social essay

Race and Ethnicity

Rashawn Ray, University of Maryland Patrick Sharkey, New York University

Race and Ethnicity

Page 2

Race and Ethnicity R A S H A W N R A Y , U N I V E R S I T Y O F M A R Y L A N D P A T R I C K S H A R K E Y , N E W Y O R K U N I V E R S I T Y

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT RACE?

Race and et hnicity

Are race and ethnicity rea l?

The “scie nce” of race

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT BIAS

Imp licit b ias

Stere otypes a nd prejudice

A sociol ogical approac h toward stereot ypes

RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION

Racism in individual s and i nst itutions

Affirmative action

THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL INEQUALITY

Tre nds in racial inequa lity

Understa nding t he persi stence of racia l inequalit y

Race and Ethnicity

Page 3

President Barack Obama. (Source)

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT RACE?

 Is race still important in the U.S.?

 What do we mean by race and ethnicity?

 What is the racial and ethnic composition of the United States?

 Is race a biological feature of humans?

 When did the idea of race first emerge?

On November 2nd, 2008, racism in the United States died. At least, that’s what some people

thought.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 4

On the first Tuesday of November 2008, Barack Obama was elected to be the 44th President of

the United States. It was a momentous event in American history, and many political pundits and

journalists considered President Obama’s election to be the end of racism as we know it, and

wondered if America had moved beyond race and racism to become “post-racial.” So why are we still

talking about race?

In the eight years that President Obama was in office, he faced continuous questions about

whether he was born in the United States and whether he was lying about his religion and was actually

a Muslim. He was criticized by conservatives for bringing too much attention to race, and criticized by

liberals for failing to do enough to help Black Americans. At the start of his presidency, the Tea Party

emerged as a major conservative social movement, and toward the end of his presidency, the Black

Lives Matter movement developed in response to police killings of Blacks and Latinos.

Eight years after Barack Obama was elected, Donald Trump—the man who had led the call for

proof that President Obama was an American citizen—became the 45th President of the United States.

Following Trump’s election, hate crimes against racial and religious minorities increased throughout

the country, and White supremacist groups that used to be on the fringes of society grew bolder and

garnered more and more attention. There is no simple way to interpret everything that’s happened

since the day American voters elected the first Black president. But one thing is clear: the United States

did not turn into a colorblind nation and we are not living in a post-racial era.

Race remains crucial to every aspect of life in the United States. This chapter explores why.

Race and et hnicity

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires an “enumeration” of the population,

otherwise known as a census, every ten years. The first Census occurred in 1790, and every ten years

since, the federal government has undertaken a massive project to find out how many people live in

the United States. Race has always been a central part of the effort.

Race is a system that humans created to classify and stratify groups of people based mostly on

skin tone.1 Race has been used to create, maintain, and enhance group distinctions and disparities.2

The first Census included only three racial categories: people were classified as either “free white

males or free white females,” “all other free persons,” or “slaves.” As the nation has grown and become

more diverse, these categories have changed again and again. Before 1950, Census-takers visited

people in their homes and typically assigned everyone there to a race, usually just by looking at them;

since then, Census procedures have changed and Americans are able to choose their race for

themselves. The terms used for African Americans have included “colored,” “Negro,” “Black,” and

African American. Starting in 2000, respondents could choose multiple racial categories instead of

being forced to choose just one. And along the way, a new question was added to the Census. In

Race and Ethnicity

Page 5

addition to identifying their race, Americans are now asked to identify another characteristic: their

ethnicity.

During the Middle Passage transport from Africa to the Americas, Blacks were held in shackles and chains inside ships. (Source)

Ethnicity refers to common culture, religion, history, or ancestry shared by a group of people.

Ethnic groups in the United States include different groups of Hispanic Americans (Mexican

Americans, Cuban Americans, etc.), Irish Americans, and Jewish Americans. Ethnicity is an aspect of

identity that can be central to your life or one that only matters in certain situations, like religious

services or family parties. It can fade away over time, as people assimilate into the wider culture. It can

be the basis for stigma and discrimination, like race, but it usually doesn’t imply a clear hierarchy the

way racial categories do.

Now that we have a working definition of race and ethnicity, we can better understand what the

American population looks like. The latest information is available from a relatively new data

collection effort called the American Community Survey, which runs every other year in between the

ten-year Census. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the U.S. population in 2016.

The most common way to classify race and ethnicity is to first ask people whether they are

Hispanic or Latino, which is considered an ethnicity rather than a race. Roughly 18% of the U.S.

population is Hispanic or Latino, and most Hispanics are of Mexican descent. The remainder of the

population, about 82%, is not Hispanic or Latino. Just over 61% of the population identifies as non-

Hispanic White, 12% identifies as non-Hispanic Black or African American, 5% identifies as Asian, and

Race and Ethnicity

Page 6

less than 1% identifies as either American Indian/Alaskan Native or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific

Islander. A tiny percentage are members of some other racial group, and another 2% identify as

members of at least two racial groups.

Table 1: Race and Ethnicity in the United States as of 2016

Racial/Ethnic Group Number % of Total Population

Total U.S. Population 323,127,515 100% Not Hispanic or Latino (total) 265,728,796 82%

White alone 197,479,450 61% Black or African American alone 39,717,127 12% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2,125,635 1% Asian alone 17,345,193 5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 533,675 Less than 1% Some other race alone 758,275 Less than 1% Two or more races 7,769,441 2%

Hispanic or Latino (total) 57,398,719 18%

White alone 37,164,589 12% Black or African American alone 1,176,242 Less than 1% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 550,764 Less than 1% Asian alone 211,742 Less than 1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 62,311 Less than 1% Some other race alone 15,576,077 5% Two or more races 2,656,994 1%

Source: American Community Survey

But even this detailed breakdown of the population doesn’t tell the whole story. Because

respondents answer questions about both race and Hispanic ethnicity, it’s possible for people who

identify as Hispanic to also select a racial group. If we consider both race and ethnicity, we find that

about 12% of the population (and the vast majority of all Hispanics) identifies as Hispanic (their

ethnicity) and White (their race); 5% of Americans consider themselves Hispanic and “some other

race.”

Two lessons are clear from this exercise in classifying the U.S. population. First, Americans are

extremely diverse, and a sizable share are not content with classifying themselves in a single

traditional racial or ethnic category. Second, we don’t really know the “true” racial and ethnic makeup

of the country. Our understanding of race and ethnicity is affected by the categories we’ve selected to

officially measure race and ethnicity, and by individuals’ own ideas about their identity and ancestry.

