This preview has intentionally blurred parts. Sign up to view the full document

View Full Document

Unformatted Document Excerpt

of 2 Because permissions issues, some material (e.g., photographs) has been removed from this chapter, though reference to it may occur in the text. The omitted content was intentionally deleted and is not needed to meet the University's requirements for this course. Prejudice CHAPTER OUTLINE Hate Crimes Prejudice and Discrimination ILA Theories of Prejudice The Content of Prejudice: Stereotypes LISTEN TO OUR VOICES National Media Should Stop Using Obscene Words by Tim Giago The Extent of Prejudice The Mood of the Oppressed Intergroup Hostility Reducing Prejudice RESEARCH FOCUS What's In a Name? Ways to Fight Hate Conclusion Key Terms/Review Questions/Critical Thinking/Internet Connections--Research NavigatorTM ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. HIGHLIGHTS entire group; discrimination is behavior that deprives a group of certain rights or opportunities. Prejudice does not necessarily coincide with discrimination, as is made apparent by a typology developed by sociologist Robert Merton. Several theories have been advanced to explain prejudice: scapegoating, authoritarian personality, exploitation, and normative. These explanations examine prejudice in terms of content (negative stereotypes) and extent. Prejudice is not limited to the dominant group; subordinate groups often dislike one another. The mass media seem to be of limited value in reducing prejudice and may even intensify ill feeling. Equal-status contact and the shared-coping approach may reduce hostility between groups. In response to increasing diversity in the workplace, corporations and organizations have mounted diversity training programs to increase organizational effectiveness and combat prejudice. There are also 10 identifiable steps that we as individuals can take to stop prejudice and hatred. P REJUDICE IS A NEGATIVE ATTITUDE THAT REJECTS AN ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. African American artist Jacob Lawrence portrays the separate facilities typical of the treatment received by blacks in the first half of the twentieth century. "The Phillips Collection," Washington D.C., ARS (Artists Rights Society) n a social science laboratory at the University of Colorado, Boulder, subjects in an experiment played video games as researchers recorded their moves. Presented with a rapid-fire series of pictures showing Black and White men holding various objects--cell phones, cameras, wallets, guns--subjects pressed one button if they considered a character harmless and another button to "shoot" characters they believed to be armed. Researchers were studying people's split-second reactions to tests of decision making involving race and the potential for violence. When they analyzed the results, they found that the subjects, most of whom were White, had reacted more quickly to pictures of Black men with guns than to pictures of White men with guns. Subjects were also more likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed Black character than an unarmed White character. The results were the same for Black subjects as for White subjects. These results were not unusual. In a similar study at the University of Washington, psychologists asked college students to distinguish virtual citizens and police officers from armed criminals. They found that subjects were more likely to misperceive and shoot images of Black men than of White men in the video game they created. For the last three decades, in fact, research has suggested that people in the United States are more likely to see Black men as being violent than White men, which translated in this study for the Black men to be more likely to be "shot" at. Are there limits for this hostility? Apparently not. In the commercially successful "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" video-game players are encouraged to take very violent actions against a variety of images. At one point players are informed that they have come across a "Stinking nest of Haitians. We gonna kill them all. Kill all the Haitians." Why? "Kill all the Haitians, they are all drug dealers." This game, released by Rockstar Video in 2003, bore a parental code declaring that use was inappropriate for children under 17, but aside from the fact that so many youth access such games, we might be left to ponder why such a "game" with this dialogue would be marketed even to young adults (CBS New York 2003; Correll et al. 2002; Greenwald et al. 2003). Prejudice is so prevalent that it is tempting to consider it inevitable or, even more broadly, just part of human nature. Such a view ignores its variability from individual to individual and from society to society. People must learn prejudice as children before they exhibit it as adults. Therefore, prejudice is a social phenomenon, an acquired characteristic. A truly pluralistic society would lack unfavorable distinctions made through prejudicial attitudes among racial and ethnic groups. Ill feeling between groups may result from ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to assume that one's culture and way of life are superior to all others. The ethnocentric person judges other groups and other cultures by the standards of his or her own group. This attitude leads people quite easily to view other cultures as inferior. We see a woman with a veil and many regard it as strange and backward, yet find it baffling when other societies see American women in short skirts and view the dress as inappropriate. Ethnocentrism and other expressions of prejudice are voiced very often, but unfortunately they also become the motivation for criminal acts. ethnocentrism The tendency to assume that one's culture and way of life are superior to all others. Hate Crimes ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Although prejudice certainly is not new in the United States, it is receiving increased attention as it manifests itself in neighborhoods, at meetings, and on college cam- 34 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 35 puses. The Hate Crime Statistics Act, which became law in 1990, directs the Department of Justice to gather data on hate or bias crimes. The government defines a hate crime as a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnic/national origin group, or sexualorientation group. (Department of Justice 2001c:58) hate crimes Criminal offense committed because of the offender's bias against a race, religion, ethnic/national origin group, or sexual orientation group. This law created a national mandate to identify such crimes, whereas previously only 12 states had monitored hate crimes. In 1994, the act was amended to include disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. In 2003 law enforcement agencies released hate crime data submitted by police agencies covering 86 percent of the United States. Even though many, many hate crimes are not reported, a staggering number of offenses that come to law agencies' attention were motivated by hate. There were official reports of more than 8,800 hate crimes and bias-motivated incidents. As indicated in Figure 2.1, race was the apparent motivation for the bias in about 49 percent of the reports, and religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity accounted for 14 to 19 percent each. Vandalism and intimidation were the most common, but 43 percent of the incidents against people involved assault, rape, or murder. National legislation and publicity have made hate crime a meaningful term, and we are beginning to recognize the victimization associated with such incidents. A current proposal would make a violent crime into a federal crime if it were motivated by racial or religious bias. Although passage is uncertain, the serious consideration of the proposal indicates a willingness to consider a major expansion of federal jurisdiction. Currently, federal law prohibits crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin only if they involve violation of a federally guaranteed right, such as voting. Most hate crimes are the result of people acting alone or with a few others, but there is a troubling pattern of organized hate groups that dates back more than 130 years in the United States to the founding of the Ku Klux Klan. As shown in Figure 2.2, some people organize into groups with the express purpose of showing their hatred toward other groups of people. Law enforcement agencies attempt to monitor such groups but are limited in their actions by constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly. Victimized groups are not merely observing these events. Watchdog organizations play an important role in documenting bias-motivated violence; among such groups are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. CD-ROM Activity 2.3 Disability 0.6% Sexual orientation 16.7% Religion 19.1% Race 48.8% Ethnicity 14.8% FIGURE 2.1 Distribution of Reported Hate Crimes in 2002 Source: Department of Justice 2003a. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 36 Chapter 2 Prejudice ME CT Christian Identity Neo-Confederate Black Separatist Racist Skinhead Ku Klux Klan NH RI Neo-Nazi VT MA MD PA DE VA NC WV SC OH KY GA MI IN TN IL MO AR MS WI AL MN IA KS OK ND SD NE TX LA FL FL MT WY UT AZ NM CO ID NV WA FIGURE 2.2 Active Hate Groups Source: Map, "Active Hate Groups in the U.S. in the Year 2003," The Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center (2004). Reprinted by permission of Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, AL. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. OR CA AK HI Other NY NJ Chapter 2 Prejudice 37 Established hate groups have even set up propaganda sites on the World Wide Web. This also creates opportunities for previously unknown haters and hate groups to promote themselves. However, hate crime legislation does not affect such outlets because of legal questions involving freedom of speech. An even more recent technique has been to use instant messaging software, which enables Internet users to create a private chat room with another individual. Enterprising bigots use directories to target their attacks through instant messaging, much as harassing telephone calls were placed in the past (ADL 1996; Grattet and Jenness 2001; McDevitt et al. 2002). What causes people to dislike entire groups of other people? Is it possible to change attitudes? This chapter tries to answer these questions about prejudice. Chapter 3 focuses on discrimination. Prejudice and Discrimination Prejudice and discrimination are related concepts but are not the same. Prejudice is a negative attitude toward an entire category of people. The two important components in this definition are attitude and entire category. Prejudice involves attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs, not actions. Prejudice often is expressed through the use of ethnophaulisms, or ethnic slurs, which include derisive nicknames such as honky, gook, or wetback. Ethnophaulisms also include speaking about or to members of a particular group in a condescending way ("Jos does well in school for a Mexican American") or referring to a middle-aged woman as "one of the girls." A prejudiced belief leads to categorical rejection. Prejudice is not disliking someone you meet because you find his or her behavior objectionable. It is disliking an entire racial or ethnic group, even if you have had little or no contact with that group. A college student who requests a room change after three weeks of enduring his roommate's sleeping all day, playing loud music all night, and piling garbage on his desk is not prejudiced. However, he is displaying prejudice if he requests a change on arriving at school and learning that his new roommate is of a different nationality. Prejudice is a belief or attitude; discrimination is action. Discrimination involves behavior that excludes all members of a group from certain rights, opportunities, or privileges. Like prejudice, it must be categorical. If an employer refuses to hire as a typist an Italian American who is illiterate, it is not discrimination. If she refuses to hire any Italian Americans because she thinks they are incompetent and does not make the effort to see whether an applicant is qualified, it is discrimination. Merton's Typology Prejudice does not necessarily coincide with discriminatory behavior. In exploring the relationship between negative attitudes and negative behavior, sociologist Robert Merton (1949, 1976) identified four major categories (Figure 2.3). The label added to each of Merton's categories may more readily identify the type of person being described. These are 1. 