WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT RACE?

Is race s9ll important in the U.S.?

What do we mean by race and ethnicity?
What is the racial and ethnic composi9on of the United States?
Is race a biological feature of humans?
When did the idea of race first emerge?

In 1903, the sociologist W. E. B. Du Bois famously wrote, “The problem of the twen9eth
century is the problem of the color-line—the rela9on of the darker to the lighter races of
men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the sea.”[1] Du Bois was wri9ng just a
few decades aYer the end of slavery, at a 9me when lynching of Black people was a common
occurrence, public facili9es were segregated by race, and immigrants from China were
excluded from entering the United States. Much has changed over the past century, but race
and racism remain central problems in American society.
The elec9on of Barack Obama as the first Black President of the United States is a case in
point. President Obama’s elec9on was a momentous event in American history, and many
poli9cal pundits and journalists at the 9me considered his elec9on to be a harbinger of the
end of racism as we know it. Some commentators suggested that America had entered a
“post-racial” moment. So why are we s9ll talking about race and ethnicity today?
In the eight years that President Obama was in office, he faced con9nuous ques9ons about
whether he was born in the United States and whether he was lying about his religious faith
(given his name and ancestry). He was cri9cized by conserva9ves for bringing too much
aden9on to race, and cri9cized by liberals for failing to do enough to help Black Americans.
At the start of his presidency, the Tea Party emerged as a major conserva9ve social
movement, and toward the end of his presidency, the Black Lives Mader movement
developed in response to police killings of Black people and La9nos.
Eight years aYer Barack Obama was elected, Donald Trump—the man who had led the call
for proof that President Obama was born in the U.S.—became the 45th President of the
United States. Following President Trump’s elec9on, hate crimes against racial and religious
minori9es increased throughout the country, and White supremacist groups that used to be
on the fringes of society grew bolder and garnered more and more aden9on.
And then, in May of 2020, a video from Minneapolis showed Derek Chauvin, a White police
officer, kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a Black man, un9l he lost consciousness and
died. The video, which emerged amid the worsening coronavirus pandemic, led to a massive
mobiliza9on against police violence and other forms of racial injus9ce and economic
oppression. Demonstra9ons were held in ci9es and towns across the country, as millions of
Americans expressed their support for a na9onal reckoning on race. On April 20, 2021,
Chauvin was convicted of murder, but about 1,000 people—dispropor9onately Black, La9no,
and Na9ve American—con9nue to be killed by the police every year and most police officers
are not held accountable. Now two years later, federal and local governments have s9ll not
passed meaningful police reforms, and modest efforts to reckon with racial inequality have
been met with state laws banning conversa9ons about racism in schools.[2]
A lot has happened since November 2, 2008, and there is no simple way to interpret
everything that’s changed since the day American voters elected the first Black president.
But two things are clear: the United States did not turn into a colorblind na9on, and we are
not living in a post-racial era. Race and ethnicity remain crucial to every aspect of life in the
United States. This chapter explores why.
Race and ethnicity

Ar9cle I, Sec9on 2 of the U.S. Cons9tu9on requires an “enumera9on” of the popula9on,

otherwise known as a census, every ten years. The first Census occurred in 1790, and every
ten years since, the federal government has undertaken a massive project to find out how
many people live in the United States. Race, and related concep9ons of who counts as a
ci9zen, have always been a central part of the effort. For example, Na9ve Americans were
rarely included in the Census before 1900, and although enslaved Black people were
counted, they were considered to be only three-fiYhs of a person for the purposes of the
poli9cal representa9on of White ci9zens in slaveholding states.
Race is a system that humans created to classify and stra9fy groups of people based mostly
on skin tone and other phenotypic characteris9cs, such as eye shape and hair texture.[3]
Race has been used to create, maintain, and enhance group dis9nc9ons and dispari9es.[4]
The first Census included only three racial categories: people were classified as either “free
white males or free white females,” “all other free persons,” or “slaves.” As the na9on has
become more diverse and the category of ci9zenship has expanded, these categories have
changed again and again. Before 1950, Census-takers visited people in their homes and
typically assigned everyone there to a race, usually just by looking at them; since then,
Census procedures have changed, and Americans are able to choose our race for ourselves.
The terms used for African Americans have included “colored,” “Negro,” and “Black.” Star9ng
in 2000, respondents could choose mul9ple racial categories instead of being forced to
choose just one. And along the way, a new ques9on was added to the Census: in addi9on to
iden9fying our race, Americans are now asked to iden9fy another characteris9c—our
ethnicity.
Ethnicity refers to common culture, religion, history, or ancestry shared by a group of
people. Ethnicity, unlike race, is not always 9ed to shared physical characteris9cs. Ethnic
groups in the United States include different groups of Hispanic Americans (such as Mexican
Americans, Cuban Americans, and Puerto Ricans), Irish Americans, Ghanaian Americans,
Vietnamese Americans, and Jewish Americans. People considered members of different
racial groups can belong the same ethnic group (such as Black Mexicans and White
Mexicans), and people of the same race can be of different ethnici9es (for example, Korean
people and Filipino people). Ethnicity is an aspect of iden9ty that can be central to your life
or one that only maders in certain situa9ons, like religious services or family par9es. It can
fade away over 9me, as people assimilate into the wider culture. It can be the basis for
s9gma and discrimina9on, like race, but it usually doesn’t imply a clear hierarchy the way
racial categories do.

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

Now that we have a working defini9on of race and ethnicity, we can beder understand what
the American popula9on looks like. The latest, most reliable informa9on is available from
the American Community Survey, which runs every year in between the ten-year Census.
Table 1 shows the breakdown of the U.S. popula9on in 2020.
The most common way to classify race and ethnicity is to first ask people whether they are
Hispanic or La9no. Hispanic is classified on the Census as an ethnicity rather than a race,
even though many La9nos are increasingly classified as a racial group by everyday people
and other ins9tu9ons.[5] Roughly 18% of the U.S. popula9on is Hispanic or La9no, and most
Hispanics are of Mexican descent. The remainder of the popula9on, about 82%, is not
Hispanic or La9no. Just over 60% of the popula9on iden9fies as non-Hispanic White, 12%
iden9fies as non-Hispanic Black or African American, nearly 6% iden9fies as Asian, and less
than 1% iden9fies as either American Indian/Alaskan Na9ve or Na9ve Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander. A 9ny percentage are members of some other racial group, and nearly 3%
iden9fy as members of at least two racial groups.
But even this detailed breakdown of the popula9on doesn’t tell the whole story. Because
respondents answer ques9ons about both race and Hispanic ethnicity, it’s possible for
people who iden9fy as Hispanic to also select a racial group. If we consider both race and
ethnicity, we find that about 10% of the popula9on (and the majority of all Hispanics)
iden9fies as Hispanic (their ethnicity) and White (their race); nearly 5% of Americans
consider themselves Hispanic and “some other race.”
Table 1: Race and Ethnicity in the United States as of 2020
Racial/Ethnic Group Number % of Total Popula9on
Total U.S. Popula9on 326,569,308 100%

Not Hispanic or La9no (total) 267,208,288 81.8%

White alone 196,251,375 60.1%
Black or African American alone 39,994,653 12.3%
American Indian and Alaska Na9ve alone 2,075,852 Less than 1%
Asian alone 18,184,182 5.6%
Na9ve Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 550,080 Less than 1%
Some other race alone 1,017,604 Less than 1%
Two or more races 9,134,542 2.8%

Hispanic or La9no (total) 59,381,020 18.2%

White alone 33,709,438 10.3%
Black or African American alone 1,232,731 Less than 1%
American Indian and Alaska Na9ve alone 612,762 Less than 1%
Asian alone 237,455 Less than 1%
Na9ve Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 61,324 Less than 1%
Some other race alone 15,766,310 4.8%
Two or more races 7,741,000 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey 2020 (5-year es9mates)

Two lessons are clear from this exercise in classifying the U.S. popula9on. First, Americans
are extremely diverse, and a sizable share are not content with classifying themselves in a
single racial or ethnic category. Second, we don’t really know the “true” racial and ethnic
makeup of the country. Our understanding of race and ethnicity is affected by the categories
we’ve selected to officially measure race and ethnicity, and by individuals’ own ideas about
their iden9ty and ancestry. As an example, many state laws used to declare that any person
with any African ancestry at all was Black, a custom known as the one-drop rule. Although
this is no longer wriden in law, the custom hasn’t gone away. Many well-known public
figures, like Halle Berry and Vice President Kamala Harris, have parents with diverse racial
and ethnic ancestries, but they iden9fy—and are described by others—as Black.

