership roles in the United States. White allyship, a possible missing piece in white-dominated organizations, is defined by the authors as the regular and active practice of examining whiteness through the lens of intersectionality. Antiracist and feminist white allyship has the potential to both propel the career trajectories of Afro-Diasporic women and transform organizational systems, while simultaneously benefiting white allies. 

To develop white allyship more fully in the workplace, distinct from mentorship or sponsorship, the authors reason that white colleagues could leverage their power and positions in serving as allies to Afro-Diasporic women. In line with this thinking, Erskine and Bilimoria offer a model and suggestions for white allyship that encourages solidarity with Afro-Diasporic women. They uplift courage as a virtue of white allyship, identify key behaviors of white allyship on behalf of Afro-Diasporic women, and detail several positive outcomes of allyship for a wide range of organizational stakeholders and systems.

Both Erskine and Bilimoria conduct research at the Department of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Erskine, a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Behavior, brings twenty years of nonprofit experience to her research on how women and people of color navigate, lead, and thrive in organizations. Bilimoria, who serves as a KeyBank Professor and Department Chair, has been internationally recognized for her research on organizational transformation and gender diversity in governance and leadership.

Methods and Findings

Erskine and Bilimoria present a conceptual model of antiracist white allyship on behalf of Afro-Diasporic women in the workplace. Key to their model are antecedents that affect the potential for white allyship, as well as factors that motivate or detract from allyship and antiracist behaviors. 

Antecedents: 

• Sociopolitical antecedents such as institutionalized white supremacy, patriarchy, color blindness, aversive racism, and implicit bias are each likely to negatively influence the environment for white allyship. 
• Individual antecedents such as personal values and convictions, feelings of white guilt, and positive thoughts and mindset are each likely to be positively associated with white allyship. 
• Organizational antecedents such as tokenism are likely to be negatively associated with white allyship, whereas psychologically safe work environments and organizations’ espoused interest in diversity and inclusion may be precursors to allyship. 

Individual and contextual factors:

• Motivators of white allyship may include self-efficacy and the motivation to benefit others. These may include allies’ goals of not appearing prejudiced toward other racial groups and maintaining alignment with social justice beliefs. 
• Detractors of white allyship may include white fragility and privilege, fear, tone policing, performative allyship, and the resistance potential allies may face from those they are seeking to support. 

Behaviors of white allyship: 

• Interrogating whiteness as an ally involves engaging in critical self-reflexivity about how one’s beliefs and actions reinforce racialized sexism, whether it be intentional or unintentional, and making visible the privileges and practices of whiteness at all levels of the organization. 
• Prosocial Behaviors by allies, particularly those in gatekeeping roles, may help pave the way for Afro-Diasporic women to enter leadership roles in an organization. Such behaviors include knowledge sharing, protection from adverse organizational dynamics, making introductions, and acting courageously to interrupt the status quo. 
• Tempered Radicalism as an ally involves working within organizations to challenge norms, build coalitions in solidarity with Afro-Diasporic women, and quietly effect change while negotiating conflicting pressures.

Conclusions

White allyship can create numerous benefits for Afro-Diasporic women, while also potentially benefiting white allies and their organizations. Erskine and Bilimoria’s model and research describe potential immediate, long-term, direct, and indirect outcomes of white allyship within organizations. Such effects include mutual empowerment and empathy, positive relationships and work environments, and greater job satisfaction and organizational commitment. 

For white allies, their experience supporting and uplifting Afro-Diasporic women in the workplace can lead to a heightened sense of purpose, integrity, self-confidence, self-respect, and peace of mind. Through allyship, white colleagues may experience improved performance evaluations, status, and skills such as problem-solving, while feeling less emotional exhaustion and regret. For Afro-Diasporic women, allyship may support them in attaining improved career outcomes, shifting from a mindset of surviving to thriving, and experiencing greater solidarity in the workplace.

For organizations, white allyship may lead to more Afro-Diasporic women in senior leadership roles, more equitable evaluation processes, and more innovation, creativity, productivity, and client satisfaction. Allyship may also give organizations a competitive advantage as an employer of choice, foster an inclusive and ethical workplace climate, and lower costs associated with turnover. Training white would-be allies to engage in allyship that truly empowers Afro-Diasporic women can prove to be a transformative strategy within organizations.

A Guide to Ten Training Programs on Racial Equity and Inclusion

Introduction

This Guide, developed by Dr. Ilana Shapiro, provides a detailed review and comparison of ten antiracism training programs in the United States. It explores why programs do what they do (theory of practice), how they believe their work will lead to positive results (theory of change), why they use certain training methods (pedagogy), and subsequently discusses their organizational capacities and goals. This analysis also includes a discussion related to how training programs identify and grapple with the roots and dynamics of racial oppression and the principles they adopt to address those challenges. 