2. 3. 4. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 prejudice A negative attitude toward an entire category of people, such as a racial or ethnic minority. The unprejudiced nondiscriminator: all-weather liberal The unprejudiced discriminator: reluctant liberal The prejudiced nondiscriminator: timid bigot The prejudiced discriminator: all-weather bigot ethnophaulism Ethnic or racial slurs, including derisive nicknames. discrimination The denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice or for other arbitrary reasons. As the term is used in types 1 and 2, liberals are committed to equality among people. The all-weather liberal believes in equality and practices it. Merton was quick to observe that all-weather liberals may be far removed from any real competition with Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 38 Chapter 2 Prejudice Nondiscriminator Discriminator Type 1 Type 2 Unprejudiced All-weather liberal Reluctant liberal Type 3 Type 4 Prejudiced FIGURE 2.3 Prejudice and Discrimination As sociologist Robert Merton's formulation shows, prejudice and discrimination are related to each other but are not the same. Timid bigot All-weather bigot subordinate groups such as African Americans or women. Furthermore, such people may be content with their own behavior and may do little to change themselves. The reluctant liberal is not this committed to equality between groups. Social pressure may cause such a person to discriminate. Fear of losing employees may lead a manager to avoid promoting women to supervisory capacities. Equal-opportunity legislation may be the best way to influence the reluctant liberals. Types 3 and 4 do not believe in equal treatment for racial and ethnic groups, but they vary in their willingness to act. The timid bigot, type 3, will not discriminate if discrimination costs money or reduces profits or if he or she is pressured not to by peers or the government. The all-weather bigot unhesitatingly acts on the prejudiced beliefs he or she holds. LaPiere's Study Merton's typology points out that attitudes should not be confused with behavior. People do not always act as they believe. More than a half century ago, Richard LaPiere (1934, 1969) exposed the relationship between racial attitudes and social conduct. From 1930 to 1932 LaPiere traveled throughout the United States with a Chinese couple. Despite an alleged climate of intolerance of Asians, LaPiere observed that the couple were treated courteously at hotels, motels, and restaurants. He was puzzled by the good reception they received; all the conventional attitude surveys showed extreme prejudice by Whites toward the Chinese. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 39 Was it possible that LaPiere had been fortunate during his travels and consistently stopped at places operated by the tolerant members of the dominant group? To test this possibility, he sent questionnaires asking the very establishments at which they had been served whether the owner would "accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment." More than 90 percent responded no, even though LaPiere's Chinese couple had been treated politely at all the establishments. How can this inconsistency be explained? People who returned questionnaires reflecting prejudice were unwilling to act based on those asserted beliefs; they were timid bigots. The LaPiere study is not without flaws. First, he had no way of knowing whether the respondent to the questionnaire was the same person who had served him and the Chinese couple. Second, he accompanied the couple, but the questionnaire suggested that the arrival would be unescorted (and, in the minds of some, uncontrolled) and perhaps would consist of many Chinese people. Third, personnel may have changed between the time of the visit and the mailing of the questionnaire (Deutscher et al. 1993). The LaPiere technique has been replicated with similar results. This technique raises the question of whether attitudes are important if they are not completely reflected in behavior. But if attitudes are not important in small matters, they are important in other ways: Lawmakers legislate and courts may reach decisions based on what the public thinks. This is not just a hypothetical possibility. Legislators in the United States often are persuaded to vote in a certain way by what they perceive as changed attitudes toward immigration, affirmative action, and prayer in public schools. Sociologists have enumerated some of prejudice's functions. For the majority group, it serves to maintain privileged occupations and more power for its members. The following sections examine the theories of why prejudice exists and discuss the content and extent of prejudice today. Theories of Prejudice Prejudice is learned. Friends, relatives, newspapers, books, movies, television, and the Internet all teach it. Awareness begins at an early age that there are differences between people that society judges to be important. Several theories have been advanced to explain the rejection of certain groups in a society. We will examine four theoretical explanations. The first two (scapegoating and authoritarian personality) tend to be psychological, emphasizing why a particular person harbors ill feelings. The second two are more sociological (exploitation and normative), viewing prejudice in the context of our interaction in a larger society. Scapegoating Theory Scapegoating theory says that prejudiced people believe they are society's victims. The term scapegoat comes from a biblical injunction telling the Hebrews to send a goat into the wilderness to symbolically carry away the people's sins. Similarly, the theory of scapegoating suggests that, rather than accepting guilt for some failure, a person transfers the responsibility for failure to some vulnerable group. In the major tragic 20thcentury example, Adolf Hitler used the Jews as the scapegoat for all German social and economic ills in the 1930s. This premise led to the passage of laws restricting Jewish life in pre-World War II Germany and eventually escalated into the mass extermination of Europe's Jews. Today in the United States, immigrants, whether legal or illegal, often are blamed by "real Americans" for their failure to get jobs or secure desirable housing. The immigrant becomes the scapegoat for one's own lack of skills, planning, or motivation. It is so much easier to blame someone else. scapegoating theory A person or group blamed irrationally for another person's or group's problems or difficulties. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 40 Chapter 2 Prejudice Many would regard this statue of colonist Hannah Duston in Massachusetts as perpetuating stereotypes about American Indians. She is honored for killing and scalping ten Abeenaki Indians in 1697 while defending her family. Believed to be the first woman ever honored in the United States with a monument, it portrays her holding a hatchet in her right hand. Like exploitation theory (page 41), scapegoating theory adds to our understanding of why prejudice exists but does not explain all its facets. For example, scapegoating theory offers little explanation of why a specific group is selected or why frustration is not taken out on the real culprit when possible. Also, both the exploitation and the scapegoating theories suggest that every person sharing the same general experiences in society would be equally prejudiced, but that is not the case. Prejudice varies between individuals who seem to benefit equally from the exploitation of a subordinate group or who have experienced equal frustration. In an effort to explain these personality differences, social scientists developed the concept of the authoritarian personality. Authoritarian Personality Theory A number of social scientists do not see prejudice as an isolated trait that anyone can have. Several efforts have been made to detail the prejudiced personality, but the most comprehensive effort culminated in a volume titled The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al. 1950). Using a variety of tests and relying on more than 2,000 respondents, ranging from middle-class Whites to inmates of San Quentin (California) State Prison, the authors claimed they had isolated the characteristics of the authoritarian personality. In these authors' view, the basic characteristics of the authoritarian personality are adherence to conventional values, uncritical acceptance of authority, and concern with power and toughness. With obvious relevance to the development of intolerance, the authoritarian personality was also characterized by aggressiveness toward people who did not conform to conventional norms or obey authority. According to authoritarian personality A psychological construct of a personality type likely to be prejudiced and to use others as scapegoats. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 41 the researchers, this personality type developed from an early childhood of harsh discipline. A child with an authoritarian upbringing obeyed and then later treated others as he or she had been raised. This study has been widely criticized, but the very existence of such wide criticism indicates the influence of the study. Critics have attacked the study's equation of authoritarianism with right-wing politics (although liberals can also be rigid); its failure to see that prejudice is more closely related to other individual traits, such as social class, than to authoritarianism as it was defined; and the research methods used. Graham Kinloch (1974), discussing personality research, added a fourth criticism: The authors concentrated on factors behind extreme racial prejudice rather than on more common expressions of hostility. exploitation theory A Marxist theory that views racial subordination in the United States as a manifestation of the class system inherent in capitalism. Exploitation Theory Racial prejudice often is used to justify keeping a group in a subordinate position, such as a lower social class. Conflict theorists, in particular, stress the role of racial and ethnic hostility as a way for the dominant group to keep its position of status and power intact. Indeed, this approach maintains that even the less affluent White working class uses prejudice to minimize competition from upwardly mobile minorities. This exploitation theory is clearly part of the Marxist tradition in sociological thought. Karl Marx emphasized exploitation of the lower class as an integral part of capitalism. Similarly, the exploitation or conflict approach explains how racism can stigmatize a group as inferior so that the exploitation of that group can be justified. As developed by Oliver Cox (1942), exploitation theory saw prejudice against Blacks as an extension of the inequality faced by the entire lower class. The exploitation theory of prejudice is persuasive. Japanese Americans were the object of little prejudice until they began to enter occupations that brought them into competition with Whites. The movement to keep Chinese out of the country became strongest during the late 19th century, when Chinese immigrants and Whites fought over dwindling numbers of jobs. Both the enslavement of African Americans and the removal westward of Native Americans were to a significant degree economically motivated. Although many cases support the exploitation theory, it is too limited to explain prejudice in all its forms. First, not all minority groups are exploited economically to the same extent. Second, many groups that have been the victims of prejudice have Preserving culture or expressing pride can sometimes cross the line and intimidate others. In Laurens, South Carolina, one finds the "World Famous Redneck Shop and Klan Museum" where one can pick up souvenirs that often carry symbolism that is regarded as racist by many. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 42 Chapter 2 Prejudice TABLE 2.1 Theories of Prejudice There is no one explanation of why prejudice exists, but several approaches taken together offer insight. Theory Scapegoating Proponent Bruno Bettelheim Morris Janowitz Adorno and associates Oliver C. Cox Marxist theory Thomas Pettigrew Explanation People blame others for their own failures. Child rearing leads one to develop intolerance as an adult. People use others unfairly for economic advantage. Peer and social influences encourage tolerance or intolerance. Example An unsuccessful applicant assumes that a minority member or a woman got "his" job. The rigid personality type dislikes people who are different. A minority member is hired at a lower wage level. A person from an intolerant household is more likely to be openly prejudiced. Authoritarian personality Exploitation Normative not been persecuted for economic reasons, such as the Quakers or gays and lesbians. Nevertheless, as Gordon Allport (1979) concludes, the exploitation theory correctly points a finger at one of the factors in prejudice, that is, the rationalized self-interest of the privileged. Normative Approach Although personality factors are important contributors to prejudice, normative or situational factors must also be given serious consideration. The normative approach takes the view that prejudice is influenced by societal norms and situations that encourage or discourage the tolerance of minorities. Analysis reveals how societal influences shape a climate for tolerance or intolerance. Societies develop social norms that dictate not only what foods are desirable (or forbidden) but also what racial and ethnic groups are to be favored (or despised). Social forces operate in a society to encourage or discourage tolerance. The force may be widespread, such as the pressure on White Southerners to oppose racial equality while there was slavery or segregation. The influence of social norms may be limited, as when one man finds himself becoming more sexist as he competes with three women for a position in a prestigious law firm. We should not view the four approaches to prejudice summarized in Table 2.1 as mutually exclusive. Social circumstances provide cues for a person's attitudes; personality determines the extent to which people follow social cues and the likelihood that they will encourage others to do the same. Societal norms may promote or deter tolerance; personality traits suggest the degree to which a person will conform to norms of intolerance. To understand prejudice, we need to use all four approaches together. normative approach The view that prejudice is influenced by societal norms and situations that encourage or discourage the tolerance of minorities. The Content of Prejudice: Stereotypes On Christmas Day 2001, Arab American Walied Shater boarded an American Airlines flight from Baltimore to Dallas carrying a gun. Immediately, the cockpit crew refused to let him fly, fearing that Shater would take over the plane and use it as a weapon of mass destruction. Yet Walied Shater carried documentation that he was a Secret SerISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 43 vice agent, and calls to Washington, D.C., confirmed that he was flying to join a presidential protection force at President George W. Bush's ranch in Texas. Nevertheless, the crew could not get past the stereotype of Arab American men posing a lethal threat (Leavitt 2002). stereotype Unreliable, exaggerated generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account. What Are Stereotypes? In Chapter 1, we saw that stereotypes play a powerful role in how people come to view dominant and subordinate groups. Stereotypes are unreliable generalizations about all members of a group that do not take individual differences into account. Numerous scientific studies have been made of these exaggerated images. This research has shown the willingness of people to assign positive and negative traits to entire groups of people, which are then applied to particular individuals. Stereotyping causes people to view Blacks as superstitious, Whites as uncaring, and Jews as shrewd. Over the last 70 years of such research, social scientists have found that people have become less willing to express such views openly, but as we will see later, prejudice persists (MacRae et al. 1996). In "Listen to Our Voices," journalist and Lakota Sioux member Tim Giago speaks strongly against the widely accepted, commercially successful use of stereotypes: the continued use of Indians as mascots for athletic teams. If stereotypes are exaggerated generalizations, why are they so widely held, and why are some traits more often assigned than others? Evidence for traits may arise out of real conditions. For example, more Puerto Ricans live in poverty than Whites, and so the prejudiced mind associates Puerto Ricans with laziness. According to the New Testament, some Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, and so, to the prejudiced mind, all Jews are Christ killers. Some activists in the women's movement are lesbians, and so all feminists are seen as lesbians. From a kernel of fact, faulty generalization creates a stereotype. NOT AVAILABLE FOR ELECTRONIC VIEWING ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 44 Chapter 2 Prejudice ur oices Voices Listen to Our Voices Listen to NATIONAL MEDIA SHOULD STOP USING OBSCENE WORDS I However, 2000 did give am just sick and tired of us (Indians) a little reprieve. hearing students and faculThe Cleveland Indians and ty from school using Inditheir hideous mascot were clobans as mascots say they are bered and didn't make the playdoing it to "honor us. . . ." offs. The Washington Redskins Who or what is a Redskin? turned into the Washington It is a derogatory name for a "Deadskins." The Kansas City race of people. It's as simple as Chiefs were real losers. And that. It is akin to the racist almost best of all, the Florida names "nigger" or "gook" or Tim Giago State Seminoles were steam"kike" or "wop." It is not, I rolled by an Oklahoma team with real Indirepeat NOT, an honor to be called a racist ans serving as bodyguards to the Oklahoma name nor is it an honor to see football fans coach Bob Stoops. My thrill at watching the dressed in supposed Indian attire nor to Seminoles lose was topped only by watching hear them trumpeting some ludicrous war Ted Turner's Atlanta Braves get "tomachant nor to see them mimic or ape our hawked" this year. Now that was truly an dress, culture, or person. "honor. . . ." When I saw the Florida State fans doing Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the ridiculous "tomahawk chop" and heard note the word "collegiate" here, reads the their Johnny-one-note band play that asiword redskin quite simply as "American nine version of an Indian song over and Indian usually taken to be offensive." over, I was heartsick. I was also highly embar"Usually taken to be offensive." Now what rassed for the people of the Seminole is so hard to understand about this literal Nation of Florida for allowing their good translation of the word "redskin"? name to be taken in vain. Attention major newspapers, CNN, Fox, I am also sick and tired of fanatical sports ABC, CBS and NBC: the word "redskin" is fans telling Indians who object to this kind an obscenity to Indians and to people who of treatment to "lighten up." You know, I are sensitive to racism. It is translated by didn't hear those same white folks saying Webster's to be offensive. Now what other this to African-Americans in the 1960s when proof do you need to discontinue its usage? they were objecting to the hideous black caricature at the Sambo Restaurants or to the Step-in-Fetch-It character used so often in Source: "National Media Should Stop Using Obscene Words" by Tim the early movie days to portray blacks as Giago, as reprinted in The Denver Post, January 21, 2001. Copyright dimwitted, shiftless people. I didn't hear 2001 by Tim Giago. Reprinted by permission of anybody tell them to "lighten up." Tim Giago. Labels take on such strong significance that people often ignore facts that contradict their previously held beliefs. People who believe many Italian Americans to be members of the Mafia disregard law-abiding Italian Americans. Muslims are regularly portrayed in a violent, offensive manner that contributes to their being misunderstood and distrusted. We will consider later in the chapter how this stereotype about Muslims has become widespread since the mid-1970s but intensified after the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 45 Trends in Stereotypes In the last 30 years, we have become more and more aware of the power of the mass media to introduce stereotypes into everyday life. Television is a prime example. Almost all television roles showing leadership feature Whites. Even urban-based programs such as Seinfeld and Friends prospered without any major Black, Hispanic, or Asian American characters. A 1998 national survey of boys and girls aged 10 to 17 asked a very simple question and came up with some disturbing findings. The children were asked, "How often do you see your race on television?" The results showed that 71 percent of White children said "very often," compared with only 42 percent of African Americans, 22 percent of Latinos, and 16 percent of Asian Americans. Even more troubling is that generally the children view the White characters as affluent and well educated, whereas they see the minority characters as "breaking the law or rules," "being lazy," and "acting goofy." Later in this chapter we will consider the degree to which the media have changed in presenting stereotyped images (Children Now 1998). The labeling of individuals has strong implications for the self-fulfilling prophecy. Studies show that people are all too aware of the negative images other people have of them. When asked to estimate the prevalence of hard-core racism among Whites, one in four Blacks agrees that