As an example, many state laws used to declare that any person with any African ancestry at all was

Black, a custom known as the one-drop rule. Although this is no longer written in law, the custom

hasn’t gone away. Many well-known public figures, like Tiger Woods and President Barack Obama, had

parents with diverse ancestries, but they identify—and are described by others—as Black.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 7

Similarly, the groups of people who count as White have changed markedly over time.3 In the

1800s, Greeks, Irish, Italians, Poles, and Jews from different countries were all seen as members of

different races, inferior to Americans of English descent. Slowly, individuals from these groups began

to assimilate into the culture of the United States, and their close connection to their homeland

weakened over generations. As they began to speak English and moved out of the highly-segregated

neighborhoods where they lived when they first arrived in the U.S., the boundaries between different

European ethnic groups became less sharp.

Projections indicate that Whites may no longer make up a majority of the U.S. population at some

point in the next few decades. While it’s undeniable that the country is getting more ethnically diverse,

it’s also true that various groups of Americans may see themselves differently as years and decades

pass. Just as ethnic groups like the Irish, Italians, and Jews came to be seen as White over time, it’s

possible that other groups, like some Hispanics or Asians, may begin to identify as White. The

categories that we use to classify the population may also change. As an example, there were extensive

conversations about whether a new “Middle East/North Africa” category would be added to the 2020

Census as an ethnicity. Ultimately, “Middle East/North Africa” was not added as an ethnic option, and

the millions of people in this category continue to be classified as White, without any ethnic marker.

The categories we create to classify race are sometimes quite persistent, but they can be

interpreted in many different ways and—as the Census example shows—the categories can change.

These changes show that race and ethnicity are not fixed, biological attributes. They are ideas that are

created and revised by humans as a means to classify ourselves. But as we’ll see in the remainder of

the chapter, these concepts have very real consequences.

Are race and ethnicity rea l?

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is a well-known and highly-respected professor of African American

Studies at Harvard University. He has written dozens of books and made fifteen documentary films,

one of which won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Historical Program. In 2006, Gates produced and

hosted African American Lives, a groundbreaking show on PBS that traced the family background of

some of the most notable African Americans through historical research and DNA testing.

In the midst of his research for the show, Gates made a startling discovery. He knew that not all

of his ancestors were from Africa, but when he investigated his history in more depth, he learned that

his ancestry was about half African and half European. One of the most prominent scholars of the

African American experience had a much more complex family history than he realized.

A few years later, the story got even more complicated. On July 16, 2009, Gates was returning

home to Cambridge, Massachusetts, from a trip overseas and was unable to open the door to his house.

A neighbor in the mostly-White neighborhood noticed Gates and his driver attempting to force the

door open and called the police. The officer who responded ordered Gates to exit the house and asked

Race and Ethnicity

Page 8

him to prove that he was a professor at Harvard and owned the house. Gates eventually complied, but

repeatedly asked the officer for his badge number and name. The officer warned Gates that he was

acting in a disorderly manner and ultimately handcuffed and arrested him. While charges against

Gates were dropped, the mugshot of the world-renowned professor revealed something very deep and

disturbing about race in the United States.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., may have an equal number of ancestors from Europe and from Africa—he

may technically be just as much White as he is Black—but his African descent seemed to matter most

that day in Cambridge. Although it’s impossible to know for certain, Gates was convinced that

neighbors would not have called the police, and officers would not have been so aggressive, if his skin

was white.

The consequences of race in daily life are very real, but the science and genetics of race are

messy.4 Despite the search by many scientists over several centuries, there has been no discovery of a

gene for race—that is, there is no gene biologists can find that determines which racial category

someone falls into or that clearly separates members of one race from members of another. In fact, a

White person and a Black person can be genetically more similar to each other than two White people

or two Black people.

If race is not real in a scientific sense, then how do we understand its importance? Sociologists

typically think of race as a social construct, a concept that humans invented and gave meaning to in

order to understand or justify some dimension of the social world. Differences in skin tone or other

physical markers have been used for centuries to explain differences or inequalities between groups

and to justify treating groups of people differently.5 And the idea of race has been justified, for

centuries, on the basis of science.

Despite research showing no genetic differences by race, DNA is often used to justify racial differences. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 9

The “scie nce” of race

Even if the best research reveals no biological or genetic differences exist that cause significant

psychological, mental, or physical distinctions among races, many people believe there are innate

differences between racial groups.6 Stereotypical beliefs lead people to think of Asians as short and

intelligent, Blacks as physically superior but intellectually inferior, and Whites as the standard and

epitome of the human ideal.

These types of beliefs are present even among the best-educated professionals. One study

compared attitudes about race and genetics among first-year medical students to those who had

completed medical school and were doing their medical residency. Nearly 30% of first-year medical

students, compared to only 4% of medical residents, believed that the blood of Blacks clots faster than

the blood of Whites. Over 20% of first-year medical students (but only 4% of medical residents)

believed that Blacks have stronger immune systems than Whites. Some racial stereotypes persisted

even after medical residents underwent training on race and health; 40% of medical students and one-

quarter of medical residents believed that Blacks have thicker skin than Whites.

As some of these medical students (now doctors) failed to realize, humans are one species

regardless of skin color, language, eye shape, or hair texture. While there are differences between

racial and ethnic groups in health, cognitive ability scores, and athletic achievements, most of these

differences are driven by socialization, environmental factors, culture, and opportunities.7 Scientists

across many disciplines reject the idea that race is rooted in biology.

So if race is indeed a social construct, an idea made up by humans, then who invented it? In the

mid-1700s, Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus, a Swedish taxonomist, started with the simple observation that

people looked very different from each other.8 Linnaeus argued that there had to be psychological

traits associated with these physical differences in skin color. He split humans into four subspecies,

each associated with a major continent.

The classification of humans into racial

groups had just begun. The German naturalist

Johann Blumenback introduced five racial

categories—American, Caucasoid, Malay,

Mongoloid, and Ethiopian—with each race

associated with a color (white, yellow, red,

brown, and black). Later, the term Negroid,

which means black, replaced the term Ethiopian.

These “scientific” classifications of racial groups

were arbitrary, and were always made by White

Europeans and Americans. Some scholars argue

that this explains why Whites were placed on A statue of Charles Darwin. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 10

top of the racial hierarchy and why Whiteness was used as the marker of perfection.9 Other groups

were often placed into a hierarchy below Whites, ordered by skin color from lightest (at the top) to

darkest (at the bottom).