Similarly, the groups of people who count as White have changed over 9me.[6] In the 1800s,
Greeks, Irish, Italians, Poles, and Jews from different countries were all seen as members of
different races, inferior to Protestant Americans of English descent. Slowly, individuals from
these groups began to assimilate into the culture of the United States, and their close
connec9on to their homelands weakened over genera9ons. As they began to speak English
and moved out of the highly-segregated neighborhoods where they lived when they first
arrived in the U.S., the boundaries between different European ethnic groups became less
sharp. Today, people with ancestry from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are
categorized as White on the Census. Despite this Census classifica9on, many people with
MENA ancestry in the United States are racialized as non-White and experience ethno-racial
and religious s9gma and discrimina9on, especially aYer the September 11th, 2001 terrorist
adacks.[7]

Es9mates indicate that White people may no longer make up a majority of the U.S.
popula9on at some point in the next few decades. While it’s undeniable that the country is
becoming more ethnically diverse, it’s also true that various groups of Americans may see
themselves differently over 9me. Just as ethnic groups like the Irish, Italians, and Jews came
to be seen as White over 9me, it’s possible that other groups, like some Hispanics or Asians,
may begin to iden9fy as White. The categories that we use to classify the popula9on may
also change. As an example, there were extensive conversa9ons about whether a new
MENA category would be added to the 2020 Census, given the discrimina9on they face.
Ul9mately, MENA was not added as a racial category, and the millions of people in this
category con9nue to be classified as White but can indicate their specific ethnicity as, for
example, Lebanese or Egyp9an under the White racial category.
The categories we create to classify race are some9mes quite persistent, but they can be
interpreted in many different ways and—as the Census example shows—the categories can
change. These changes show that race and ethnicity are not fixed, biological adributes. They
are ideas that are created and revised by humans as a means to classify ourselves. But as
we’ll see in the remainder of the chapter, these concepts have very real consequences.
Are race and ethnicity “real”?

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., is a well-known and highly-respected professor of African American
Studies at Harvard University. He has wriden dozens of books and made fiYeen
documentary films, one of which won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Historical Program.
In 2006, Gates produced and hosted African American Lives, a groundbreaking show on PBS
that traced the family background of some of the most notable African Americans through
historical research and DNA tes9ng.
While doing research for the show, Gates made a startling discovery. He knew that not all of
his ancestors were from Africa, but when he inves9gated his history in more depth, he
learned that his ancestry was about half African and half European. One of the most
prominent scholars of the African American experience had a much more complex family
history than he realized.
A few years later, his story got even more complicated. On July 16, 2009, Gates was
returning home to Cambridge, Massachuseds, from a trip overseas and was unable to open
the door to his house. A neighbor in the mostly-White neighborhood no9ced Gates and his
driver ademp9ng to force the door open and called the police. The officer who responded
ordered Gates to come out of the house and asked him to prove that he was a professor at
Harvard and owned the house. Gates eventually complied, but repeatedly asked the officer
for his badge number and name. The officer warned Gates that he was ac9ng in a disorderly
manner and ul9mately handcuffed and arrested him. While charges against Gates were
dropped, the mugshot of the world-renowned professor revealed something very deep and
disturbing about race in the United States.
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., may have an equal number of ancestors from Europe and from Africa,
but his African descent seemed to mader most that day in Cambridge. Although it’s
impossible to know for certain, Gates was convinced that neighbors would not have called
the police, and officers would not have been so aggressive, if his skin were white.
The consequences of race in daily life are very real, but the science and gene9cs of race are
messy.[8] Despite the search by many natural scien9sts—such as gene9cists—over several
centuries, there has been no discovery of a gene for race—that is, there is no gene biologists
can find that determines which racial category someone falls into or that clearly separates
members of one race from members of another.[9] In fact, a White person and a Black
person can be gene9cally more similar to each other than two White people or two Black
people.
If race doesn’t have gene9c coherence, then how do we understand its importance?
Sociologists typically think of race as a social construct, a concept that humans invented and
gave meaning to in order to understand or jus9fy some dimension of the social world.
Differences in skin tone or other physical markers have been used for centuries to explain
differences or inequali9es between groups and to jus9fy trea9ng groups of people
differently.[10] And the idea of race has been jus9fied, for centuries, on the basis of natural
science.

Despite research showing no gene9c differences by race, DNA is oYen used to jus9fy racial
differences. (Source)
The “science” of race

Although the most credible research reveals no biological or gene9c differences exist that
cause meaningful psychological, mental, or physical dis9nc9ons among races, many people
believe there are innate differences in the capabili9es of racial groups.[11] Dominant
stereotypes in the U.S. lead people to think of Asian people as short and intelligent, Black
people as physically superior but intellectually inferior, and White people as the standard
and epitome of the human ideal.
These types of beliefs are present even among the best-educated professionals. One study
compared astudes about race and gene9cs among first-year medical students to astudes
among those who had completed medical school and were doing their medical
residency.[12] Nearly 30% of first-year medical students, compared to only 4% of medical
residents, believed that the blood of Black people clots faster than the blood of White
people. Over 20% of first-year medical students (but only 4% of medical residents) believed
that Black people have stronger immune systems than White people. Some racial
stereotypes persisted even aYer medical residents underwent training on race and health;
40% of medical students and one-quarter of medical residents believed that Black people
have thicker skin than White people.
As some of these medical students failed to realize, humans are one species regardless of
skin color, language, eye shape, or hair texture. While there are observed average
differences between racial and ethnic groups in health, educa9onal adainment, and athle9c
achievements, these differences are driven by socializa9on, environmental factors, culture,
and opportuni9es.[13] Scien9sts across many disciplines reject the idea that race is rooted in
biology.
So if race is indeed a social construct, an idea made up by humans, then who invented it? In
the mid-1700s, Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus, a Swedish taxonomist, started with the simple
observa9on that people looked very different from each other.[14] Linnaeus argued that
there had to be psychological traits associated with these physical differences in skin color.
He split humans into four subspecies, each associated with a major con9nent.
The classifica9on of humans into racial groups had just begun and was reinforced by
European conquest of the Americas, genocide of Indigenous popula9ons, enslavement of
Africans, and the global spread of capitalism. In the early 1800s, the German naturalist
Johann Blumenback introduced five racial categories—American, Caucasoid, Malay,
Mongoloid, and Ethiopian—with each race associated with a color (white, yellow, red,
brown, and black). Later, the term Negroid, which means black, replaced the term Ethiopian.
These classifica9ons of racial groups were arbitrary, and were made by White Europeans and
Americans. This explains why White people were placed on top of the racial hierarchy and
why Whiteness was used as the marker of perfec9on.[15] Other groups were placed into a
hierarchy below White people, oYen ordered by skin color from lightest (at the top) to
darkest (at the bodom).