more than half "personally share the attitudes of groups like the Ku Klux Klan toward Blacks"; only one Black in ten says "only a few" share such views. Stereotypes not only influence how people feel about themselves but, perhaps equally important, also affect how people interact with others. If people feel that others hold incorrect, disparaging attitudes toward them, it undoubtedly will make it difficult to have harmonious relations (Sigelman and Tuch 1997). Are stereotypes held only by dominant groups about subordinate groups? The answer is clearly no. White Americans even believe generalizations about themselves, although admittedly these are usually positive. Subordinate groups also hold exaggerated images of themselves. Studies before World War II showed a tendency for Blacks to assign to themselves many of the same negative traits assigned by Whites. Today, stereotypes of themselves are largely rejected by African Americans, Jews, Asians, and other minority groups. Stereotyping in Action: Racial Profiling A Black dentist, Elmo Randolph, testified before a state commission that he was stopped dozens of times in the 1980s and 1990s while traveling the New Jersey Turnpike to work. Invariably state troopers asked, "Do you have guns or drugs?" "My parents always told me, be careful when you're driving on the turnpike" said Dr. Randolph, 44. "White people don't have that conversation" (Purdy 2001:37). Little wonder that Dr. Randolph was pulled over. African Americans accounted for 17 percent of the motorists on that turnpike but 80 percent of the motorists pulled over. Such occurrences gave rise to the charge that we had added a new traffic offense to the books: DWB, or Driving While Black (Bowles 2000). In recent years government attention has been given to a social phenomenon with a long history: racial profiling. According to the Department of Justice, racial profiling is any police-initiated action based on race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the person's behavior. Generally, profiling occurs when law enforcement officers, including customs officials, airport security, and police, assume that people fitting certain descriptions are likely to be engaged in something illegal. Beginning in the 1980s with the emergence of the crack cocaine market, skin color became a key characteristic. This profiling can be a very explicit use of stereotypes. For example, the federal antidrug initiative, Operation Pipeline, specifically encouraged officers to look for people with dreadlocks or for Latino men traveling together. racial profiling Any arbitrary police-initiated action based on race, ethnicity, or natural origin rather than a person's behavior. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 46 Chapter 2 Prejudice Actor Danny Glover with his daughter, holds a press briefing after filing a discrimination complaint with a New York taxi company in 1999. A driver refused to let him sit in the front of the car while his daughter and a friend sat in the back. The reliance on racial profiling persists despite overwhelming evidence that it is misleading. Whites are more likely to be found with drugs in the areas in which minority group members are disproportionately targeted. Nationwide, 80 percent of the country's cocaine users are White, but law enforcement tactics concentrate on the inner-city drug trade. Of course, there is a self-fulfilling nature to racial profiling. If, overwhelmingly, Blacks and Latinos are investigated, they will account for the majority of successful arrests. Data presented in 1999 indicated that Blacks constitute 13 percent of the country's drug users, 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 55 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison (Harris 1999). In the 1990s increased attention to racial profiling led not only to special reports and commissions but also to talk of legislating against it. This proved difficult. The U.S. Supreme Court in Whren v. United States (1996) upheld the constitutionality of using a minor traffic infraction as an excuse to stop and search a vehicle and its passengers. Nonetheless, states and other government units are discussing policies and training that would discourage racial profiling. At the same time, most law enforcement agencies reject the idea of compiling racial data on traffic stops, arguing that it would be a waste of money and staff time. The effort to stop racial profiling came to an abrupt end after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Suspicions about Muslims and Arabs in the United States became widespread. Foreign students from Arab countries were summoned for special questioning. Legal immigrants identified as Arab or Muslim were scrutinized for any illegal activity and were prosecuted for routine immigration violations that were ignored for people of other ethnic backgrounds and religious faiths. In 2003, President George W. Bush issued guidelines that barred federal agents from using race and ethnicity in investigations but specifically exempted cases involving terrorism and national security matters. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 47 National surveys showed that those groups most likely to be stigmatized were not as supportive of using profiling. In a national 2004 survey, people were asked if racial profiling was ever justified when passengers are stopped at airport security checkpoints. Less than a third of all African Americans and 40 percent of Latinos supported such profiling compared to 46 percent of non-hispanic Whites. Nonetheless, racial profiling moved from a questionable local police action to a reaffirmed matter of national policy (Carlson 2004; Coates 2004; Harris 1999; Lictblau 2003). The Extent of Prejudice Interest in developing theories of prejudice or studying the concept has been exceeded only by interest in measuring it. From the outset, efforts to measure prejudice have suffered from disagreement over exactly what constitutes intolerance and whether there is such a phenomenon as no prejudice at all. Add to these uncertainties the methodological problems of attitude measurement, and the empirical study of prejudice becomes fraught with difficulty. The extent of prejudice can be measured only in relative differences. For example, we cannot accurately say that prejudice toward Puerto Ricans is four times greater than that toward Portuguese Americans. We can conclude that prejudice is greater toward one group than toward the other; we just cannot quantify how much greater. The social distance scale is especially appropriate to assess differences in prejudice. The Social Distance Scale Robert Park and Ernest Burgess first defined social distance as the tendency to approach or withdraw from a racial group (1921:440). Emory Bogardus (1968) conceptualized a scale that could measure social distance empirically. His social distance scale is so widely used that it is often called the Bogardus scale. The scale asks people how willing they would be to interact with various racial and ethnic groups in specified social situations. The situations describe different degrees of social contact or social distance. The seven items used, with their corresponding distance scores, follow. People are asked whether they would be willing to admit each group To close kinship by marriage (1.00) To my club as personal chums (2.00) To my street as neighbors (3.00) To employment in my occupation (4.00) To citizenship in my country (5.00) As only visitors to my country (6.00) Would exclude from my country (7.00) ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 A score of 1.00 for any group would indicate no social distance and therefore no prejudice. The social distance scale has been administered to many different groups in other countries as well. Despite some minor flaws and certain refinements needed in the scale, the results of these studies are useful and can be compared. The data in Table 2.2 summarize the results of studies using the social distance scale in the United States at three points in time over a 65-year period. In the top third of the hierarchy are White Americans and northern Europeans. In the middle are eastern and southern Europeans, and generally near the bottom are racial minorities. This prestige hierarchy resembles the relative proportions of the various groups in the population. social distance Tendency to approach or withdraw from a racial group. Bogardus scale Technique to measure social distance toward different racial and ethnic groups. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 48 Chapter 2 Prejudice TABLE 2.2 Changes in Social Distance The social distance scale developed by Emory Bogardus has been a useful measure of people's feelings of hostility toward different racial and ethnic groups. 1926 1. English 2. Americans (U.S. White) 3. Canadians 4. Scots 5. Irish 6. French 7. Germans 8. Swedish 9. Hollanders 10. Norwegians 11. Spanish 12. Finns 13. Russians 14. Italians 15. Poles 16. Armenians 17. Czechs 18. Native Americans 19. Jews 20. Greeks 21. Mexicans 22. Mexican Americans 23. Japanese 24. Japanese Americans 25. Filipinos 26. Negroes 27. Turks 28. Chinese 29. Koreans 30. Indians (from India) Arithmetic mean Spread in distance 1.06 1.10 1.13 1.13 1.30 1.32 1.46 1.54 1.56 1.59 1.72 1.83 1.88 1.94 2.01 2.06 2.08 2.38 2.39 2.47 2.69 -- 2.80 -- 3.00 3.28 3.30 3.36 3.60 3.91 1966 1. Americans (U.S. White) 2. English 3. Canadians 4. French 5. Irish 6. Swedish 7. Norwegians 8. Italians 9. Scots 10. Germans 11. Hollanders 12. Finns 13. Greeks 14. Spanish 15. Jews 16. Poles 17. Czechs 18. Native Americans 19. Japanese Americans 20. Armenians 21. Filipinos 22. Chinese 23. Mexican Americans 24. Russians 25. Japanese 26. Turks 27. Koreans 28. Mexicans 29. Negroes 30. Indians (from India) Arithmetic mean Spread in distance 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.36 1.40 1.42 1.50 1.51 1.53 1.54 1.54 1.67 1.82 1.93 1.97 1.98 2.02 2.12 2.14 2.18 2.31 2.34 2.37 2.38 2.41 2.48 2.51 2.56 2.56 2.62 1991 1. Americans (U.S. White) 2. English 3. French 4. Canadians 5. Italians 6. Irish 7. Germans 8. Swedish 9. Scots 10. Hollanders 11. Norwegians 12. Native Americans 13. Greeks 14. Finns 15. Poles 16. Russians 17. Spanish 18. Jews 19. Mexicans (U.S.) 20. Czechs 21. Americans (U.S. Black) 22. Chinese 23. Filipinos 24. Japanese (U.S.) 25. Armenians 26. Turks 27. Koreans 28. Mexicans 29. Japanese 30. Indians (from India) 1.00 1.08 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.30 1.36 1.38 1.50 1.56 1.66 1.70 1.73 1.73 1.74 1.76 1.77 1.84 1.84 1.90 1.94 1.96 2.04 2.06 2.17 2.23 2.24 2.27 2.37 2.39 2.14 2.85 1.92 1.56 Arithmetic mean Spread in distance 1.76 1.39 (Source: Emory S. Bogardus, "Comparing Racial Distance in Ethiopia, South Africa, and the United States," Sociology and Social Research, 52 [January 1968]. Copyright, University of Southern California, 1968. All rights reserved; and Tae-Hyon Song, "Social Contact and Ethnic Distance Between Koreans and the U.S. Whites in the United States," paper, Macomb, Western Illinois University, 1991. Reprinted by permission.) The similarity in the hierarchy during the 65 was years not limited to White respondents. Several times, the scale was administered to Jewish, Mexican-American, Asian, Puerto Rican, Black-African, and Black-American groups. These groups generally shared the same hierarchy, although they placed their own group at the top. The extent of prejudice as illustrated in the ranking of racial and ethnic groups seems to be widely shared. Studies have also been performed in other societies and show that they have a racial and ethnic hierarchy as well. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 49 A tentative conclusion that we can draw from these studies is that the extent of prejudice is decreasing. At the bottom of Table 2.2 is the arithmetic mean of the racial reactions on a scale of 1.0 to 7.0. Although the change was slight from survey to survey, it is generally downward. However, many specific nationalities and races experienced little change. The spread in social distance (the difference between the topand bottom-ranked groups) also decreased from 1926 to 1991, a finding indicating that fewer distinctions were being made. This result was also confirmed empirically in research on stereotypes (Crull and Bruton 1985; Owen et al. 1981). Trends in Prejudice We hold certain images or stereotypes of each other, and we also may be more prejudiced toward some groups of people than others. However, is prejudice less than it used to be? The evidence we will see is mixed, with some indications of willingness to give up some old prejudices while new negative attitudes emerge. Over the years, nationwide surveys have consistently shown growing support by Whites for integration, even during the Southern resistance and Northern turmoil of the 1960s. National opinion surveys conducted from the 1950s through the 1990s, with few exceptions, show an increase in the number of Whites responding positively to hypothetical situations of increased contact with African Americans. For example, 30 percent of the Whites sampled in 1942 felt that Blacks should not attend separate schools, but by 1970, 74 percent supported integrated schools, and fully 93 percent responded in that manner in 1991 (Davis and Smith 2001). Attitudes are still important, however. A change of attitude may create a context in which legislative or behavioral change can occur. Such attitude changes leading to behavior changes did occur in some areas in the 1960s. Changes in intergroup behavior mandated by law in housing, schools, public places of accommodation, and the workplace appear to be responsible for making some new kinds of interracial contact a social reality. Attitudes translate into votes, peer pressure, and political clout, each of which can facilitate efforts to undo racial inequality. However, attitudes can work in the opposite direction. In the mid-1990s, surveys showed resistance to affirmative action and immigration. Policy makers quickly developed new measures to respond to these concerns, voiced largely by Whites. When we survey White attitudes toward African Americans, two conclusions are inescapable. First, attitudes are subject to change, and in periods of dramatic social upheaval, dramatic shifts can occur within one generation. Second, less progress has been made in the late 20th century than was made in the 1950s and 1960s. Researchers have variously called these subtle forms of prejudice symbolic racism, modern racism, or laissez-faire racism. People today may not be as openly racist or prejudiced as in the past in expressing the notion that they are inherently superior to others. Yet much of the opposition to policies related to eradicating poverty or immigration is a smoke screen for those who dislike entire groups of racial and ethnic minorities (Bobo et al. 1997; Sniderman and Carmines 1997). In the 1990s, White attitudes hardened still further as issues such as affirmative action, immigration, and crime provoked strong emotions among members of this dominant group as well as members of subordinate groups. Economically lesssuccessful groups such as African Americans and Latinos have been associated with negative traits to the point where issues such as welfare and crime are now viewed as race issues. Besides making the resolution of very difficult social issues even harder, this is another instance of blaming the victim. These perceptions come at a time when the willingness of government to address domestic ills is limited by increasing opposition to new taxes. Although there is some evidence that fewer Whites are consistently prejudiced on all issues from interracial marriage to school integration, it is also apparent that many Whites continue to ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 50 Chapter 2 Prejudice endorse some anti-Black statements and that negative images are widespread as they relate to the major domestic issues of the 21st century (Gilens 1996; Hughes 1998; Schaefer 1996). The Mood of the Oppressed Sociologist W. E. B. DuBois relates an experience from his youth in a largely White community in Massachusetts. He tells how, on one occasion, the boys and girls were exchanging cards, and everyone was having a lot of fun. One girl, a newcomer, refused his card as soon as she saw that DuBois was Black. He wrote, Then it dawned upon me with a certain suddenness that I was different from others...shut out from their world by a vast veil. I had therefore no desire to tear down that veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt and lived above it in a region of blue sky and great wandering shadows. (DuBois 1903:2) In using the image of a veil, DuBois describes how members of subordinate groups learn that they are being treated differently. In his case and that of many others, this leads to feelings of contempt toward all Whites that continue for a lifetime. Opinion pollsters have been interested in White attitudes on racial issues longer than they have measured the views of subordinate groups. This neglect of minority attitudes reflects, in part, the bias of the White researchers. It also stems from the contention that the dominant group is more important to study because it is in a better position to act on its beliefs. The results of nationwide surveys conducted in the United States in 2003 offer insight into sharply different views on the state of race relations today (Figure 2.4). African Americans are much less satisfied with the current situation than are White Americans and Hispanics. We have focused so far on what usually comes to mind when we think about prejudice: one group hating another group. But there is another form of prejudice: A group may come to hate itself. Members of groups held in low esteem by society may, as a result, have low self-esteem themselves. Many social scientists once believed that members of subordinate groups hated themselves or at least had low self-esteem. Similarly, they argued that Whites had high self-esteem. High self-esteem means that an individual has fundamental respect for himself or herself, appreciates his or her own merits, and is aware of personal faults and will strive to overcome them. The research literature of the 1940s through the 1960s emphasized the low selfesteem of minorities. Usually, the subject was African Americans, but the argument has also been generalized to include any subordinate racial, ethnic, or nationality group. This view is no longer accepted. We should not assume that minority status influences personality traits in either a good or a bad way. First, such assumptions may create a stereotype. We cannot describe a Black personality any more accurately than we can a White personality. Second, characteristics of minority-group members are not entirely the result of subordinate racial status; they are also influenced by low incomes, poor neighborhoods, and so forth. Third, many studies of personality imply that certain values are normal or preferable, but the values chosen are those of dominant groups. If assessments of a subordinate group's personality are so prone to misjudgments, why has the belief in low self-esteem been so widely held? Much of the research rests on studies with preschool-age Black children asked to express preferences among dolls with different facial colors. Indeed, one such study, by psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark (1947), was cited in the arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education. The Clarks' ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 51 study showed that Black children preferred White dolls, a finding suggesting that the children had developed a negative self-image. Although subsequent doll studies have sometimes shown Black children's preference for white-faced dolls, other social scientists contend that this shows a realization of what most commercially sold dolls look like rather than documenting low self-esteem (Bloom 1971; PowellHopson and Hopson 1988). Because African American children, as well as other subordinate groups' children, can realistically see that Whites have more power and resources and therefore rate Between Whites and Blacks Whites Blacks FIGURE 2.4 What Is the State of Race Relations? Source: AARP 2004: 36, 41, 44. 17% 34% 17% 65% 16% 49% Between Whites and Hispanics Whites Hispanics 16% 22% 20% 55% 61% 24% Between Blacks and Hispanics Blacks 14% 22% 61% 28% Hispanics 18% 51% Good ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Neutral Bad Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 52 Chapter 2 Prejudice them higher does not mean that they personally feel inferior. Indeed, studies, even with children, show that when the self-images of middle-class or affluent African Americans are measured, their feelings of self-esteem are more positive than those of comparable Whites (Gray-Little and Hafdahl 2000). Intergroup Hostility CD-ROM Activity 2.1 Prejudice is as diverse as the nation's population. It exists not only between dominant and subordinate peoples but also between specific subordinate groups. Unfortunately, until recently little research existed on this subject except for a few social distance scales administered to racial and ethnic minorities. A national survey revealed that, like Whites, many African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans held prejudiced and stereotypical views of other racial and ethnic minority groups: Majorities of Black, Hispanic, and Asian American respondents agreed that Whites are "bigoted, bossy, and unwilling to share power." Majorities of these nonWhite groups also believed that they had less opportunity than Whites to obtain a good education, a skilled job, or decent housing. Forty-six percent of Hispanic Americans and 42 percent of African Americans agreed that Asian Americans are "unscrupulous, crafty, and devious in business." Sixty-eight percent of Asian Americans and 49 percent of African Americans believed that Hispanic Americans "tend to have bigger families than they are able to support." Thirty-one percent of Asian Americans and 26 percent of Hispanic Americans agreed that African Americans "want to live on welfare." Members of oppressed groups obviously have adopted the widely held beliefs of the dominant culture concerning oppressed groups. At the same time, the survey also revealed positive views of major racial and ethnic minorities: More than 80 percent of respondents admired Asian Americans for "placing a high value on intellectual and professional achievement" and "having strong family ties." A majority of all groups surveyed agreed that Hispanic Americans "take deep pride in their culture and work hard to achieve a better life." Large majorities from all groups stated that African Americans "have made a valuable contribution to American society and will work hard when given a chance" (National Conference of Christians and Jews 1994). Do we get along? Although this question often is framed in terms of the relationships between White Americans and other racial and ethnic groups, we should recognize the prejudice between groups. In a national survey conducted in 2000, people were asked whether they felt they could generally get along with members of other groups. In Figure 2.5, we can see that Whites felt they had the most difficulty getting along with Blacks. We also see the different views that Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans, and American Indians hold toward other groups. Curiously, we find that some groups feel they get along better with Whites than with other minority groups. Why would that be? Often, low-income people are competing on a daily basis with other low-income people and do not readily see the larger societal forces that contribute to their low status. As we can see from the survey results, many Hispanics are more likely to see Asian Americans as getting in their way than the White Americans who are actually the real decision makers in their community. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 53 Asked of White Respondents 100 90 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Blacks Hispanics Asians American Indians 66 71 Percent 85 80 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Asked of Black Respondents 84 67 65 86 Whites Hispanics Asians American Indians Asked of Hispanic Respondents 100 90 80 70 Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Whites Blacks Asians American Indians 71 73 66 Percent 82 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Asked of Asian Respondents 88 78 70 75 Whites Blacks Hispanics American Indians 100 Asked of American Indian Respondents1 95 90 86 90 80 70 FIGURE 2.5 Do We Get Along? Percentage saying groups get along with each other (Don't Knows excluded). Note: The wording of the question was: "We hear a lot these days about how various groups in society get along with each other. I'm going to mention several groups and ask whether you think they generally get along with each other or generally do not get along with each other." So, in the Asked of White Respondents graph, Whites are asked how Whites get along with each ethnic group; in the Asked of Black Respondents graph, Blacks are asked how Blacks get along with each ethnic group etc. (Source: From Taking America's Pulse II: NCCJ's 2000 Survey of Intergroup Relations in the United States, by T. Smith 2000:54) National Conference for Community Justice. Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians 43 ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 1 Sample size for American Indians is very small and subject to large sample variance. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 54 Chapter 2 Prejudice Reducing Prejudice Focusing on how to eliminate prejudice involves an explicit value judgment: Prejudice is wrong and causes problems for those who are prejudiced and for their victims. The obvious way to eliminate prejudice is to eliminate its causes: the desire to exploit, the fear of being threatened, and the need to blame others for one's own failure. These might be eliminated by personal therapy, but therapy, even if it works for every individual, is no solution for an entire society in which prejudice is a part of everyday life. The answer appears to rest with programs directed at society as a whole. Prejudice is attacked indirectly when discrimination is attacked. Despite prevailing beliefs to the contrary, we can legislate against prejudice: Statutes and decisions do affect attitudes. In the past, people firmly believed that laws could not overcome norms, especially racist ones. Recent history, especially after the civil rights movement began in 1954, has challenged that common wisdom. Laws and court rulings that have equalized the treatment of Blacks and Whites have led people to reevaluate their beliefs about what is right and wrong. The increasing tolerance by Whites during the civil rights era, from 1954 to 1965, seems to support this conclusion. Much research has been done to determine how to change negative attitudes toward groups of people. The most encouraging findings point to education, mass media, intergroup contact, and workplace training programs. Education and Mass Media Research on the mass media and education consists of two types: research performed in artificially (experimentally) created situations and studies examining the influence on attitudes of motion pictures, television, and advertisements. Leaflets, radio commercials, comic books, billboards, Web pages, and classroom posters bombard people with the message of racial harmony. Television audiences watch a public service message that for 30 seconds shows smiling White and African American infants reaching out toward each other. Law enforcement and military personnel attend in-service training sessions that preach the value of a pluralistic society. Does this publicity do any good? Do these programs make any difference? Most research studies show that well-constructed programs do have some positive effect in reducing prejudice, at least temporarily. The reduction is rarely as much as one might wish, however. The difficulty is that a single program is insufficient to change lifelong habits, especially if little is done to reinforce the program's message once it ends. Persuasion to respect other groups does not operate in a clear field because, in their ordinary environments, people are still subjected to situations that promote prejudicial feelings. Children and adults are encouraged to laugh at Polish jokes and cheer for a team named "Redskins." Black adolescents may be discouraged by peers from befriending a White youth. All this undermines the effectiveness of prejudice reduction programs (Allport 1979). Studies consistently document that increased formal education, regardless of content, is associated with racial tolerance. Research data show that more highly educated people are more likely to indicate respect and liking for groups different from themselves. Why should more years of schooling have this effect? It could be that more education gives a broader outlook and makes a person less likely to endorse myths that sustain racial prejudice. Formal education teaches the importance of qualifying statements and the need to question rigid categorizations, if not reject them altogether. Colleges are increasingly including as a graduation requirement a course that explores diversity or multiculturalism. Another explanation is that education does not actually reduce intolerance but simply makes people more careful about revealing it. Formal education may simply instruct people in the appropriate respons- ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 55 es, which in some settings could even be prejudiced views. Despite the lack of a clearcut explanation, either theory suggests that the continued trend toward a bettereducated population will contribute to a reduction in overt prejudice. However, college education may not reduce prejudice uniformly. For example, some White students will come to believe that minority students did not earn their admission into college. Students may feel threatened to see large groups of people of different racial and cultural backgrounds congregating together and forming their own groups. Racist confrontations do occur outside the classroom and, even if they do involve only a few, the events themselves will be followed by hundreds. Therefore, some aspects of the college experience may only foster "we" and "they" attitudes (Schaefer 1986, 1996). The mass media, like schools, may reduce prejudice without the need for specially designed programs. Television, radio, motion pictures, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet present only a portion of real life, but what effect do they have on prejudice if the content is racist or antiracist, sexist or antisexist? As with measuring the influence of programs designed to reduce prejudice, coming to strong conclusions on the mass media's effect is hazardous, but the evidence points to a measurable effect. In late spring 1999, as the television networks prepared their schedules for the 19992000 season, an article in the Los Angeles Times hit the broadcasting industry like a bombshell. In every new prime time series--26 of them--set to debut in the coming season, the Times reported, all the leading characters and most of the supporting casts would be White. The public response was immediate. The NAACP, alarmed by the "virtual whitewash in programming," threatened a lawsuit, and a national coalition of Latino groups urged viewers to boycott network TV. By 2004, reports showed improvement in the representation on Blacks on television but little improvement in Hispanic represention (especially if the George Lopez show is excluded). Asian Americans, Arab Americans, and Native Americans continue to be virtually nonexistent. Why the underrepresentation? Incredibly, network executives seemed surprised by the research demonstrating an all-White season. Producers, writers, executives, and advertisers blamed each other for the alleged oversight. In recent years, the rise of both cable TV and the Internet has fragmented the broadcast entertainment market, NOT AVAILABLE FOR ELECTRONIC VIEWING ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 56 Chapter 2 Prejudice siphoning viewers away from the general-audience sitcoms and dramas of the past. With the proliferation of cable channels such as Black Entertainment Television (BET) and the Spanish-language Univision and Web sites that cater to every imaginable taste, there no longer seems to be a need for broadly popular series such as The Cosby Show, whose tone and content appealed to Whites as well as Blacks in a way that the newer series do not. The UPN and WB networks produce situation comedies and even full nights geared toward African American audiences. The result of these sweeping technological changes has been a sharp divergence in viewer preferences. While BET and Univision were grabbing minority audiences and offering new outlets for minority talent, network executives and writers remained overwhelmingly White. It is not surprising that these mainstream writers and producers, most of whom live far from ethnically and racially diverse inner-city neighborhoods, tend to write and prefer stories about people like themselves. Even urban-based programs such as the successful Seinfeld and Frazier lasted years on television with almost no people of color crossing the screen. Television series are only part of the picture. Newscasting is overwhelmingly done by Whites: Eighty-nine percent in 2000. Among the top 30 correspondents on the major network evening news shows, one was a Latino, one was an African American, and 28 were White. Ironically, this means that if television were to report the research on television and race, the news correspondent probably would be White (Braxton 1999; Carter 2001; Bunche Center 2004; Children Now 2004; P. Johnson 2001). Because we acquire prejudice from our social environment, it follows that the mass media and educational programs, as major elements of that environment, influence the level of prejudice. The movement to eliminate the stereotyping of minorities and the sexes in textbooks and on television recognizes this influence. Most of the effort has been to avoid contributing to racial hostility; less effort has been made to attack prejudice actively, primarily because no one knows how to do that effectively. In looking for a way to attack prejudice