As the science of evolution progressed, theories of race and biology were reinforced. In The

Origin of Species, Charles Darwin showed how the survival of the fittest leads to a superior species that

evolves and adapts to its environment. Sir Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, argued that selective

breeding of the fittest people, genetic engineering, in vitro fertilization, and forced sterilization of

those he viewed as unfit would allow humans to develop enhanced intelligence while saving society’s

resources and reducing human suffering.10 Eugenics, the idea that we can actively improve the genetic

profile of humans, led to forced sterilizations of groups of people labeled as unfit to reproduce.

As a result of these theories from the 1700s and 1800s, external physical characteristics (such

as skin color, hair color and texture, and eye color) were believed to reflect psychological and mental

abilities that made some races superior to others.11 Pseudo-scientists (people without proper training

or credentials) used data, often fabricated, on anatomical features like skull weight and facial angles to

shape public opinion and government policies about race and inequality.

Through the development of theories and concepts that described and categorized humans,

race became a social reality—an idea that, because people believed in it, had real consequences. And it

became a means to separate and stratify groups. Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection

became the scientific basis for justifying the idea that differences naturally exist among racial groups.

Galton’s eugenics theory provided the scientific basis to justify the attempt to preserve the “purity” of

the superior White race. Racial prejudices became linked with biological theories of human inequality,

ensuring that race would continue to be a crucial part of social life in the centuries to come.

Review Sheet: Race and ethnicity

Key Points

 The concept of race implies a hierarchy among groups of people and has been used

to create, maintain, and enhance group distinctions and disparities.

 Ethnicity can be central to an individual’s life, or may only matter in certain

situations; it can also fade away over time, as individuals assimilate into the wider

culture.

 Sociologists typically think of race as a social construct.

 Research reveals no biological or genetic basis for the concept of race, yet there

continues to be widespread belief in the existence of innate differences between

racial groups.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 11

Key People

 Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

 Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus

 Charles Darwin

 Sir Francis Galton

Key Terms

 Census – A count of the entire population.

 Race – System humans created to classify groups of people based mostly on skin

tone.

 Ethnicity – Common culture, religion, history, or ancestry shared by a group of

people.

 One-drop rule – A custom that a person who had any African ancestry was classified

as Black.

 Social construct – A concept humans invent and given meaning to in order to

understand or justify the social world.

 Eugenics – Idea that we can actively improve the genetic profile of humans.

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT BIAS

 Why are most of us biased in our judgments about different groups of people?

 Where do stereotypes come from and why do they persist?

 Sociologically, how should we think about differences between racial and ethnic groups?

Has your hair color changed since you were born? What about your eye color? Does your hair

or eye color change from season to season depending on the temperature? Does your skin or hair color

change with exposure to the sun?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you’re not alone. In a quick survey of a class of

120 students, nearly 100% said their skin tone changes with exposure to the sun. Roughly 15% said

their hair color has changed since they were born, and a similar percentage said their eye color has

changed since birth. About 20% of students said their hair or eye color changes with the seasons.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 12

The human phenotype is the set of our visible features or characteristics, like the color of our

skin, hair, and eyes. The phenotype is affected by both genetics and our environment, and most

individuals’ phenotypic features change over their lives. And yet, the same features that change within

each of us have been used as justifications for racial classification and exploitation.

The connection between phenotype and the value, quality, or goodness of human beings is

ingrained in society. Think about words that pop into your head when you hear the colors yellow, red,

black, and white. In another in-class survey of students, some words commonly associated with the

color yellow included docile, cowardly, cautious, and sunny. Red triggered words such as fire, stop,

blood, and aggressive. The color white brought to mind words such as purity, cleanliness, and

innocence. In contrast, black triggered words like evil, bad, and satanic. Black is the color people wear

at funerals and symbolizes death, while white is the color worn by brides, doctors, and nurses. White is

the absence of color and represents being good, positive, and pure.

These associations may seem meaningless, but there is evidence that they can affect the way

we see other people. In famous experiments carried out in the early 1940s, Drs. Kenneth and Mamie

Clark presented children with identical dolls, one with white skin and yellow hair and the other with

brown skin and black hair. They asked the children which doll was nice, which one was bad, which

they preferred to play with, and other questions. Both White and Black children favored the “White”

doll. They preferred to play with the White doll and thought it was nicer, and they were more likely to

say that the Black doll was “bad.” The preference for the White doll was particularly strong among

Black children who attended highly-segregated schools in Washington, D.C.

The Clarks concluded that racial identity and self-awareness develop as early as age three, and

that segregation damaged Black children’s self-esteem and self-concept. Their research was later cited

in the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court ruled that segregated

schools were unconstitutional because they were inherently harmful.

Sadly, these impacts on Black children’s sense of self aren’t a thing of the past. In the 2005

documentary A Girl Like Me, Kiri Davis replicated the doll study, with similar results. As we will see,

our internalized ideas about race affect the ways we think about different groups of people and

ourselves, and none of us are immune.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 13

Imp licit b ias

A bias is a tendency to view things in a particular way, regardless of the details of the specific

situation. Implicit bias is the association our minds make between seemingly unrelated things; it is

subconscious, and we may be entirely unaware of our implicit biases. Implicit bias is ingrained in all of

us, regardless of our race or ethnicity, through socialization in family and neighborhood settings and

media exposure. In our daily lives, we are continuously exposed to oversimplified beliefs about

different groups, which lead us to form mental associations.

Until recently, research on racial disparities focused primarily on explicit bias: bias that we are

openly and consciously aware of. Explicit racial bias—that is, openly viewing racial groups in

particular ways—has declined over time, as it has generally become less acceptable to hold overtly

negative views of certain races (though such attitudes certainly still exist).12 However, implicit bias

exists whether people hold explicit racial attitudes or not.

Implicit bias gained national prominence with video and audio showing how unconscious

biases can affect the way individuals from different racial groups interact with one another. One of the

saddest, and most controversial, examples is the case of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and George

Zimmerman.13 Martin was returning to his father’s home from a nearby convenience store when

Zimmerman began to follow him. Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watchperson, called 911

In studies, both White and Black children prefer to play with White dolls. In 2005, Kiri Davis replicated the study, with similar results. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 14

to report a suspicious person walking around the neighborhood. An altercation ensued between the

two; it left Zimmerman bruised and bloodied and Martin dead from a gunshot wound. Zimmerman

was charged with second-degree murder but a jury found him not guilty of Trayvon Martin’s murder.