A statue of Charles Darwin. (Source)

As the science of evolu9on progressed, theories of race and biology were reinforced. In The
Origin of Species, Charles Darwin showed how the survival of the fidest leads to a superior
species that evolves and adapts to its environment. Sir Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin,
argued that selec9ve breeding of the fidest people, gene9c engineering, in vitro fer9liza9on,
and forced steriliza9on of those he viewed as unfit would allow humans to develop
enhanced intelligence while saving society’s resources and reducing human suffering.[16]
Eugenics, the idea that we can ac9vely improve the gene9c profile of humans, led to forced
steriliza9ons of groups of people labeled as unfit to reproduce.
As a result of these theories from the 1700s and 1800s, external physical characteris9cs
(such as skin color, hair color and texture, and eye shape) and ethnic dis9nc9ons were
believed to reflect psychological and mental abili9es that made some racial or ethnic groups
superior to others.[17] Pseudo-scien9sts (people without proper training or creden9als)
used data, oYen fabricated, on anatomical features like skull weight and facial angles to
shape public opinion and government policies about race and inequality. By the turn of the
twen9eth century, eugenics was popular in the United States and Europe. The idea
contributed to the Holocaust, where Nazi Germany systema9cally murdered six million Jews
between 1941 and 1945.
Through the development of theories and concepts that described and categorized humans,
race became a social reality—an idea that, because people believed in it, had real and
immensely harmful consequences. It became a means to separate, exploit, and even murder
groups. Darwin’s theory of evolu9on and natural selec9on became the scien9fic jus9fica9on
for the idea that differences naturally exist among racial groups. Galton’s eugenics theory
provided the scien9fic basis to jus9fy the adempt to preserve the “purity” of the superior
White race. Racial prejudices became linked with biological theories of human inequality,
ensuring that race would con9nue to be a crucial part of social life in the centuries to come

REVIEW SHEET: WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT RACE?

Key Ques9ons

Is race s9ll important in the U.S.?

What do we mean by race and ethnicity?
What is the racial and ethnic composi9on of the United States?
Is race a biological feature of humans?
When did the idea of race first emerge?
Key Points

The concept of race implies a hierarchy among groups of people and has been used to
create, maintain, and enhance group dis9nc9ons and dispari9es.
Ethnicity can be central to an individual’s life, or may only mader in certain situa9ons; it can
also fade away over 9me, as individuals assimilate into the wider culture.
Sociologists typically think of race as a social construct.
Research reveals no biological or gene9c basis for the concept of race, yet there con9nues to
be widespread belief in the existence of innate differences between racial groups.
Key People

Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus
Charles Darwin
Sir Francis Galton
Key Terms

Census – A count of the en9re popula9on.

Race – System humans created to classify groups of people based mostly on skin tone.
Ethnicity – Common culture, religion, history, or ancestry shared by a group of people.
One-drop rule – A custom that a person who had any African ancestry was classified as
Black.
Social construct – A concept humans invent and given meaning to in order to understand or
jus9fy the social world.
Eugenics – Idea that we can ac9vely improve the gene9c profile of humans.

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT BIAS

Why are most of us biased in our judgments about different groups of people?
Where do stereotypes come from and why do they persist?
Sociologically, how should we think about differences between racial and ethnic groups?
Has your hair color changed since you were born? What about your eye color? Does your
skin or hair color change from season to season with exposure to the sun?
If you answered yes to any of these ques9ons, you’re not alone. In a quick survey of a class
of 120 students, nearly 100% said their skin tone changes with exposure to the sun. Roughly
15% said their hair color has changed since they were born, and a similar percentage said
their eye color has changed since birth. About 20% of students said their hair or eye color
changes with the seasons.
The human phenotype is the set of our visible features or characteris9cs, like the color of
our skin, hair, and eyes. The phenotype is affected by both gene9cs and our environment,
and most individuals’ phenotypic features change over their lives. And yet, many of the
same features that change within each of us have been used as jus9fica9ons for racial
classifica9on and exploita9on.
The connec9on between phenotype and the value, quality, or goodness of human beings is
ingrained in society. Think about words that pop into your head when you hear the colors
yellow, red, black, and white. In another in-class survey of students, some words commonly
associated with the color yellow included docile, cowardly, cau9ous, and sunny. Red
triggered words such as fire, stop, blood, and aggressive. The color white brought to mind
words such as purity, cleanliness, and innocence. In contrast, black triggered words like evil,
bad, and satanic. Black is the color people wear at funerals and symbolizes death, whereas
white is the color worn by brides, doctors, and nurses. White is the absence of color and
represents being good, posi9ve, and pure.
These associa9ons may seem meaningless, but there is evidence that they can affect the
way we see other people. In famous experiments carried out in the early 1940s, Drs.
Kenneth and Mamie Clark presented children with iden9cal dolls, one with white skin and
yellow hair and the other with brown skin and black hair. They asked the children which doll
was nice, which one was bad, which they preferred to play with, and other ques9ons. Both
White and Black children favored the White doll. They preferred to play with the White doll
and thought it was nicer, and were more likely to say that the Black doll was “bad.” The
preference for the White doll was par9cularly strong among Black children who adended
highly-segregated schools in Washington, D.C.
The Clarks concluded that racial iden9ty and self-awareness develop as early as age three,
and that segrega9on damaged Black children’s self-esteem and self-concept. Their research
was later cited in the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Educa9on, in which the
Court ruled that segregated schools were uncons9tu9onal because they were inherently
unequal.
Sadly, these impacts on Black children’s sense of self aren’t a thing of the past. In the 2005
documentary A Girl Like Me, Kiri Davis replicated the doll study, with similar results. As we
will see, our internalized ideas about race affect the ways we think about different groups of
people and ourselves, and none of us are immune.

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

Implicit bias

A bias is a tendency to view things in a par9cular way, regardless of the details of the specific
situa9on. Implicit bias is the associa9on our minds make between seemingly unrelated
things; it is subconscious, and we may be en9rely unaware of our implicit biases. Implicit
bias is ingrained in all of us, regardless of our race or ethnicity, through socializa9on in family
and neighborhood sesngs and media exposure. In our daily lives, we are con9nuously
exposed to oversimplified beliefs about different groups, which lead us to form mental
associa9ons between these groups and posi9ve or nega9ve evalua9ons.
Un9l recently, research on racism focused primarily on explicit bias: bias that we are openly
and consciously aware of. Explicit racial bias—that is, openly viewing racial groups in
par9cular ways—has declined over 9me, as it has generally become less acceptable to hold
overtly nega9ve views of certain races (though such astudes certainly s9ll exist).[18]
However, implicit bias exists whether people hold explicit racial astudes or not.

The hoodie has become synonymous with the killing of Trayvon Mar9n, and for some,
criminality. (Source)
Implicit bias gained na9onal prominence with video and audio showing how unconscious
biases can affect the way individuals from different racial groups interact with one another.
One of the saddest, and most controversial, examples is the case of 17-year-old Trayvon
Mar9n and George Zimmerman.[19] Mar9n, a Black boy, was returning to his father’s home
from a nearby convenience store when Zimmerman, a White and Hispanic man, began to
follow him. Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watchperson, called 911 to report a
suspicious person walking around the neighborhood. An alterca9on ensued between the
two; it leY Zimmerman bruised and bloodied and Mar9n dead from a gunshot wound.
Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder but a jury found him not guilty of
Mar9n’s murder.
We will likely never know exactly why Zimmerman thought that this young man was a
criminal, why he followed him, confronted him, and killed him. It may have been the hoodie
Mar9n was wearing, although it was raining when the incident happened, so wearing a
hoodie with the hood up would not be unreasonable or even unusual. Perhaps Zimmerman
would have stopped any young person walking through the neighborhood, no mader their
clothing or skin color. It may have been explicit bias and prejudice, or it may have been an
unconscious feeling that made Zimmerman think this African American young man had to be
a criminal.
Although implicit bias has become associated with high-profile incidents like Trayvon
Mar9n’s killing, it is much broader than that.[20] Everyone has implicit biases about almost
everything, from which store has the best fruit to assump9ons that taller people are beder
basketball players. Implicit bias is the human mind’s way of quickly making sense of our
social interac9ons. Even academics are not immune to implicit bias. Corinne Moss-Racusin
and her colleagues gave science professors resumes to evaluate; the resumes were all the
same except that half of the professors received ones with a woman’s name and half
received one with a man’s name. Faculty members were more likely to say they would hire
the resumes with male-sounding names, compared to female-sounding names, and to
recommend a higher star9ng salary for them.[21] Other studies show that professors are
less likely to respond to an email sent from a person with an Asian-sounding name.
Researchers have also found that people can have implicit biases against their own group.
Internalized bias occurs when a person belonging to a marginalized racial group associates
their own group with nega9ve evalua9ons. For example, a study from the Pew Research
Center found that 29% of Black people in their sample had a subconscious preference for
White people over Black people and 38% of Asian people had a subconscious preference for
White people over Asian people.[22] Although our biases may at 9mes simply be
preferences and may not directly impact our behavior, at other 9mes they have grave
consequences for how we treat others.[23]
Stereotypes and prejudice