directly, many people advocate intergroup contact. Equal-Status Contact An impressive number of research studies have confirmed the contact hypothesis, which states that intergroup contact between people of equal status in harmonious circumstances will cause them to become less prejudiced and to abandon previously held stereotypes. Most studies indicate that such contact also improves the attitude of subordinate-group members. The importance of equal status in the interaction cannot be stressed enough. If a Puerto Rican is abused by his employer, little interracial harmony is promoted. Similarly, the situation in which contact occurs must be pleasant, making a positive evaluation likely for both individuals. Contact between two nurses, one Black and the other White, who are competing for one vacancy as a supervisor may lead to greater racial hostility (Schaefer 1976). The key factor in reducing hostility, in addition to equal-status contact, is the presence of a common goal. If people are in competition, as already noted, contact may heighten tension. However, bringing people together to share a common task has been shown to reduce ill feeling when these people belong to different racial, ethnic, or religious groups. A study released in 2004 traced the transformations that occurred over the generations in the composition of the Social Service Employees Union in New York City. Always a mixed membership, the union was founded by Jews and Italian Americans, only to experience an influx of Black Americans, but more recently comprised of Latin Americans, Africans, West Indians, and South Asians. At each point, the common goals of representing the workers effectively overcame the very real cultural differences among the rank-and-file of Mexican and El Salvadoran immigrants in Houston. The researchers found when the new arrivals had contact contact hypothesis An interactionist perspective stating that intergroup contact between people of equal status in noncompetitive circumstances will reduce prejudice. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 57 with African Americans, intergroup relations generally improved relations, and the absence of contact tended to foster ambivalent, even negative attitudes (Foerster 2004; Sherif and Sherif 1969). Researchers in a housing study examined the harassment, threats, and fears that Blacks face in White schools in which low-income Black students are in the minority. Did these African American youths experience acceptance, friendships, and positive interactions with their White classmates? The researchers interviewed youth who had moved to the suburbs and those who had relocated within the city of Chicago under the auspices of a federally funded program. In this program, low-income Black families received housing subsidies that allowed them to move from inner-city housing projects into apartment buildings occupied largely by middle-income Whites and located in middle-income, mostly White suburbs. The study found that these lowincome Black youth did experience some harassment and some difficulty in gaining acceptance in the suburban schools, but the findings also suggested that they eventually experienced great success in social integration and felt that they fit into their new environments (Rosenbaum and Meaden 1992). As African Americans and other subordinate groups slowly gain access to betterpaying and more responsible jobs, the contact hypothesis takes on greater significance. Usually, the availability of equal-status interaction is taken for granted, yet in everyday life intergroup contact does not conform to the equal-status idea of the contact hypothesis as often as we are assured by researchers, who hope to see a lessening of tension. Furthermore, in a highly segregated society such as the United States, contact, especially between Whites and minorities, tends to be brief and superficial (N. Miller 2002). Corporate Response: Diversity Training Prejudice carries a cost. This cost is not only to the victim but also to any organization that allows prejudice to interfere with its functioning. Workplace hostility can lead to lost productivity and even attrition. Furthermore, if left unchecked, an organization, whether a corporation, government agency, or nonprofit enterprise, can develop a reputation for having a "chilly climate." This reputation as a business unfriendly to people of color or to women discourages both qualified people from applying for jobs and potential clients from seeking products or services. In an effort to improve workplace relations, most organizations have initiated some form of diversity training. These programs are aimed at eliminating circumEfforts are beginning in the workplace to reduce hostility among workers based on prejudice. CD-ROM Activity 2.2 ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 58 Chapter 2 Prejudice stances and relationships that cause groups to receive fewer rewards, resources, or opportunities. Typically, programs aim to reduce ill treatment based on race, gender, and ethnicity. In addition, diversity training may deal with (in descending order of frequency) age, disability, religion, and language, as well as other aspects, including citizenship status, marital status, and parental status (Society for Human Resource Management). It is difficult to make any broad generalization about the effectiveness of diversity training programs because they vary so much in structure between organizations. At one extreme are short presentations that seem to have little support from management. People file into the room feeling that this is something they need to get through quickly. Such training is unlikely to be effective and may actually be counterproductive by heightening social tensions. At the other end of the continuum is a diversity training program that is integrated into initial job training, reinforced periodically, and presented as part of the overall mission of the organization, with full support from all levels of management. In these businesses, diversity is a core value, and management demands a high degree of commitment from all employees (ADL 2001; Lindsley 1998). As shown in Figure 2.6, the workforce is becoming more diverse, and management is taking notice. It is not in an organization's best interests if employees start to create barriers based on, for example, racial lines. We saw in the previous section that equalstatus contact can reduce hostility. However, in the workplace, people compete for promotions, desirable work assignments, and better office space, to name a few sources of friction. When done well, an organization undertakes diversity training to remove ill feelings among workers, often reflected in the prejudices present in larger society. The content of diversity training also varies. Generally, it includes sharing information about the diverse composition of the service region, the company, and potential clientele, today and in the future. Videotapes are sometimes used, which usually com- 90 81.9 80 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10.2 10 0 16.0 5.7 White non-Hispanic Black Hispanic 65.0 1980 2020 13.3 7.3 2.3 Asian and other ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 FIGURE 2.6 The Changing Workplace Racial and ethnic composition of the labor force in 1990 and projected to 2015. Source: Toossi 2002: 24. Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 59 Focus Research Focus Research Focus WHAT'S IN A NAME? s a job applicant, you revise and rework that rsum. Do you include that summer job three years ago? Who should you list as a reference? Do you state specific career objectives? But one thing you never ponder--your name. Yet recent research shows your name may be a big factor if the potential interviewer is able to use it as a means to determine your race or nationality. Would a Mohammad be as likely to get a chance to work as a Michael in the United States? Most likely not in what could be seen as yet another form of profiling, but only this one occurs in the job market. Two economists, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, sent out 5,000 job applications for 1,300 job openings advertised in the Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. The vacancies covered the gamut of the classified advertisements from cashier jobs to sales management positions. Among this massive undertaking, the researchers decided to see if the name of the job applicant made a difference. Carefully they tracked responses to two different sets of applicants--one with first names most likely to be African American and the other set being more typical of Whites. Names were A TABLE 2.3 Names and Interview Success Name on resume Brad Kristen Meredith Mathew Emily Tanisha Darnell Keisha Rasheed Aisha Callback (%) 15.0 13.6 10.6 9.0 8.3 6.3 4.8 3.8 3.0 2.2 selected by examining a random sample of Boston birth certificates that identifed a person's race as well as his or her name. The results of this job-seeking experiment were even startling to the researchers. Applicants with White-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for an interview than those with Black-sounding names. Put another way, the typical White applicant was contacted for an interview for every 10 rsums they sent out, while the "African American" applicant had to send out 15 applications. Where employers responded positively to more than one rsum, rarely did they contact a "Black" applicant and not also contact a "White" applicant. Because these were hypothetical applicants, we have no way of knowing to what degree these disturbing job results would have continued during the interview, job offer, and salary offered. Yet, clearly, the biggest constraining factor in any person's attempt to get a job is to get that interview. The researchers took their study one step further. They made conscious efforts to make a portion of the applicants better qualified or to list addresses in more affluent neighborhoods. In both instances, resumes with White-sounding names were given even further advantages but this had much less positive impact on callbacks to the rsums bearing Black-sounding names. They did find that the apparent pro-White bias was less when employers where located in minority neighborhoods. This study showed, using a clever, if simple, methodology, that people's prejudices seem to surface even when they scan that top line of the rsum Many business people apparently read no further if they detect that the applicant is from the wrong group. Source: Bertand and Mullainathan 2003 and Krueger 2002. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 60 Chapter 2 Prejudice pare proper and awkward ways to handle a situation. Training sessions may break up into smaller group interactions where problem solving and team building are also encouraged. If it is to have lasting impact on an organization, diversity training should not be separated from other aspects of the organization. For example, even the most inspired program will have little effect on prejudice if the organization promotes a sexist or ethnically offensive image in its advertising. As we heard in "Listen to Our Voices," Tim Giago expresses anger about continued use of Indians as mascots. The University of North Dakota launched an initiative in 2001 to become one of the top institutions for American Indians in the nation. Yet at almost the same time, the administration reaffirmed its commitment, despite tribal objections, to having as its mascot for athletic teams the "Fighting Sioux." It does little to do diversity training if overt actions by an organization propel it in the opposite direction (Brownstein 2001). A central function that businesses can perform is to monitor prejudice that may deny opportunities to people largely because of their race, ethnicity, or nationality. In "Research Focus," (see page 59) we consider a recent and innovative experiment to measure prejudice in the workplace. Although diversity training is increasingly common in the workplace, it may be undertaken primarily in response to major evidence of wrongdoing. In recent years, companies as diverse as Avis Rent-a-Car, Circuit City, Coca-Cola, Mitsubishi, Denny's Restaurants, Morgan Stanley, and Texaco have become synonymous with racism or sexual harassment. Generally, as a part of multimillion-dollar settlements, organizations agree to conduct comprehensive diversity training programs. So common is this pattern that a human resources textbook even cautions that a company should "avoid beginning such training too soon" after a complaint of workplace prejudice or discrimination (Carrell et al. 2000:266). Despite the problems inherent in confronting prejudice, an organization with a comprehensive, management-supported program of diversity training can go a long way toward reducing prejudice in the workplace. The one major qualifier is that the rest of the organization must also support mutual respect. Ways to Fight Hate What can schools do? Television and movie producers? Corporate big shots? It is easy to shift the responsibility for confronting prejudice to the movers and shakers and certainly they do play a critical role. Yet there are definitely actions one can take in the course of everyday day life to challenge intergroup hostility. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), founded in 1971 and based in Montgomery, Alabama, organized committed activists all over the country to mount legal cases and challenges against hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. The center's courtroom challenges led to the end of many discriminatory practices. Their cases have now gone beyond conventional race-based cases as they have won equal benefits for women in the armed forces, ended involuntary sterilization of women on welfare, and reformed prison and mental health conditions. Recognizing that social change can also begin at the individual level, the SPLC has identified ten ways to fight hate based on their experience working at the community level (Carrier 2000). 1. Act. Do something. In the face of hatred, apathy will be taken as acceptance even by the victims of prejudice themselves. The SPLC tells of a time when a cross was burned in the yard of a single mother of Portuguese descent in Missouri; one person acted and set in motion a community uprising against hatred. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 61 2. Unite. Call a friend or coworker. Organize a group of like-thinking friends from school or your place of worship or club. Create a coalition that is a diverse coalition and includes the young, the old, law enforcement representatives, and the media. Frustrated when a neo-Nazi group got permission to march in Springfield, Illinois, in 1994, a Jewish couple formed Project Lemonade. Money raised helps to create education projects or monuments in communities that witness such decisive events. 3. Support the Victims. Victims of hate crimes are especially vulnerable. Let them know you care by words, by e-mail. If you or your friend is a victim, report it. In the wake of an outbreak of anti-Native American and anti-Jewish activity in Billings, Montana, a manager of a local sports shop replaced all his usual outdoor advertising and print ads with "Not in Our Town," which soon became a community rallying point for a support network of hate victims. 4. Do Your Homework. If you suspect a hate crime has been committed, do your research to document it. An Indiana father spotted his son receiving a "pastor's license," did some research, and found that the source was a White supremacist group disguised as a church. It helped explain the boy's recent fascination with Nazi symbols. The father wrote the "church," demanded that the contacts be stopped, and threatened suit. 5. Create an Alternative. Never attend a rally where hate is a part of the agenda. Find another outlet for your frustration, whatever the cause. When the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, a coalition of ministers organized citizens to spend the day in minority neighborhoods. 6. Speak Up. You too have First Amendment rights. Denounce the hatred, the cruel jokes. If you see a news organization misrepresenting a group, speak up. When a newspaper exposed the 20-year-old national leader of the Aryan Nation in Canada, he resigned and closed his Web site. 7. Lobby Leaders. Persuade policy makers, business heads, community leaders, and executives of media outlets to take a stand against hate. Levi Strauss contributed $5 million to an antiprejudice project and a program that helps people of color get loans in communities where it has plants: Knoxville, Albuquerque, El Paso, and Valdosta, Georgia. 8. Look Long Range. Participate or organize events such as annual parades or cultural fairs to celebrate diversity and harmony. Supplement it with a Web site that can be a 24/7 resource. In Selma, Alabama, a major weekend street fair is held on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, when voting-rights activists attempting to walk across a bridge to Montgomery were beaten back by police. 9. Teach Tolerance. Prejudice is learned and parents and teachers can influence the content of curriculum. In Brooklyn, New York, an interracial basketball program called Flames was founded in the mid-1970s. Since then, it has brought together more than 10,000 youths of diverse backgrounds. 10. Dig Deeper. Look into the issues that divide us--social inequality, immigration, and sexual orientation. Work against prejudice. Dig deep inside yourself for prejudices and stereotypes you may embrace. Find out what is happening and act! As former White supremacist Floyd Cochran declared, "It is not enough to hold hands and sing Kumbaya" (Carrier 2000:22). Expressing prejudice and expressing tolerance are fundamentally personal decisions. These steps recognize that we have the ability to change our attitudes and resist ethnocentrism and prejudice and avoid the use of ethnophaulisms and stereotypes. ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. 62 Chapter 2 Prejudice Conclusion his chapter has examined theories of prejudice and measurements of its extent. Prejudice should not be confused with discrimination. The two concepts are not the same: Prejudice consists of negative attitudes, and discrimination consists of negative behavior toward a group. Several theories try to explain why prejudice exists. Some emphasize economic concerns (the exploitation and scapegoating theories), whereas other approaches stress personality or normative factors. No one explanation is sufficient. Surveys conducted in the United States over the past 60 years point to a reduction of prejudice as measured by the willingness to express stereotypes or maintain social distance. Survey data also show that African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and American Indians do not necessarily feel comfortable with each other. They have adopted attitudes toward other oppressed groups similar to those held by many White Americans. Prejudice aimed at Hispanics, Asian Americans, and large recent immigrant groups such as Arab Americans and Muslim Americans is well documented. Issues such as immigration and affirmative action reemerge and cause bitter resentment. Furthermore, ill feelings exist between subordinate groups in schools, in the streets, and in the workplace. Equal-status contact may reduce hostility between groups. However, in a highly segregated society defined by inequality, such opportunities are not typical. The mass media can be of value in reducing discrimination but have not done enough and may even intensify ill feeling by promoting stereotypical images. Although strides are being made in increasing the appearance of minorities in positive roles in television and films, one would not realize how diverse our society is by sampling advertisements, TV programs, or movies. Even though we can be encouraged by the techniques available to reduce intergroup hostility, there are still sizable segments of the population that do not want to live in integrated neighborhoods, that do not want to work for or be led by someone of a different race, and that certainly object to the idea of their relatives' marrying outside their own group. People still harbor stereotypes toward one another, and this tendency includes racial and ethnic minorities having stereotypes about one another. Reducing prejudice is important because it can lead to support for policy change. There are steps we can take as individuals to confront prejudice and overcome hatred. Another real challenge and the ultimate objective is to improve the social condition of oppressed groups in the United States. To consider this challenge, we turn to discrimination in Chapter 3. Discrimination's costs are high to both dominant and subordinate groups. With that fact in mind, we will examine some techniques for reducing discrimination. Key Terms authoritarian personality 40 Bogardus scale 47 contact hypothesis 56 discrimination 37 ethnocentrism 34 ethnophaulism 37 exploitation theory 41 hate crimes 35 normative approach 42 prejudice 37 racial profiling 45 scapegoating theory 39 social distance 47 stereotype 43 ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 2 Prejudice 63 Review Questions 1. How are prejudice and discrimination both related and unrelated to each other? 2. How do theories of prejudice relate to different expressions of prejudice? 3. Why does prejudice develop even toward groups with whom people have little contact? 4. Are there steps that you can identify that have been taken against prejudice in your community? Critical Thinking 1. Identify stereotypes associated with a group of people, such as older adults or people with physical handicaps. 2. What social issues do you think are most likely to engender hostility along racial and ethnic lines? 3. Consider the television programs you have watched the most. In terms of race and ethnicity, how well do the programs you watch tend to reflect the diversity of the population in the United States? Internet Connections--Research NavigatorTM RESOURCES FOR COLLEGE RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS Website, enter your Login Name and Password. Then, to use the ContentSelect database, enter keywords such as "racism," "racial profiling," and "diversity training," and the research engine will supply relevant and recent scholarly and popular press publications. Use the New York Times Search-by-Subject Archive to find recent news articles related to sociology and the Link Library feature to locate relevant Web links organized by the key terms associated with this chapter. Follow the instructions found on page 31 of this text to Research Navigator.c m access the features of Research NavigatorTM. Once at the ISBN: 0-536-12071-4 Racial and Ethnic Groups, Tenth Edition, by Richard T. Schaefer. Published by Prentice-Hall. Copyright 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. ... View Full Document

End of Preview

Sign up now to access the rest of the document