We will likely never know exactly why Zimmerman thought that this young man was a

criminal, why he followed him, confronted him, and killed him. It may have been the hoodie Martin

was wearing, although it was raining when the incident happened, so wearing a hoodie with the hood

up would not be unreasonable or even unusual. Perhaps Zimmerman would have stopped any young

person walking through the neighborhood, no matter their clothing or skin color. It may have been

explicit racism and prejudice, or it may have been an unconscious feeling that made Zimmerman think

this African American young man had to be a criminal.

Although implicit bias has become associated with high-

profile incidents like Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is much broader

than that.14 Everyone has implicit biases about almost everything,

from which store has the best fruit to assumptions that taller

people are better basketball players. Implicit bias is the human

mind’s way of quickly making sense of our social interactions. Even

academics are not immune to implicit bias. Corinne Moss-Racusin

and her colleagues gave science professors resumes to evaluate;

the resumes were all the same except that half of the professors

received ones with a woman’s name and half received one with a

man’s name. Faculty members were more likely to hire the

resumes with male-sounding names, compared to female-sounding

names, and to recommend a higher starting salary for them.15

Other studies show that professors are less likely to respond to an

email sent from a person with an Asian-sounding name. Although

our biases may at times simply be preferences and not directly

impact our behavior, at other times they have grave consequences

for how we treat others.16

Stere otypes a nd prejudice

Stereotypes are widely-shared perceptions about the personal characteristics, tendencies, or

abilities of members of a particular group, like intellectual ability, personality, physical features,

preferences, aggressiveness, or criminality. The Irish are rowdy drunks. Jews are good with money but

cheap. Asians are studious and good at math. African Americans are athletic and aggressive. All of

these are stereotypes about groups of people. Stereotypes can arise for a number of reasons: They can

be myths made up about a group, historical relics from the past, or superficial associations that are

reinforced by the media or politicians.

The hoodie has become synonymous with the killing of Trayvon Martin, and for some, criminality. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 15

They can also change over time. Consider the idea that African Americans are naturally good at

basketball. In the first half of the 1900s, the same stereotype was applied to a different group: Jewish

Americans. Basketball has always been a city game, played on concrete courts by kids who needed a

ball, a hoop, and nothing else. At that time, American Jews were concentrated in urban neighborhoods.

According to a well-known sportswriter in the 1930s, Jews excelled at basketball because it required

“an alert, scheming mind, flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness.”17 This kind of

stereotypical language seems absurd now. But at the time, many readers likely agreed with the

sportswriter, since he played on stereotypes of Jewish Americans as intelligent but sneaky and

untrustworthy.

Media representations of stereotypes are less explicit these days, but they haven’t disappeared.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history, tens of thousands

of people in New Orleans were stranded for days, without basic supplies or assistance. Two

photographs captured the desperate attempts of residents to find water and food in the days after the

storm, when much of the city was underwater. However, the media framed the residents completely

differently by race. A Black boy (who was described as a “man” in the caption) is said to be “looting a

grocery store.” The caption of the other photo described two White residents “finding bread and soda

from a local grocery store.”

Stereotypes are not only perpetuated by the media. During the 1976 presidential campaign,

candidate Ronald Reagan coined the term “welfare queen” to refer to Black women he said were

conning the government by living luxuriously on generous welfare checks. Reagan exploited well-

known stereotypes to appeal to White voters, ignoring the fact that most welfare recipients were

White and that there was no evidence of this type of fraud. Sociologists Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein

conducted interviews with nearly 400 single mothers in several cities, most of whom received welfare,

and found that they were remarkably careful with money and had to find creative ways to make

enough just to survive from month to month.18

These examples reveal how stereotypes are used to appeal to our prejudices, or preconceived

beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about members of a group. Those beliefs, attitudes, and opinions are

usually not based on personal experience or evidence, and they are usually negative. Scholars have

shown that individual prejudices are often driven by our views about different social groups and

where those groups rank, relative to our own, in the social and economic hierarchy.19 Prejudices can

grow stronger if we begin to think of another group as an economic, political, or cultural threat—for

instance, if the size of a racial or ethnic minority group begins to grow in a neighborhood or a city. This

is the idea behind the group threat theory of prejudice.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 16

Black and Latino neighborhoods are more likely to be in floodplains that are exposed to natural disasters. (Source)

Once established, prejudicial attitudes toward other groups of people are difficult to break,

even if we see examples of individuals who don’t match our stereotypes. This is partly due to a

psychological concept called ultimate attribution error, or a tendency to perceive undesirable

characteristics or behaviors exhibited by members of another group as an innate or inherent part of

their personality or essence—that is, any negative behavior is seen as just who they are.20 On the other

hand, positive characteristics exhibited by members of other groups are more likely to be attributed to

external factors like going to a good school, receiving opportunities, or just plain luck. Seeing positive

behaviors from people we think of negatively can produce cognitive dissonance, a psychological state

in which our preexisting ideas do not align with what we see with our own eyes.21 When we

experience cognitive dissonance, our natural tendency is to avoid the mental conflict and find a way to

explain the anomaly. Thus, if someone from a group we view negatively does something we view as

positive, we interpret them as exceptions; their existence doesn’t undermine our prejudicial beliefs

about their group.

But if we simply spend more time around individuals from other backgrounds, races, and

ethnicities, our stereotypical beliefs will fade away, right? Psychologist Gordon Allport’s contact theory

helps explain how interaction with members of other groups affects prejudices. Allport argues that

interaction and exposure can be beneficial, but only under specific conditions: the interaction has to

occur in a collaborative, voluntary, and non-competitive space; we must interact multiple times, not

Race and Ethnicity

Page 17

just once; our interaction must be personal, informal, and one-on-one; the interaction should be legal;

and the setting must allow participants to interact as equals.

Interacting or living with a more diverse group of people can break down stereotypes, but only under certain

conditions. (Source)

The problem is that most interracial contact does not take place in these conditions.