Stereotypes are widely-shared percep9ons about the personal characteris9cs, tendencies, or

abili9es of members of a par9cular group, like intelligence, personality, physical features,
preferences, aggressiveness, or criminality. Some are posi9ve, and others are nega9ve. The
Irish are rowdy drunks. Jews are good with money but cheap. Asians are studious and good
at math. African Americans are athle9c and aggressive. All of these are stereotypes about
groups of people. Stereotypes can arise for a number of reasons: They can be myths made
up about a group, historical relics from the past, or superficial associa9ons that are
reinforced by the media or poli9cians.
They can also change over 9me. Consider the idea that African Americans are naturally good
at basketball. In the first half of the 1900s, the same stereotype was applied to a different
group: Jewish Americans. Basketball has always been a city game, played on concrete courts
by kids who needed a ball, a hoop, and nothing else. At that 9me, American Jews were
concentrated in urban neighborhoods. According to a well-known sportswriter in the 1930s,
Jews excelled at basketball because it required “an alert, scheming mind, flashy trickiness,
aryul dodging and general smart aleckness.”[24] This kind of stereotypical language seems
absurd now. But at the 9me, many readers likely agreed with the sportswriter, since he
played on stereotypes of Jewish Americans as intelligent but sneaky and untrustworthy.
Media representa9ons of stereotypes are less explicit these days, but they haven’t
disappeared. In the aYermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S.
history, tens of thousands of people in New Orleans were stranded for days, without basic
supplies or assistance. Two photographs captured the desperate adempts of residents to
find water and food in the days aYer the storm, when much of the city was underwater.
However, the media framed the residents completely differently by race. A Black boy (who
was described as a “man” in the cap9on) is said to be “loo9ng a grocery store.” The cap9on
of the other photo described two White residents “finding bread and soda from a local
grocery store.”
Stereotypes are not only perpetuated by the media. During the 1976 presiden9al campaign,
candidate Ronald Reagan coined the term “welfare queen” to refer to Black women he said
were conning the government by living luxuriously on generous welfare checks. Reagan
exploited well-known stereotypes to appeal to White voters, ignoring the fact that most
welfare recipients were White and that there was no evidence of this type of fraud.
Sociologists Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein conducted interviews with nearly 400 single
mothers in several ci9es, most of whom received welfare, and found that they were
remarkably careful with money and had to find crea9ve ways to make enough just to survive
from month to month.[25] More recently, during the 2016 presiden9al elec9on, Donald
Trump described many Mexican immigrants as drug dealers and rapists. Sociologists and
criminologists, however, consistently find that immigrants engage in less criminal behavior
than na9ve-born peers.[26]
These examples reveal how stereotypes are used to appeal to our prejudices, or
preconceived beliefs, astudes, and opinions about members of a group. Those beliefs,
astudes, and opinions are usually not based on personal experience or evidence, and they
are usually nega9ve. Scholars have shown that individual prejudices are oYen driven by our
views about different social groups and where those groups rank, rela9ve to our own, in the
social and economic hierarchy.[27] Prejudices can grow stronger if we begin to think of
another group as an economic, poli9cal, or cultural threat—for instance, if the size of a racial
or ethnic minority group begins to grow in a neighborhood or a city. This is the idea behind
the group threat theory of prejudice.
Once established, prejudices toward other groups of people are difficult to break, even if we
see examples of individuals who don’t match our stereotypes. This is partly due to a
psychological concept called ul9mate adribu9on error, or a tendency to perceive
undesirable characteris9cs or behaviors exhibited by members of another group as an innate
or inherent part of their personality or essence—that is, any nega9ve behavior is seen as just
who they are.[28] On the other hand, posi9ve characteris9cs exhibited by members of other
groups are more likely to be adributed to external factors like going to a good school,
receiving opportuni9es, or just plain luck. Seeing posi9ve behaviors from people we think of
nega9vely can produce cogni9ve dissonance, a psychological state in which our preexis9ng
ideas do not match what we see with our own eyes.[29] When we experience cogni9ve
dissonance, our natural tendency is to avoid the mental conflict and find a way to explain
the anomaly. Thus, if someone from a group we view nega9vely does something we view as
posi9ve, we interpret them as excep9ons; their existence doesn’t undermine our prejudiced
beliefs about their group.

Black and La9no neighborhoods are more likely to be in floodplains that are exposed to
natural disasters. (Source)

But if we simply spend more 9me around individuals from other backgrounds, races, and
ethnici9es, our stereotypical beliefs will fade away, right? Psychologist Gordon Allport’s
contact theory helps explain how interac9on with members of other groups affects
prejudices. Allport argues that interac9on and exposure can be beneficial, but only under
specific condi9ons: the interac9on has to occur in a collabora9ve, voluntary, and non-
compe99ve space; we must interact mul9ple 9mes, not just once; our interac9on must be
personal, informal, and one-on-one; the interac9on should be legal; and the sesng must
allow par9cipants to interact as equals.
The problem is that most interracial contact does not take place under these condi9ons.
Interac9ons with people from other races oYen takes place in situa9ons that are not equal
(such as when a member of one race performs low-wage work for a person of another race)
or where at least one side does not welcome the interac9on (for instance, if residents of a
neighborhood are unhappy about people from another race moving onto their street).
Robert Putnam analyzed data from across the U.S. to examine the rela9onship between
racial and ethnic diversity and social trust and found that people in more diverse
communi9es tend to “withdraw from collec9ve life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of
the color of their skin.”[30] This problem is common in diverse communi9es: people face
challenges in developing a united community, they may not appreciate cultural or poli9cal
changes that arise when a new group enters their neighborhood, and they may resent the
changes taking place around them. Given this, it’s not shocking that more diverse places are
not always friendlier or more welcoming. But Putnam also points to examples showing that
diversity can work over the long-run. During World War II, White soldiers in the U.S. military
were asked what they thought about having Black and White soldiers in the same company.
A majority were opposed. But among soldiers who were already serving in an integrated unit
that included Black and White soldiers, less than a quarter were opposed to the idea.
Stereotypes and prejudices can, in fact, break down—but integra9on some9mes comes with
conflict and mistrust, and it oYen takes great effort and 9me to work.
Interac9ng or living with a more diverse group of people can break down stereotypes, but
only under certain condi9ons. (Source)

A sociological approach toward stereotypes

All of this informa9on about stereotypes may explain where they come from and why they
persist, but we don’t want to give the impression that there are no average differences
between racial and ethnic groups in behavior or tastes. One look at a typical NBA roster tells
us very clearly that African Americans are dispropor9onately represented at the highest
level of basketball, for instance. So what explains average differences between racial and
ethnic groups?
Our sugges9on is to take a sociological perspec9ve. Look for data on behaviors or social
characteris9cs of different groups; don’t simply accept what you might hear about them. Be
suspicious of the idea that stereotypical behaviors or characteris9cs are “natural” or
inherent to specific groups of people, and think about poten9al social explana9ons for
common behaviors or characteris9cs. Think of people as individuals, instead of projec9ng
stereotypes onto them. Average differences between racial groups rarely help us predict
how any individual will behave. Recognize that most of us, from every race and ethnicity,
have unconscious biases that affect how we perceive others. And finally, be aware of the
damaging consequences of biases and stereotypes, a topic we’ll turn to next.