The Guide is organized into four sections. In the first section, the paper provides an overview of each of the ten programs, including their distinguishing features and challenges. Section Two describes four additional programs that conduct meaningful and related work across the United States. Later in the paper, the third section analyzes key similarities and differences across the initiatives, while Section Four highlights important challenges and future directions for racial justice training programs. Meanwhile, the appendices include useful questions guiding training program selection and a checklist for effective training components. 

This publication was developed in coordination with several  partners and institutions. As principal researcher of the Guide, Dr. Ilana Shapiro drew on her work as co-founder and director of the Alliance for Conflict Transformation in Fairfax, VA, as well as her doctoral work in Social Psychology and Conflict Analysis and Resolution. The Guide was produced by the Project Change Anti-Racism Initiative in Oakland, CA, which focused on addressing institutional racism and racial prejudice in several American cities, and by the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families in New York City, whose projects included a long-term examination of structural racism. The Guide was also developed in consultation with the Center for Assessment and Policy Development in Philadelphia, PA, which is a nonprofit organization focused on research, planning, and policy.

Methods and Findings

The researchers selected ten training programs by surveying professionals with relevant knowledge on these types of programs, reviewing relevant program guides, and narrowing the initial list of potential programs in consultation with researchers and practitioners familiar with key organizations. The project team prioritized programs that address the structural and institutional dimensions of racism. Data was then collected through phone and in-person interviews with program directors, trainers, and participants; observations of at least one training per organization; and a review of program materials.

The ten programs under review, the year they were founded, and their unique theories of change are as follows:

1. People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond (c. 1980): Challenge and motivate people to change by providing a common framework for community organizing and developing accountable leadership.
2. National Coalition Building Institute (c. 1984): Individual change happens through self-awareness, emotional expression, and new skills and behaviors. Changes in relationships result from hearing others’ experiences of oppression, finding common ground, and building alliances.
3. VISIONS–Vigorous Interventions into Ongoing Natural Settings (c. 1984): Develop awareness of individual attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. Recognize and appreciate differences through ongoing contact with own and other groups. Ongoing work within communities and organizations can result in redistributions of power.
4. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) World of Difference© Institute (c. 1985): New knowledge, behavioral options, self-awareness, critical analysis, and appreciation of cultural differences are key to individual change and action.
5. Crossroads Ministry (c. 1986): Institutional change involves a racial-justice analytical framework, institutional commitment, accountable leadership, and shifts in culture, identity, and purpose.
6. Study Circles Resource Center (now Everyday Democracy) (c. 1989): A critical mass of individuals creates structural change by finding common ground while  building trusting and cooperative relationships. 
7. Hope in the Cities (c. 1990): Resilient relationships create social change. Build relationships across groups by recognizing common humanity, sharing experiences of oppression, and expressing vulnerability.
8. National Conference for Community & Justice (NCCJ) Dismantling Racism Institute (c. 1992): Liberation and change come from empowering individuals through introspection and education, using coalitions to mobilize communities, and transforming organizations through leadership and social action.
9. Challenging White Supremacy Workshop (c. 1993): Organize a grassroots multi-racial revolution using antiracist organizing strategies. Create new consciousness through critical analysis of political, social, and economic conditions and ongoing dialogue, action, and reflection on racial justice efforts.
10. Training for Change: White People Working on Racism (c. 1997): Self-awareness and self-acceptance lead to more effective action. Form support networks and develop skills to plan nonviolent social action.

The authors also highlight work by four other organizations: Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED) in Wellesley, MA; Changework in Durham, NC; Healing the Heart of Diversity in Roanoke, VA; and the National Network of Anti-Racism and Community Building Training Institutes in California. 

The programs in this study are trailblazers in addressing the complex, deeply rooted, and constantly changing dynamics of racism, racial conflict, and intergroup relations. They do so while operating with limited resources and time constraints. Their theories of practice–whether focusing on prejudice reduction, healing, antiracism, diversity, democracy-building, or a combination–draw on different theoretical foundations, analyze a different set of problems, and seek different goals. For example, programs oriented toward healing often emphasize the spiritual and social dimensions of racial reconciliation, whereas programs with antiracism goals often focus on the social, political, and economic dimensions of racial justice and equity. 

Conclusions

Three interrelated areas for growth emerged from this study. First, more programs must focus on understanding and combating structural racism. Few programs are rooted in theories that address the structural dimensions of racism, and few programs go beyond interpersonal relations to address systemic racism. Second, programs need more practical and specific strategies to help participants translate their personal growth into action in their communities and institutions. Third, dismantling racism requires cooperation and coordination across programs. Since trainers work in demanding and competitive environments, they rarely have the opportunity to learn from one another, enhance their offerings, offer more sustained activities, or pair training with other interventions. 