Interactions with people from other races often takes place in situations that are not equal (such as

when a member of one race performs low-wage work for a person of another race) or where at least

one side does not welcome the interaction (for instance, if residents of a neighborhood are unhappy

about individuals from another race moving onto their street). Robert Putnam analyzed data from

across the U.S. to examine the relationship between racial and ethnic diversity and social trust and

found that people in more diverse communities tend to “withdraw from collective life, to distrust their

neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin.”22 This problem is common in diverse communities:

people face challenges in developing a united community, they may not appreciate cultural or political

changes that arise when a new group enters their neighborhood, and they may resent the changes

taking place around them. Given this, it’s not shocking that more diverse places are not always

friendlier or more welcoming. But Putnam also points to examples showing that diversity can work

over the long-run. During World War II, White soldiers in the U.S. military were asked what they

thought about having Black and White soldiers in the same company. A majority were opposed. But

among soldiers who were already serving in an integrated unit that included Black and White soldiers,

less than a quarter were opposed to the idea. Stereotypes and prejudices can, in fact, break down—but

Race and Ethnicity

Page 18

integration sometimes comes with conflict and mistrust, and it often takes great effort and time to

work.

A sociol ogical approac h toward stereot ypes

All of this information about stereotypes may help explain where they come from and why they

persist, but we don’t want to give the impression that there are no differences between racial and

ethnic groups in behavior, personality, tastes, or talents. One look at a typical NBA roster tells us very

clearly that African Americans are disproportionately represented at the highest level of basketball, for

instance. So how should we think about differences between racial and ethnic groups?

Our suggestion is to take a sociological perspective. Look for data on behaviors or

characteristics of different groups; don’t simply accept what you might hear about them. Be suspicious

of the idea that stereotypical behaviors or characteristics are “natural” or inherent to specific groups of

people, and think about potential explanations for common behaviors or characteristics. Think of

people as individuals, instead of projecting stereotypes onto them. Recognize that most of us, from

every race and ethnicity, have unconscious biases that affect how we perceive others. And finally, be

aware of the consequences of stereotypes, a topic we’ll turn to next.

Review Sheet: Explicit and implicit bias

Key Points

 Research from Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark concluded that the conditions of

segregation damaged Black children’s self-esteem and self-concept, and that racial

identity and self-awareness develop as early as age 3.

 Implicit bias is the mind’s way of quickly making sense of our social interactions.

 Individual prejudices are often driven by our views about the groups to which

people belong and where those groups rank, relative to our own, within the social

and economic hierarchy.

 Positive characteristics exhibited by members of a group we see negatively are more likely to be attributed to external factors like exceptional schooling.

 Be suspicious of the idea that stereotypical behavior or characteristics are “natural”

or inherent; think about potential explanations for common behaviors or

characteristics.

Key People

 Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark

 Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

 Gordon Allport

 Robert Putnam

Race and Ethnicity

Page 19

 Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein

 Corinne Moss-Racusin

Key Terms

 Phenotype – The set of our visible features or characteristics, like the color of our

skin, hair, and eyes.

 Implicit bias – Associations our minds make between seemingly unrelated things.

 Stereotypes – Widely-shared perceptions about the personal characteristics,

tendencies, or abilities of individual member of a particular group, like intellectual

ability, personality, physical features, preferences, aggressiveness, or criminality.

 Prejudices – Preconceived beliefs, attitudes, or opinions about members of another

group.

 Group threat theory – Argues that prejudices grow stronger if we begin to think of

another group as an economic, political, or cultural threat.

 Ultimate attribution error – Psychological phenomenon in which undesirable

characteristics exhibited by members of another group are perceived as innate.

 Cognitive dissonance – Psychological state in which preconceived ideas do not align

with what we see with our own eyes.

 Contact theory – Helps explain how interaction with members of other groups

affects prejudicial beliefs.

RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION

 What is discrimination?

 What is individual and institutional racism?

 Where did affirmative action come from and what does it do?

In 2002, almost 400 pairs of individuals were sent out across eight cities in Minnesota, Montana,

and New Mexico to ask about renting an apartment.23 The two members of each pair had almost

identical backgrounds—they were the same gender and roughly the same age, had the same number

of children, and had similar incomes and jobs. But they looked different: one member of each pair was

White, the other was Native American. In these three states, where many Native Americans live, that

difference had a substantial impact on how they were treated as they searched for a place to live.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 20

Two men shake hands after a real estate transaction. (Source)

In one case, a 43-year-old White woman asked about a two-bedroom apartment in Billings,

Montana. She was told that the unit was open and available, she was given a form to complete and a

business card, and she was shown two other units that looked similar to the one that was advertised. A

day later, her Native American teammate, a woman with the same characteristics, asked about the

same unit. She was given the same form and a business card, but was told that the agent was too busy

to talk. She was not shown any apartments, and was asked to come back a few days later.

This case was not an exception. The White applicant was favored in at least a quarter of cases in

each city where the experiment was conducted. The careful design of the research project—called an

audit study—meant that the applicants were perfectly matched according to all characteristics that

would make them more or less attractive renters; the only thing that differed was their race. In other

words, something about the real estate agents, the firms for which they worked, or perhaps the real

estate industry as a whole led to the different treatment of Whites and Native Americans.

With this example, we move into an investigation of discrimination, the unjust treatment of

different groups of people. While prejudices are about our thoughts and feelings, discrimination is an

Race and Ethnicity

Page 21

action. This section discusses several types of race-based discrimination—part of a larger system of

racism—and some efforts to address them.

Racism in individual s and i nst itution s

Drawing on the work of sociologists Lawrence Bobo and Cybelle Fox, we define racism as a set of

beliefs, ideologies, or institutional practices that are based on the idea that one racial group is

biologically or culturally inferior to another group.24 Since racism generally involves beliefs and

actions, it combines prejudice and discrimination. And while some of us are able to ignore racism,

others are forced to deal with it on a daily basis. Racism doesn’t just live in individuals, it lives in

institutions like schools, workplaces, our housing market, our criminal justice system, and our political

system. For racial minority groups, it can lead to worse outcomes in school, lower-status jobs, unequal

treatment by police officers and doctors,25 and worse mental and physical health.26

Decades ago, real estate agents developed a money-making scheme based on racial fears. They

would go to White homeowners and warn them that Black families were about to move into their

neighborhood (whether or not this was true). Whites, panicked at the thought of integrated

neighborhoods or falling home prices, often wanted to sell quickly and move. The real estate agents

Before 1964, in many states Blacks could not drink from the same water fountains or attend the same public places as Whites; many also could not vote. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 22

would buy houses cheaply from the White families they had frightened into a quick sale and then sell

them at well above market value to Black families eager for a share of the American dream. More

recently, in 2012, Wells Fargo Bank settled a lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that

the bank targeted Blacks and Latinos with the subprime loans that led to the collapse of the housing

market in 2008, even when those clients qualified for lower-risk, lower-cost loans. As this example

shows, discrimination hasn’t gone away. Even if explicitly racist beliefs and attitudes have become

much less common, racism persists in many institutions. Institutional racism refers to the ways that

core institutions, like the legal, educational, and criminal justice systems, are embedded with racial

biases and practices that reproduce racial inequality.