REVIEW SHEET: EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT BIAS

Key Ques9ons

Why are most of us biased in our judgments about different groups of people?
Where do stereotypes come from and why do they persist?
Sociologically, how should we think about differences between racial and ethnic groups?
Key Points

Research from Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark concluded that the condi9ons of segrega9on
damaged Black children’s self-esteem and self-concept, and that racial iden9ty and self-
awareness develop as early as age 3.
Implicit bias is the mind’s way of quickly making sense of our social interac9ons.
Individual prejudices are oYen driven by our views about the groups to which people belong
and where those groups rank, rela9ve to our own, within the social and economic hierarchy
Posi9ve characteris9cs exhibited by members of a group we see nega9vely are more likely to
be adributed to external factors like excep9onal schooling.
Be suspicious of the idea that stereotypical behavior or characteris9cs are “natural” or
inherent; think about poten9al explana9ons for common behaviors or characteris9cs.
Key People

Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark

Trayvon Mar9n and George Zimmerman
Gordon Allport
Robert Putnam
Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein
Corinne Moss-Racusin
Key Terms

Phenotype – The set of our visible features or characteris9cs, like the color of our skin, hair,
and eyes.
Implicit bias – Associa9ons our minds make between seemingly unrelated things.
Stereotypes – Widely-shared percep9ons about the personal characteris9cs, tendencies, or
abili9es of individual member of a par9cular group, like intellectual ability, personality,
physical features, preferences, aggressiveness, or criminality.
Prejudices – Preconceived beliefs, astudes, or opinions about members of another group.
Group threat theory – Argues that prejudices grow stronger if we begin to think of another
group as an economic, poli9cal, or cultural threat.
Ul9mate adribu9on error – Psychological phenomenon in which undesirable characteris9cs
exhibited by members of another group are perceived as innate.
Cogni9ve dissonance – Psychological state in which preconceived ideas do not align with
what we see with our own eyes.
Contact theory – Helps explain how interac9on with members of other groups affects
prejudicial beliefs.

RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION

What is discrimina9on?
What is individual and ins9tu9onal racism?
Where did affirma9ve ac9on come from and what does it do?
In 2002, almost 400 pairs of people were sent out across eight ci9es in Minnesota, Montana,
and New Mexico to ask about ren9ng an apartment.[31] The two members of each pair had
almost iden9cal backgrounds—they were the same gender and roughly the same age, had
the same number of children, and had similar incomes and jobs. But they looked different:
one member of each pair was White, the other was Na9ve American. In these three states,
where many Na9ve Americans live, that difference had a substan9al impact on how they
were treated as they searched for a place to live.
In one case, a 43-year-old White woman asked about a two-bedroom apartment in Billings,
Montana. She was told that the unit was open and available, was given a form to complete
and a business card, and was shown two other units that looked similar to the one that was
adver9sed. A day later, her Na9ve American teammate, a woman with the same
characteris9cs, asked about the same unit. She was given the same form and a business
card, but was told that the agent was too busy to talk. She was not shown any apartments,
and was asked to come back a few days later.
This case was not an excep9on. The White applicant was favored in at least a quarter of
cases in each city. The careful design of the research project—an example of an audit
study—meant that the applicants were perfectly matched according to all characteris9cs
that would make them more or less adrac9ve renters; the only thing that differed was their
race. In other words, something about the real estate agents, the firms for which they
worked, or perhaps the real estate industry as a whole led to the different treatment of
White people and Na9ve Americans.
With this example, we move into an inves9ga9on of racial discrimina9on, the differen9al
treatment of people based on their presumed racial group membership. While biases,
stereotypes, and prejudices are about our thoughts and feelings, discrimina9on is an ac9on.
This sec9on discusses several types of nega9ve racial discrimina9on, or unfavorable and
unjust treatment of a person based on their racial group membership. This sec9on also
discusses some efforts used to rec9fy historical and contemporary forms of nega9ve
discrimina9on.

Before 1964, in many states Black people could not drink from the same water fountains or
adend the same public places as White people; many also could not vote. (Source)

Racism in individuals and ins9tu9ons

Sociologists define racism as a set of beliefs, ideologies, or ins9tu9onal prac9ces that are
based on the idea that one racial group is biologically or culturally inferior to another group
and that reproduces racial domina9on and exploita9on.[32] Since racism generally involves
beliefs and ac9ons, it typically combines prejudice with discrimina9on and power. While
some of us are able to ignore racism, others are forced to deal with it on a daily basis, given
unequal power dynamics between racial groups. White supremacy—a set of beliefs,
ideologies, and ins9tu9onal prac9ces that posi9on White people as superior to other racial
groups—is the dominant form of racism in the U.S. Racism doesn’t just exist in individuals; it
lives in organiza9ons and ins9tu9ons like schools, workplaces, our housing market, our laws,
and our poli9cs. For racial minority groups, it can lead to worse outcomes in school, lower-
status jobs, unequal treatment by police officers and doctors,[33] and worse mental and
physical health.[34]
Decades ago, real estate agents developed a money-making scheme based on racial fears.
They would go to White homeowners and warn them that Black families were about to
move into their neighborhood (whether or not this was true). White people, panicked at the
thought of integrated neighborhoods or falling home prices, oYen wanted to sell quickly and
move. The real estate agents would buy houses cheaply from the White families they had
frightened into a quick sale and then sell them at well above market value to Black families
eager for a share of the American Dream. More recently, in 2012, Wells Fargo Bank sedled a
lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Jus9ce alleging that the bank targeted Black people and
La9nos with the subprime loans that led to the collapse of the housing market in 2008, even
when those clients qualified for lower-risk, lower-cost loans. As this example shows,
discrimina9on hasn’t gone away. Even if explicitly racist beliefs and astudes have become
much less common, racism persists in many ins9tu9ons. Ins9tu9onal racism refers to the
ways that core ins9tu9ons, like the law, educa9on, and labor market, are embedded with
racial biases and prac9ces that reproduce racial inequality.
Ins9tu9onal racism has existed since the forma9on of the United States and its founding
documents. The inspiring words of the Declara9on of Independence, “We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” were wriden by Thomas Jefferson, a
slaveowner. Enslaved people were counted as only three-fiYhs of a person in the
Cons9tu9on. And although the Bill of Rights protected the rights and liber9es of minority
groups in the United States, African Americans and Na9ve Americans were not considered to
be full ci9zens in the great na9onal experiment described in our founding documents.
Due to redlining and restric9ve covenants, Black people were oYen forced to live in crowded
urban project housing. (Source)