Based on the experiences of initiatives included in this Guide, antiracism training programs may need to overcome the following key challenges: clarify language and terms, differentiate among types of oppression in different populations, address the emotional aspects of racism in ways that integrate its personal and political dimensions, expand participants’ and funders’ time and financial commitments, invest in more rigorous evaluations, and expand the scope and reach of training. By doing so, trainers may be better equipped to work toward a more equitable, just, and inclusive world.

Combating Institutional Anti-Blackness in Higher Education: Lessons from HBCU Presidents

Introduction

Despite the wide ranging accomplishments earned by historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), narratives regarding HBCUs often use deficit-oriented framing that erase their achievements. This context of pervasive institutional anti-blackness is rooted in the historical marginalization of HBCUs that continues to reinforce itself through less favorable depictions of HBCUs in the media and ultimately in public policy. For example, recent headlines such as “Struggling HBCUs Look for Help From the Trump Administration” (Camera, 2017) and ‘‘6-year Graduation Rates at Many HBCUs Lower Than 20 Percent’’ (AJC, 2018) suggest institutional fragility and deficiency at HBCUs that can influence public perceptions. 

Considering both the segregated origins of HBCUs, and how common discourse concerning HBCUs reflects larger institutional anti-blackness sentiments, researchers focused on the underreported strengths of HBCUs, as told by their presidents. By studying counter-narratives shared by chief executives closely tied to these institutions, researchers employed methodology from critical race theory to create greater public awareness of the benefits of HBCUs and their contributions to American society. Three primary themes emerged from their findings: HBCUs play important roles in (1) cultivating Black students’ leadership and development, (2) serving students with financial barriers, and (3) tapping the potential of students who were marginalized in prior academic settings.  

Each of this study’s authors conduct scholarly work on the experiences of historically marginalized students, as well as on the organizations that serve them, and of the policies that impact them. In addition, as each of the authors identifies as Black and/or African American, they acknowledge their unique interests and experiences in this study’s topical area, their collective efforts to mitigate potential bias, and how their shared identities serve as a source of pride and deeper understanding that prevents the loss of key data that may be overlooked by researchers with different identities.

Methods and Findings

Focusing solely on small and private HBCUs, the researchers consulted with practitioners, administrators, and scholars familiar with HBCUs to identify potential study participants known for their professional background and leadership. The seven HBCU presidents in the sample, referred to by pseudonyms throughout the study, differ by geographic location, gender, years of service, and prior HBCU attendance as students. Between July 2016 and May 2017, the principal investigator conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with each of these seven HBCU presidents. Cognizant of presidents’ limited availability, interviews were conducted via phone or in person, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Presidents were primed for the interview with a list of common HBCU challenges depicted in media and literature, including alumni engagement, enrollment and matriculation, limited financial resources, accreditation challenges, and questions pertaining to the value of HBCUs. During the interviews, HBCU presidents were invited to reflect on those challenges and any strategic approaches taken by their institution to address them. 

From the counter-narratives shared by HBCU presidents, three major findings emerged:

1. Transforming students into leaders: Given their history of fostering leadership development for students of color, HBCUs have had a significant impact on both the Black community and American society. One president highlighted that a quarter of African Americans with STEM degrees are HBCU graduates, and others emphasized HBCUs’ important role in educating diverse students given demographic trends and minority-majority projections.

2. Serving low-income students: Evidence suggests that a high percentage of HBCU students are from low-income families. Presidents navigate tensions between the federal government and HBCUs, while also facing various economic challenges including high student debt levels, and racial wealth disparities that affect students’ educational experiences. Yet, HBCU presidents have found creative ways to secure additional funding and shift orientations toward opportunities and away from perceived obstacles. 

3. Supporting students who faced prior academic structural barriers: HBCUs serve as uplifting institutions for many first-generation college students and other students traditionally underserved by American public schools. Presidents describe setting high expectations for students, pairing those expectations with support systems, rooting team-based collaboration in practices across the school, and hiring and reorganizing staff to be more responsive to students’ needs. 

Conclusions

This study underscores HBCUs’ significant contributions in Black leadership development, supporting students with financial challenges, and maximizing the potential of students marginalized in prior academic settings. Given current projections that low-income student enrollment will continue to increase, and that people of color will ultimately represent the majority of the U.S. population, the researchers advise state and federal policymakers to invest in schools with historic and ongoing service to low-income students, students of color, and students requiring additional academic support.

The authors also recommend enhanced communication between policymakers and HBCUs, including through the assistance of organizations and foundations with existing partnerships with both parties. Stronger communication would ensure educational institutions are represented in educational policy decision-making, that policymakers remain updated on HBCU accomplishments, and that both parties are combating less favorable media depictions and social perceptions of HBCUs. 