Due to redlining and restrictive covenants, Blacks were often forced to live in crowded urban project housing such as this high-rise building. (Source)

Institutional racism has been present since the formation of the United States and its founding

documents. The inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-

evident, that all men are created equal,” were written by Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder. A slave was

counted as only three-fifths of a person in the Constitution. And although the Bill of Rights protected

the rights and liberties of minority groups in the United States, African Americans were not considered

to be full citizens in the great national experiment described in these founding documents.

We don’t have to go back to the country’s origins to see how race is enmeshed within our

institutions and laws. Historian Ira Katznelson has documented how the most important social

programs implemented in the 1900s were designed specifically to provide assistance to White

Americans and to exclude, as much as possible, Black Americans. Social Security is arguably the most

Race and Ethnicity

Page 23

influential and long-lasting social program in U.S. history; it created retirement benefits for the elderly,

unemployment benefits, and programs to assist low-income women and children. But the 1935

legislation that created it covered only certain jobs, mainly in industry and commerce; it excluded

many jobs held by the Black population at the time, such as farm and domestic work. As a result, in the

1930s over 60% of all Black workers, and nearly 75% of Black workers in the South, didn’t qualify for

Social Security benefits. Additionally, federal funds that supported the poor and veterans were

controlled by local officials, who frequently discriminated against Blacks. Funds intended to help

citizens train for stable jobs, ensure financial stability in retirement, and build wealth were often only

available to Whites. Katznelson says this created a form of “policy apartheid” that mainly benefited

Whites.27 (Apartheid is the formal policy or practice of political, legal, economic, and/or social

discrimination against a particular group.)

The Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, generally referred to as “welfare,” was

established in 1935 for families that generally had only one parent or caretaker; yet funds were

withheld from Black families who qualified.28 In fact, about one-third of Black children who qualified

for ADC did not receive assistance. In the 1940s, Texas, Kentucky, and Mississippi didn’t participate in

the program at all, so children in these states didn’t receive any assistance.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill, aimed to

reintegrate veterans returning from World War II. Massive numbers of young people were deployed

during the War, and the GI Bill applied to roughly 80% of men who were in their 30s and had families.

As a result of the bill, millions of families were able to purchase homes, start businesses, and send

themselves and their children to college. But Black veterans struggled to access the benefits they were

owed. The GI Bill was distributed federally but controlled locally, and Black veterans, particularly in

the South, were often denied GI Bill funds that were available to White vets.

Soldiers board a military plane. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 24

Affirmative action

In the 1960s, the longstanding pattern of social policies explicitly favoring Whites began to

change. A large-scale social movement centered around protest, civil disobedience, and legal battles

laid the groundwork for major advances in voting and civil rights, and the legal basis for segregated

neighborhoods and schools finally began to break down with the passage of legislation like the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (which banned discrimination based on characteristics including race and sex) and,

later, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which banned discrimination in the housing market). But earlier in

the decade, President John F. Kennedy started a program that used a different mechanism to address

injustices in the labor market, housing market, and in social policy: he instructed federal contractors to

take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin.”

Affirmative action refers to policies or programs that seek to rectify past discrimination

through active measures to ensure equal opportunity now. It openly acknowledges that unjust policies

and decisions historically limited the opportunities of disadvantaged groups and benefitted

advantaged groups, and takes steps to try to make up for such injustices. Affirmative action has been

used to encourage or require organizations, universities, and public agencies to consider factors like

race in decisions about which contractors to use, which job applicants to hire, or which students to

admit. It has been most widely used in university admissions and government hiring, and has provided

non-White groups that have been discriminated against with equal access to occupations that were

previously unavailable to them.

Affirmative action has also generated substantial controversy. Critics argue that it attempts to

remedy discrimination in the past through a new form of “reverse discrimination.” Others say that

affirmative action doesn’t necessarily benefit the people who are truly the victims of discrimination,

and suggest that it should be based on poverty rather than race or gender. And others believe that all

social policy or admissions decisions should be “color blind,” with no advantages or considerations for

any group based on race, ethnicity, or any other criteria other than achievement. These arguments

overlook the many subtle ways in which individuals from advantaged backgrounds receive a boost on

their way to elite schools or sought-after jobs by drawing on networks of friends or family for

referrals, internships, letters of recommendation, and so on. They also ignore the not-so-subtle ways

that factors other than achievement enter into admissions decisions—for example, elite universities

commonly hold a substantial portion of their admissions slots for “legacies,” applicants whose parents

attended the institution. Every few years the Supreme Court hears another case about the use of race

in university admissions, but rarely do we hear objections about the tremendous advantage that

students automatically have if they’re applying to an elite school that their parents were fortunate

enough to previously attend.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 25

Review Sheet: Racism and discrimination

Key Points

 Racism doesn’t just live in individuals; it lives in institutions like schools,

workplaces, our housing market, our criminal justice system, and our political

system.

 Although the Bill of Rights protected the rights and liberties of minority groups in

the United States, Black people were not considered to be full citizens according to

our founding documents.

 Government programs designed to provide educational opportunities, jobs, home

mortgages, economic security, and a secure retirement were often targeted toward

the White population and often excluded non-White.

 A large-scale social movement centered around protest, civil disobedience, and legal

battles laid the groundwork for major advances in voting and civil rights. The legal

basis for segregated neighborhoods and schools finally began to break down with

the passage of major legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair

Housing Act of 1968.

 Affirmative action has been used to encourage or require organizations, universities,

and public agencies to consider factors like race in decisions about which

contractors to use, job candidates to hire, or students to admit.

Key People

 Ira Katznelson

 President John F. Kennedy

Key Terms

 Audit study – Sociological method in which applicants are matched according to all

characteristics that would make them more or less attractive and then sent out as

pairs to apply for various services or products.

 Racism – A set of beliefs, ideologies, or institutional practices that are based on the

idea that a specific racial group is biologically or culturally inferior to another racial

group.

 Discrimination – Unjust treatment of groups of people.

 Institutional racism – Idea that our nation’s core institutions, like the legal,

educational, and criminal justice systems, are embedded with racial biases and

preferences that recreate and maintain racial inequality.