We don’t have to go back to the country’s origins to see how race is embedded within our
ins9tu9ons and laws. Historian Ira Katznelson has documented how the most important
social programs implemented in the 1900s were designed specifically to provide assistance
to White Americans and to exclude, as much as possible, Black Americans. Social Security is
arguably the most influen9al and long-las9ng social program in U.S. history; it created
re9rement benefits for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and programs to assist low-
income women and children. But the 1935 legisla9on that created it covered only certain
jobs, mainly in industry and commerce; it specifically excluded many jobs held by the Black
popula9on at the 9me, such as farm and domes9c work. As a result, in the 1930s over 60%
of all Black workers, and nearly 75% of Black workers in the South, didn’t qualify for Social
Security benefits. Addi9onally, federal funds that supported the poor and veterans were
controlled by local officials, who frequently discriminated against Black people. Funds
intended to help people train for stable jobs, ensure financial stability in re9rement, and
build wealth were oYen only available to White people. Katznelson says this created a form
of “policy apartheid” that mainly benefited White people.[35] (Apartheid is the formal policy
or prac9ce of poli9cal, legal, economic, and/or social discrimina9on against a par9cular
group.)
The Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, generally referred to as “welfare,” was
established in 1935 for families that generally had only one parent or caretaker; yet funds
were withheld from Black families who qualified.[36] In fact, about one-third of Black
children who qualified for ADC did not receive assistance. In the 1940s, Texas, Kentucky, and
Mississippi didn’t par9cipate in the program at all, so children in these states didn’t receive
any assistance.
The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill, aimed to
reintegrate veterans returning from World War II. Massive numbers of young people were
deployed during the War, and the GI Bill applied to roughly 80% of men who were in their
30s and had families. Because of the bill, millions of families were able to purchase homes,
start businesses, and send themselves and their children to college. But Black veterans
struggled to access the benefits they were owed. The GI Bill was distributed federally but
controlled locally, and Black veterans, par9cularly in the South, were oYen denied GI Bill
funds that were available to White veterans.
These and other government programs established during the Jim Crow Era oYen
dispropor9onately excluded Black ci9zens and other ci9zens of color from their benefits. Jim
Crow refers to a period in American history between the end of Reconstruc9on (following
the Civil War) in the late nineteenth century and the end of the Civil Rights Movement of the
mid-twen9eth century. During this period, various laws and policies in Southern states
enforced racial segrega9on, enabling White Southern elites to limit the rights of newly
emancipated African American ci9zens and maintain the racial hierarchy. In addi9on to being
dispropor9onately denied access to certain federal governmental programs, Black people
were also vic9ms of formal—and legal—local policies of residen9al segrega9on and
workplace discrimina9on. In the South and other parts of the country, Black people were
excluded from White neighborhoods, schools, public transporta9on, and other public and
private spaces.
Soldiers board a military plane. (Source)

Affirma9ve ac9on and repara9ons

In the 1960s, the longstanding padern of social policies explicitly favoring White people
began to change. The Civil Rights Movement—a large-scale, Black-led social movement in
the 1950s and ‘60s centered around protest, civil disobedience, and legal badles—laid the
groundwork for major advances in vo9ng and civil rights. The legal basis for segregated
neighborhoods and schools finally began to break down with the passage of legisla9on like
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which banned discrimina9on based on characteris9cs including
race and sex) and, later, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which banned discrimina9on in the
housing market). But earlier in the decade, President John F. Kennedy, facing pressure from
movement leaders, started a program that used a different mechanism to address injus9ces
in the labor market, housing market, and in social policy: he instructed federal contractors to
take “affirma9ve ac9on to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race,
color, religion, sex, or na9onal origin.”
In its ini9al formula9on, affirma9ve ac9on referred to policies or programs that sought to
redress past discrimina9on through ac9ve measures to ensure equal opportunity now. It
openly acknowledged that unjust policies and decisions historically limited the opportuni9es
of disadvantaged groups and benefided advantaged groups, and tried to make up for such
injus9ces. Affirma9ve ac9on has been used to encourage or require organiza9ons,
universi9es, and public agencies to consider factors like race and gender in decisions about
which contractors to use, which job applicants to hire, or which students to admit. It has
been most widely used in university admissions and government hiring, and has provided
non-White groups and women with equal access to posi9ons they were previously excluded
from. Today, following Supreme Court cases that have narrowed its scope, affirma9ve ac9on
is largely considered to be a set of policies or programs seeking to increase racial and other
forms of diversity rather than to redress past discrimina9on or harm.
At the end of the twen9eth century and into the twenty-first, affirma9ve ac9on has
generated substan9al controversy. Cri9cs argue that it adempts to remedy discrimina9on in
the past through “reverse discrimina9on.” Others say that affirma9ve ac9on doesn’t
necessarily benefit the people who are truly the vic9ms of discrimina9on, and suggest that it
should be based on class rather than race or gender. And others believe that all social policy
or admissions decisions should be “color blind,” with no advantages or considera9ons for
any group based on race, ethnicity, or any other criteria other than perceived achievement.
These arguments overlook the many subtle ways individuals from advantaged backgrounds
receive a boost on their way to elite schools or sought-aYer jobs by drawing on networks of
friends or family for referrals, internships, leders of recommenda9on, and access to
resource-rich high schools. These arguments ignore the way “achievement” can be based on
ins9tu9onally racist or sexist factors. They also ignore the not-so-subtle ways that factors
other than achievement enter into admissions decisions—for example, elite universi9es
commonly set aside a substan9al por9on of their admissions slots for “legacies,” applicants
whose parents adended the ins9tu9on.[37] Every few years the Supreme Court hears
another case about the use of race in university admissions, but rarely do we hear
objec9ons about the tremendous advantage that students automa9cally have if they’re
applying to an elite school that their parents were fortunate enough to previously adend.
Today, a growing number of scholars and people involved in new movements for racial
jus9ce—from the Black Lives Mader movement to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women and Girls movement—have advocated for repara9ons. Repara9ons are recogni9on
of and compensa9on (typically financial) for past harm against specific people or groups of
people. Repara9ons are not a new idea. Throughout American history, individuals,
organiza9ons, and the government have considered—or even provided—repara9ons for
past racial discrimina9on and exploita9on. For example, during World War II, the United
States interned people of Japanese descent living in the U.S. in camps. In the 1970s, the
Japanese American Ci9zens' League and other organiza9ons pushed for compensa9on to
those who were incarcerated. In the 1980s, Congress passed the Civil Liber9es Act, which
formally apologized for Japanese internment and paid $20,000 to survivors. In January 2022,
Evanston, Illinois, selected 16 Black residents to receive $25,000 each for housing costs,
based on their eligibility for the city’s first-of-its-kind repara9ons program, which uses
revenue from legal marijuana sales to provide repara9ons to Black people who lived, or
whose ancestors lived, in Evanston between 1919 and 1969. Unlike affirma9ve ac9on,
repara9ons are a way to formally recognize a past harm and provide direct financial
compensa9on to all members of the harmed group. In 1989, Congressman John Conyers, Jr.,
first introduced legisla9on that would acknowledge the injus9ce of slavery and recommend
appropriate remedies for African Americans. However, Black people have yet to receive
repara9ons for slavery.

REVIEW SHEET: RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION

Key Ques9ons

What is discrimina9on?
What is individual and ins9tu9onal racism?
Where did affirma9ve ac9on come from and what does it do?
Key Points

Racism doesn’t just live in individuals; it lives in ins9tu9ons like schools, workplaces, our
housing market, our criminal jus9ce system, and our poli9cal system.
Although the Bill of Rights protected the rights and liber9es of minority groups in the United
States, Black people were not considered to be full ci9zens according to our founding
documents.
Government programs designed to provide educa9onal opportuni9es, jobs, home
mortgages, economic security, and a secure re9rement were oYen targeted toward the
White popula9on and oYen excluded non-White.
A large-scale social movement centered around protest, civil disobedience, and legal badles
laid the groundwork for major advances in vo9ng and civil rights. The legal basis for
segregated neighborhoods and schools finally began to break down with the passage of
major legisla9on like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Affirma9ve ac9on has been used to encourage or require organiza9ons, universi9es, and
public agencies to consider factors like race in decisions about which contractors to use, job
candidates to hire, or students to admit.
Key People
Ira Katznelson
President John F. Kennedy
Key Terms

Audit study – Sociological method in which applicants are matched according to all
characteris9cs that would make them more or less adrac9ve and then sent out as pairs to
apply for various services or products.
Racism – A set of beliefs, ideologies, or ins9tu9onal prac9ces that are based on the idea that
a specific racial group is biologically or culturally inferior to another racial group.
Discrimina9on – Unjust treatment of groups of people.
Ins9tu9onal racism – Idea that our na9on’s core ins9tu9ons, like the legal, educa9onal, and
criminal jus9ce systems, are embedded with racial biases and preferences that recreate and
maintain racial inequality.
Affirma9ve ac9on – Policies or programs that seek to rec9fy past discrimina9on through
ac9ve measures to ensure equal opportunity now.

THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL INEQUALITY

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

What does a sociological perspec9ve on racial inequality look like?
Trends in racial inequality

During the 1960s, African Americans began to move into professional occupa9ons and into
the middle class on a large scale, schools started to integrate, and there was great hope that
racial inequality would fade away. What has happened since then?
The answer depends on the dimension of inequality we consider. Perhaps the most basic
measures of inequality focus on family income and wealth. As shown in Figure 1, the gap in
household incomes between Black people and White people remained virtually the same
between 1967 and 2016. As of 2014, about 25% of Black and La9no families lived in poverty,
compared to 10% of White families. Racial gaps in wealth are even more severe than gaps in
income. White people as a group had thirteen 9mes as much wealth as Black Americans in
the years aYer the Great Recession, the largest gap since the late 1980s. Yet, White people
are not at the top of the economic hierarchy in the United States; certain groups of Asian
Americans have higher incomes than any other racial or ethnic group, largely due to higher
levels of educa9on and where they live (high-cost states such as California, New York, and
Hawaii). Their success can also be adributed to immigrant selec9vity, or the process
whereby people who immigrate to the U.S. from certain countries have a unique
demographic profile compared to the people who stay behind in their home countries. In
the case of some Asian groups, they are more likely to immigrate with higher educa9onal
adainment and other characteris9cs valued in American society.
Other dimensions of inequality have improved considerably over 9me, the most notable
example being educa9onal adainment. In 1996, the high school dropout rate among La9nos
was 34%, more than four 9mes as high as for White people. The rate for African Americans
was 16%, twice as high as White people (8%). In the next ten years, the dropout rate for
La9nos fell to 10%, and the rate for African Americans fell to 7%, only slightly higher than the
rate for White people (5%).[38] Among Black people, there is growing heterogeneity, given
increased immigra9on from Africa and the Caribbean. Nigerian Americans, for example,
have higher levels of educa9on than most other racial or ethnic groups, including White
people and Asians.
Figure 1: Median Household Income of Black and White Households, 1967-2016

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

There are other signs of modest progress. Residen9al segrega9on of Black Americans from
White Americans peaked in 1980 but has fallen steadily since then. And there has been
substan9al improvement on one of the most basic measures of health: life expectancy, a
sta9s9cal measure of how long people can expect to live, on average. The gap in life
expectancy between White people and Black people has been gradually shrinking over 9me,
though there are s9ll enormous differences. In 2015, White women could expect to live
more than two years longer than Black women, on average, and White men could expect to
live more than four years longer than Black men. Even on the dimensions of racial inequality
that have improved, in other words, there are s9ll severe discrepancies.
This padern reflects the complex nature of racial inequality in the United States. On some
measures of economic status, there has been no progress toward racial equality since the
1970s. On other measures, there has been substan9al progress. But on virtually every
measure available, even those that have improved over 9me, we can s9ll observe a
disturbing degree of inequality between Black and White Americans. Why?
Understanding the persistence of racial inequality

Throughout American history, race has been used to jus9fy a hierarchy based on skin color
and ancestry. It has fooled people into thinking that success and failure are driven by
psychological, gene9c, intellectual, biological, and cultural differences between racial or
ethnic groups.[39] These beliefs persist today. Surveys of White people in the U.S. show that
they are more likely to adribute racial gaps in educa9on and labor market success to
differences in mo9va9on, cultural inferiority, or gene9cs. Black people and La9nos, on the
other hand, are more likely to adribute racial differences in achievement and economic
success to discrimina9on. One study examined responses to a na9onal survey asking why
“Blacks (are) in their current state?” Only 31% of White people responded that
discrimina9on was a central reason for con9nuing racial dispari9es, compared to 61% of
Black people.[40]
And yet we know, with certainty, that racism directly affects the way people are treated in
many different sesngs, and these differences are oYen most pronounced when comparing
White people and Black people. We described an audit study focusing on the treatment of
Na9ve Americans; similar studies have shown stark differences in the treatment of White
and Black individuals who have inquired about apartments, home loans, or jobs. One study
adver9sed iPhones on a common online marketplace and showed pictures of either a Black
or a White hand holding the phone. The ads with White hands were much more likely to
receive a response. Another study sent resumes to employers with dis9nc9vely “Black”
names like Lakisha or Jamal or White-sounding names like Emily or Greg. Applicants named
Emily and Greg were much more likely to be contacted.[41]
The persistence of discrimina9on is undoubtedly one reason racial inequality has not gone
away. But we hope that this chapter leads you to think even more broadly about factors that
have contributed to racial inequality not only in the present, but over long periods of our
history. As we’ve shown, the most important government programs of the past century, like
Social Security and the GI Bill, were designed to largely exclude Black Americans. When a
whole genera9on of returning veterans were given subsidies to get college degrees and
establish a foothold in the labor market, Black American veterans were not given the same
chance to use these benefits. When the federal government first began to subsidize home
mortgages, providing a government-supported “push” that led to the massive growth of
suburbs, non-White Americans were almost completely leY out of the program. In the
decades since, homeownership has been the most reliable way for Americans to accumulate
assets (since for most people, their home is the single most valuable item they own), but
African Americans have oYen been systema9cally excluded from buying real estate or taking
out low-interest loans that allow families to build up wealth in the form of homes.[42]
Black people and Na9ve Americans have faced uniquely harsh forms of racial discrimina9on
and exploita9on throughout the course of U.S. history, and it’s impossible to understand
racial inequality today without considering the histories of sedler colonialism, slavery, and
Jim Crow. Many Americans point to differences between Black Americans, in par9cular, and
other racial groups on characteris9cs like academic achievement and family structure to
argue that there is something about the culture of the Black popula9on that impairs their
outcomes in life or their ability to get ahead.

People visit the Mar9n Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C. King is the first African
American, and the fourth non-U.S. President, to have a monument on the Na9onal Mall.
(Source)
Sociologists have taken this argument seriously. They have found that some dimensions of
culture and behavior do help to explain the reproduc9on of unequal outcomes between
groups. For example, Black Americans have higher rates of single parenthood than other
racial and ethnic groups, and children raised by single parents are much more likely to grow
up in poverty.
While racial groups may exhibit cultural differences, it’s a mistake to assume these
differences are sufficient explana9ons of inequality, and it’s a mistake to think of culture as a
natural, unchanging feature of a racial or ethnic group. A sociological perspec9ve takes
group differences in culture seriously, but adempts to understand whether these differences
offer independent explana9ons. For example, even though Black men have higher rates of
single parenthood, research has found that Black single fathers are more involved in their
children’s lives than White single fathers. Moreover, some scholars argue that it is not
cultural differences that cause unequal outcomes, but rather it is the unfair responses of
empowered professionals—such as lawyers in the criminal legal system or teachers in
schools—to cultural differences between groups.[43]
In addi9on, a sociological perspec9ve reveals how cultural differences are connected to a
larger set of historical forces, oYen rooted in racism. Nowhere is this approach clearer than
in the work of sociologist William Julius Wilson, who analyzed historical data on urban labor
markets to show how shiYs in the jobs available to African American men from the 1950s to
the 1980s created widespread economic disloca9on, leading to fewer “marriageable” men
who could support their families with steady employment. As jobs disappeared from central
city neighborhoods, much of the African American popula9on remained stuck in
neighborhoods that offered few economic opportuni9es. Over 9me, rates of joblessness
rose and the rate of single-parent families skyrocketed, along with use of welfare benefits.
This happened to all racial and ethnic groups, but it was par9cularly severe for African
Americans because they had fewer alterna9ve job op9ons when manufacturing jobs
disappeared.
We can learn lessons from Wilson’s classic analysis of the link between changes in urban
labor markets and cultural adapta9ons among African Americans. The first lesson is that
group differences in culture do not arise out of nowhere; they are oYen linked to broader
economic or poli9cal forces. When we study cultural or behavioral differences between
groups, we must focus on how culture emerges, and how larger forces help explain
behaviors that may seem counterproduc9ve, or even destruc9ve, from the outside. The
second lesson is that a sociological perspec9ve on inequality should not be driven by poli9cs
or ideology, and sociologists should not ignore or downplay behaviors that might contribute
to group differences. Instead, our goal is to explain such differences, and to do so by linking
them with larger social forces—in other words, we should wade into even the most
controversial issues, and we should do so armed with a robust sociological imagina9on.
A moment of change?