Educational institutions can also play a key role in countering deficit framing and invisibility as tools of institutional anti-blackness. As some continue to depict America as post-racial, according to the researchers, HBCUs continue to face questions regarding their value and relevance. The researchers recommend that HBCUs reclaim their own story through a systematic approach that centers the voices of stakeholders within these institutions. Whether through developing new communications strategies, hiring communications specialists, utilizing existing research and human resources offices, or participating in cross-institutional initiatives, proactive steps by HBCUs can leverage limited resources, shift the narrative about HBCUs, and have meaningful policy implications for institutions and their students.

Healthcare Algorithms and Racial Bias

Introduction

This article addresses the growing public concern regarding the automation of racial discrimination through digital tools and technology. Throughout the paper, the author, Dr. Ruha Benjamin, focuses her discussion on a notable publication by Obermeyer et al. entitled, “Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations.”

Unlike most researchers who lack access to proprietary algorithms, Obermeyer et al. completed one of the first studies to examine the training data, algorithm, contextual data, and outputs of one of the largest commercial tools used by the health insurance industry. This tool allows insurers to identify patients who need increased attention before care becomes too costly and severe. Since the tool was designed to use potential cost as a proxy for patients’ needs, and because providers allocate significantly less resources to Black patients’ care, Obermeyer et al. found that Black patients whose risk score is the same as white patients tend to be much more sick. By measuring the racial disparity and building new predictors, the researchers concluded that, as long as the tool effectively predicts costs, its results will be racially biased, even without explicit attempts to account for race. 

Dr. Benjamin discusses the broader implications of the study through a range of historical, hypothetical, and modern-day cases. She underscores how algorithmic and other labels, like health care costs, may initially appear to be race-neutral, but ultimately play critical and harmful roles in the lives of millions of Black patients in the United States. Dr. Benjamin’s analysis is situated within her larger body of research on race and the social dimensions of science, technology, and medicine. At Princeton University, Dr. Benjamin is an Associate Professor of African American Studies, founder of the Ida B. Wells Just Data Lab, Executive Committee member at the Program in Global Health and Health Policy and Center for Digital Humanities, and Faculty Associate in the Center for Information Technology Policy, Program on History of Science, Center for Health and Wellbeing, Program on Gender and Sexuality Studies, and the Department of Sociology.

Methods and Findings

Employing examples from health care, housing, and social media, Dr. Benjamin demonstrates how historical systems of racial discrimination are inextricably linked to modern-day, seemingly colorblind automated systems. She presents, among others, the following paired cases:

1. Imagine if Henrietta Lacks, an African American mother of five, was “digitally triaged” at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1951 after arriving with severe abdominal symptoms. The hospital’s cutting-edge automated tool would assess her risk based on the predicted cost of care  ̶  far less than typically spent on white patients despite Black patients’ actual health needs  ̶  leading providers to underestimate her level of need and discharge her with ultimately fatal consequences. 

2. Consider, in reality, Ms. Lacks’ admission to, and experience in, the Negro wing of Johns Hopkins Hospital, during a period in American history when overt racial discrimination was legally sanctioned.

Resulting in much of the same catastrophic health outcomes, these cases highlight how the legacy of Jim Crow policies continue to feed its modern automated equivalent, termed in this paper as the “New Jim Code.” Racially biased and historical human decisions shape both algorithmic design and inputs, such as data from segregated healthcare facilities, unequal insurance systems, and racist medical training. Yet, the power of these automated tools can reach far beyond the scale of individual behavior, as they are capable of perpetuating unjust discrimination at a much greater level. Given this context, relying on top-down reform efforts, whether by shifts in federal law or institutional policy, will not diminish discrimination alone.

Conclusions

Dr. Benjamin concludes that labels matter significantly, both in the design and analysis of algorithms. Rather than employing tropes that Black patients “cost less” or that Black patients’ poor care is the result of patients’ “non-compliance” or “lack of trust,” researchers, hospital staff, and analysts must adopt a more socially conscious analysis. The issue, put simply, is that Black patients are valued less, structural and interpersonal racism are persistent in the American healthcare system, and that the medical industry—not Black patients—is accountable for lack of trustworthiness. Although Obermeyer et al. describe some of this context, their descriptions are insufficient to reveal the very social processes that make their work so important. 

Concern over algorithmic bias, although critical, must not outweigh focus on the context of racial discrimination. Indeed, this context is what made the promise of neutral technology so critical in the first place. Automated tools like the one studied by Obermeyer et al. might work similarly for all patients if companies, institutions, and individuals provided the same level of care for Black patients, such that their care would not “cost less”than the care provided for non-Black patients. Overall, beyond the automated tools considered in this particular study, Dr. Benjamin recommends moving away from individual risk assessment tools, and instead adopting those that evaluate the risks produced by institutions and organizations. Through the development of such tools, the public can uncover agents and/or patterns of discrimination and ultimately hold institutions accountable for providing high quality care for all patients.