 Affirmative action – Policies or programs that seek to rectify past discrimination

through active measures to ensure equal opportunity now.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 26

THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL INEQUALITY

 How much racial inequality is there in the U.S.?

 What does a sociological perspective on racial inequality look like?

Tre nds in racial inequa lity

During the 1960s, African Americans began to move into professional occupations and into the

middle class on a large scale, schools started to integrate, and there was great hope that racial

inequality would fade away. What has happened since then?

The answer depends on the dimension of inequality we consider. Perhaps the most basic

measures of inequality focus on family income and wealth. As shown in Figure 1, the gap in household

incomes between Blacks and Whites remained virtually the same between 1967 and 2016. As of 2014,

about 25% of Black and Latino families lived in poverty, compared to 10% of Whites. And Whites are

not at the top of the economic hierarchy in the United States; certain groups of Asian Americans have

higher incomes than any other racial or ethnic group, largely due to higher levels of education and

where they live (high-cost states such as California, New York, and Hawaii). Racial gaps in wealth are

even more severe than gaps in income. Whites had thirteen times as much wealth as Black Americans

in the years after the Great Recession, the largest gap since the late 1980s.

Figure 1: Median Household Income of Black and White Households, 1967-2016

Source: United States Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables: Households

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

1 96

7

1 96

9

1 97

1

1 97

3

1 97

5

1 97

7

1 97

9

1 98

1

1 98

3

1 98

5

1 98

7

1 98

9

1 99

1

1 99

3

1 99

5

1 99

7

1 99

9

2 00

1

2 00

3

2 00

5

2 00

7

2 00

9

2 01

1

2 01

3

2 01

5

M e

d ia

n h

o u

se h

o ld

i n

co m

e (

2 0

1 6

d o

ll a

rs )

White Black

Race and Ethnicity

Page 27

Other dimensions of inequality have improved considerably over time, however, the most

notable example being educational attainment. In 1996, the high school dropout rate among Latinos

was 34%, more than four times as high as for Whites. The rate for African Americans was 16%, twice

as high as Whites (8%). In the next ten years, the dropout rate for Latinos fell to 10%, and the rate for

African Americans fell to 7%, only slightly higher than the rate for Whites (5%).29

There are other signs of modest progress. Residential segregation of Black Americans from

White Americans peaked in 1980 but has fallen steadily since then. And there has been substantial

improvement on one of the most basic measures of health: life expectancy, a statistical measure of how

long people can expect to live, on average. The gap in life expectancy between Whites and Blacks has

been gradually shrinking over time, though there are still enormous differences. In 2015, White

women could expect to live more than two years longer than Black women, on average, and White men

could expect to live more than four years longer than Black men. Even on the dimensions of racial

inequality that have improved, in other words, there are still severe discrepancies.

This pattern reflects the complex nature of racial inequality in the United States. On some

measures of economic status, there has been no progress toward racial equality since the 1970s. On

other measures, there has been substantial progress. But on virtually every measure available, even

those that have improved over time, we can still observe a disturbing degree of inequality between

Black and White Americans. Why?

Understa nding t he persi stence of racia l inequalit y

Throughout American history, race has been used to justify a hierarchy based on skin color and

ancestry. It has fooled people into thinking that success and failure are driven by psychological,

genetic, intellectual, biological, and cultural differences between racial or ethnic groups.30 These

beliefs persist today. Surveys of Whites in the U.S. show that they are more likely to attribute racial

gaps in education and labor market success to differences in motivation, cultural inferiority, or

genetics. Blacks and Latinos, on the other hand, are more likely to attribute racial differences in

achievement and economic success to discrimination. One study examined responses to a national

survey asking why “Blacks (are) in their current state?” Only 31% of Whites responded that

discrimination was a central reason for continuing racial disparities, compared to 61% of Blacks.31

And yet we know, with certainty, that race directly affects the way people are treated in many

different settings, and these differences are most pronounced when comparing Whites and Blacks. We

described an audit study focusing on the treatment of Native Americans; similar studies have shown

stark differences in the treatment of White and Black individuals who have inquired about apartments,

home loans, or jobs. One study advertised iPhones on a common online marketplace and showed

pictures of either a Black or a White hand holding the phone. The ads with White hands were much

more likely to receive a response. Another study sent resumes to employers with distinctively “Black”

Race and Ethnicity

Page 28

names like Lakisha or Jamal or White-sounding names like Emily or Greg. Applicants named Emily and

Greg were much more likely to be contacted.32

The persistence of discrimination is undoubtedly one reason racial inequality has not gone

away. But we hope that this chapter leads you to think even more broadly about factors that have

contributed to racial inequality not only in the present, but over long periods of our history. As we’ve

shown, the most important government programs of the past century, like Social Security and the GI

Bill, were designed to largely exclude Black Americans. When a whole generation of returning veterans

were given subsidies to get college degrees and establish a foothold in the labor market, Black

American veterans were not given the same chance to use these benefits. When the federal

government first began to subsidize home mortgages, providing a government-supported “push” that

led to the massive growth of suburbs, non-White Americans were almost completely left out of the

program. In the decades since, homeownership has been the most reliable way for Americans to

accumulate assets (since for most people, their home is the single most valuable item they own), but

African Americans have been systematically excluded from buying real estate or taking out loans that

allow families to build up wealth in the form of homes.

Black Americans have been treated differently than any other racial or ethnic group throughout

the course of U.S. history, and it’s impossible to understand racial inequality today without considering

this history. Many Americans point to differences between Black Americans and other groups on

characteristics like academic achievement and family structure to argue that there is something about

the culture of the Black population that impairs their outcomes in life or their ability to get ahead.

Sociologists have taken this

argument seriously. They have found

that some dimensions of culture and

behavior do help to explain the

outcomes of different groups. For

example, Black Americans have

higher rates of single parenthood

than other racial and ethnic groups,

and children raised by single parents

are much more likely to grow up in

poverty. But it’s a mistake to think of

culture as an inherent, unchanging

feature of a group. A sociological

perspective takes group differences in

culture seriously, but attempts to

connect these differences to a larger

set of historical forces. Nowhere is

People visit the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. King is the first African American, and the fourth non-U.S. President, to have a monument

on the National Mall. (Source)

Race and Ethnicity

Page 29

this approach clearer than in the work of sociologist William Julius Wilson, who analyzed historical

data on urban labor markets to show how shifts in the jobs available to African American men from

the 1950s to the 1980s created widespread economic dislocation, leading to fewer “marriageable” men

who could support their families with steady employment. As jobs disappeared from central city

neighborhoods, much of the African American population remained stuck in neighborhoods that

offered few economic opportunities. Over time, rates of joblessness rose and the rate of single-parent

families skyrocketed, along with use of welfare benefits. This happened to all racial and ethnic groups,

but it was particularly severe for African Americans because they had fewer alternative job options

when manufacturing jobs disappeared.

We can learn lessons from Wilson’s classic analysis of the link between changes in urban labor

markets and cultural adaptations among African Americans. The first lesson is that group differences

in culture do not arise out of nowhere; they are often linked to broader economic or political forces.

When we study cultural or behavioral differences between groups, we must focus on how culture

emerges, and how larger forces help explain behaviors that may seem counterproductive, or even

destructive, from the outside. The second lesson is that a sociological perspective on inequality should

not be driven by politics or ideology, and sociologists should not ignore or downplay behaviors that

might contribute to group differences. Instead, our goal is to explain such differences, and to do so by

linking them with larger social forces—in other words, we should wade into even the most

controversial issues, and we should do so armed with a robust sociological imagination.

Review Sheet: The persistence of racial inequality

Key Points

 Whites had thirteen times as much wealth as Black Americans in the years after the

Great Recession, the largest gap since the late 1980s.

 Despite improvements in some areas like educational attainment, there is still

tremendous racial inequality in the U.S., exemplified by persistent gaps in the life

expectancy of African Americans and Whites.

 Throughout U.S. history, race has been used to justify a hierarchy based on skin

color and heritage.

 The persistence of discrimination is undoubtedly one reason why racial inequality

has not gone away over time.

 Black Americans have been treated differently than any other racial or ethnic group

throughout U.S. history, and it’s impossible to understand racial inequality today

without considering this history.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 30

 When we study cultural or behavioral differences between groups, we must focus

on how culture emerges and how larger forces help explain behaviors that may

seem counterproductive, or even destructive, from the outside.

Key People

 William Julius Wilson

Key Terms

 Life expectancy – Statistical measure indicating how long people can expect to live,

on average.

Race and Ethnicity

Page 31

REFERENCES

1 Bobo, Lawrence and Cybelle Fox. 2003. “Race, Racism, and Discrimination: Bridging Problems, Methods, and Theory in

Social Psychological Research.” Social Psychology Quarterly (Special Issue: Race, Racism, and Discrimination) 64: 319-332. 2 Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation.” American Sociological Review, 62(3): 465-480. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657316 Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. 3 Brodkin, Karen. 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Jacobson, Matthew Frye. 1999. Whiteness of a Different Color. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 4 Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 5 Feagin, Joe R. 2014. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. Third edition. New York: Routledge. 6 Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 7 Gilbert, Keon, Rashawn Ray, Arjumand Siddiqi, Derek Griffith, Elizabeth Baker, Shivan Shetty, and Keith Elder. 2016. “Visible and Invisible Trends in African American Men’s Health: Pitfalls and Promises.” Annual Review of Public Health 37: 295-311. Lewis-McCoy, R. L. Heureux. 2014. Inequality in the Promised Land: Race, Resources, and Suburban Schooling. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 8 Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 9 Bonilla-silva, Eduardo. 2004. “From Bi-Racial to Tri-Racial: Towards a New System of Racial Stratification in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(6):931–50. Omi and Winant 1994. 10 Ray, Rashawn (Ed.). 2010. Race and Ethnic Relations in the 21st Century: History, Theory, Institutions, and Policy. Cognella: San Diego. 11 Ray (Ed.), 2010. 12 Feagin, Joe R. 2014. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. Third edition. New York: Routledge; Quillian, Lincoln. 2006. “New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimination.” Annual Review of Sociology 32(1): 299–328; Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence D. Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1997. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 13 Ray, Rashawn. 2015. “If Only He Didn’t Wear the Hoodie…” Selective Perception and Stereotype Maintenance.” Pp. 81-93 in Stephanie McClure and Cherise Harris (Eds), Getting Real about Race: Hoodies, Mascots, Model Minorities, and Other Conversations. Los Angeles: Sage. 14 Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 15 Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. “Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(41): 16474–79. 16 Ray, 2015. 17 Entine, Jon. 2011. “The ‘Scheming, Flashy Trickiness’ of Basketball’s Media Darlings, the Philadelphia ‘Hebrews’ – err…Sixers.” The Jewish Magazine. Retrieved at: http://www.jewishmag.com/45mag/basketball/basketball.htm 18 Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 19 Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” The Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1): 3-7. 20 Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1979. “The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport’s Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 5: 461-476. 21 Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 22 Putnam RD. 2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30: 137–174. 23Turner, Margery Austin, Stephen L. Ross, and United States. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Policy Development and Research. 2003. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved

Race and Ethnicity

Page 32

(https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/42796/900834-Discrimination-in-Metropolitan-Housing- Markets.PDF). 24 Bobo and Fox, 2003. 25 Sewell, Abigail A. 2003. “A Different Menu: Racial Residential Segregation and the Persistence of Racial Inequality.” Pp. 287-296 in Rashawn Ray (ed). Race and Ethnic Relations in the 21st Century: History, Theory, Institutions, and Policy. San Diego, CA: University Readers. 26 Lewis-McCoy and R. L. Heureux. 2014. Inequality in the Promised Land: Race, Resources, and Suburban Schooling. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Gilbert, Keon, Rashawn Ray, Arjumand Siddiqi, Derek Griffith, Elizabeth Baker, Shivan Shetty, and Keith Elder. 2016. “Visible and Invisible Trends in African American Men’s Health: Pitfalls and Promises.” Annual Review of Public Health 37: 295-311. 27 Katznelson, Ira. 2005. When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth- Century America. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton. 28 Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 29Gramlich, John. 2017. “Hispanic Dropout Rate Hits New Low, College Enrollment at New High.” Pew Research Center. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/29/hispanic-dropout-rate-hits-new-low-college-enrollment-at- new-high/) 30 Drake, St. Clair. 1987. Black Folk Here and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology. Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies, University of California. Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 31 Matthew O. Hunt. 2007. “African-American, Hispanic, and White beliefs about Black/White Inequality, 1977- 2004.” American Sociological Review, 72: 390-415. 32 Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” The American Economic Review 94(4): 991–1013. Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108(5): 937–75. Cover Photo Source