Many of the themes in this chapter became visible, once again, in the spring and summer of
2020. In March 2020, COVID-19 began to spread across the United States, and communi9es
of color were hit hardest. AYer adjus9ng for age, early es9mates of death rates for La9nos
were two and a half 9mes higher than for White people, and death rates for Black Americans
were three and a half 9mes higher than for White Americans.[44] Throughout 2020 and into
2021, a series of horrific murders of Black and La9no people—Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna
Taylor, George Floyd, and Adam Toledo—all at the hands of current or former police officers,
provided a brutal reminder of what ins9tu9onal racism looks like.
As they have many 9mes before, Americans took to the streets to protest police violence
and racial injus9ce. But in 2020, the demonstra9ons had more energy, and more people,
than ever before. They occurred in hundreds of towns and ci9es, despite police crackdowns
that have, in some ci9es, been ugly and violent. The demonstra9ons have persisted into this
year even as the news cycle has moved on.
As the demonstra9ons have con9nued, the basic message of the Black Lives Mader
movement has filtered through the country and around the world. In 2020, companies that
had usually been silent on race openly voiced their support, and organiza9ons like the
Na9onal Football League changed their posi9ons in response. And everyday Americans
seemed to be changing their views. In the summer of 2020, Black Lives Mader was more
popular than it had ever been among all Americans.[45] Many commentators suggested that
the United States was finally experiencing a “racial reckoning,” whereby meaningful
acknowledgement of, and repara9ons for, past and present racism is occurring.
But progress is not linear, and change can be flee9ng. Just a year later in 2021, White people
were less suppor9ve of Black Lives Mader than they were before the protests in the spring
and summer of 2020.[46] Other racial groups’ support has also declined, but not as starkly.
Whether public support for a movement is necessary to implement tangible policies or
programs designed to confront the na9on’s history of racism and the con9nuing padern of
racial injus9ce is s9ll to be seen. The prognosis is bleak. Commentators have now referred to
a “counter-reckoning” of conserva9ve White backlash, as evidenced by the January 6th,
2021, insurrec9on at the Capitol to overturn the results of a legi9mate, democra9c elec9on
and efforts in elementary and secondary schools across the country to ban teaching about
the country’s history of racism.[47] Thus, while this moment has opened new possibili9es
for change, race and racism remain durable reali9es of American life.
REVIEW SHEET: THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL INEQUALITY

Key Ques9ons

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

What does a sociological perspec9ve on racial inequality look like?
Key Points

Whites had thirteen 9mes as much wealth as Black Americans in the years aYer the Great
Recession, the largest gap since the late 1980s.
Despite improvements in some areas like educa9onal adainment, there is s9ll tremendous
racial inequality in the U.S., exemplified by persistent gaps in the life expectancy of African
Americans and Whites.
Throughout U.S. history, race has been used to jus9fy a hierarchy based on skin color and
heritage.
The persistence of discrimina9on is undoubtedly one reason why racial inequality has not
gone away over 9me.
Black Americans have been treated differently than any other racial or ethnic group
throughout U.S. history, and it’s impossible to understand racial inequality today without
considering this history.
When we study cultural or behavioral differences between groups, we must focus on how
culture emerges and how larger forces help explain behaviors that may seem
counterproduc9ve, or even destruc9ve, from the outside.
Key People

William Julius Wilson

Ahmaud Arbery
Breonna Taylor
George Floyd
Key Terms

Life expectancy – Sta9s9cal measure indica9ng how long people can expect to live, on
average
REFERENCES

[1] Du Bois, W. E. B. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches. Second Edi9on.
Chicago, IL: A. C. McClurg & Co.

[2] Ray, Rashawn and Alexandra Gibbons. 2021. “Why Are States Banning Cri9cal Race
Theory?” The Brookings Ins9tu9on. Retrieved at:
hdps://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/07/02/why-are-states-banning-cri9cal-race-
theory/

[3] Bobo, Lawrence and Cybelle Fox. 2003. “Race, Racism, and Discrimina9on: Bridging
Problems, Methods, and Theory in Social Psychological Research.” Social Psychology
Quarterly (Special Issue: Race, Racism, and Discrimina9on) 64: 319-332.

[4] Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpreta9on.”

American Sociological Review, 62(3): 465-480. Retrieved from
hdp://www.jstor.org/stable/2657316; Clair, Madhew and Jeffrey S. Denis. 2015. “Racism,
Sociology of.” The Interna9onal Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 19: 857-
863; Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Forma9on in the United States: From
the 1960s to the 1990s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

[5] Massey, Douglas S. 2014. “The racializa9on of La9nos in the United States.” The Oxford
handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigra9on: 21-40.

[6] Brodkin, Karen. 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in
America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Jacobson, Madhew Frye. 1999.
Whiteness of a Different Color. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[7] Maghbouleh, Neda. 2017. The Limits of Whiteness: Iranian Americans and the Everyday
Poli9cs of Race. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

[8] Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Sta9s9cs Lie. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

[9] Fiske, Susan T. 2010. “Interpersonal Stra9fica9on: Status, Power, and Subordina9on.” In
Fiske, Susan T., Daniel T. Gilbert, and Lindzey Gardner. (Eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology,
FiYh Ed. New York: Wiley. Pp. 941-982.

[10] Feagin, Joe R. 2014. Racist America: Roots, Current Reali9es, and Future Repara9ons.
Third edi9on. New York: Routledge.

[11] Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Sta9s9cs Lie. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
[12] Hoffman, Kelly M., Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, and M. Norman Oliver. 2016. “Racial
bias in pain assessment and treatment recommenda9ons, and false beliefs about biological
differences between blacks and whites.” Proceedings of the Na9onal Academy of Sciences
113, no. 16: 4296-4301.

[13] Gilbert, Keon, Rashawn Ray, Arjumand Siddiqi, Derek Griffith, Elizabeth Baker, Shivan
Shedy, and Keith Elder. 2016. “Visible and Invisible Trends in African American Men’s Health:
Piyalls and Promises.” Annual Review of Public Health 37: 295-311.

Lewis-McCoy, R. L. Heureux. 2014. Inequality in the Promised Land: Race, Resources, and
Suburban Schooling. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

[14] Golash-Boza, Tonya. 2016. “A Cri9cal and Comprehensive Sociological Theory of Race
and Racism.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 2(2): 129-141.

[15] Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. “From Bi-Racial to Tri-Racial: Towards a New System of
Racial Stra9fica9on in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(6):931–50. Omi and Winant
1994.

[16] Ray, Rashawn (Ed.). 2010. Race and Ethnic Rela9ons in the 21st Century: History, Theory,
Ins9tu9ons, and Policy. Cognella: San Diego.

[17] Ray (Ed.), 2010.

[18] Feagin, Joe R. 2014. Racist America: Roots, Current Reali9es, and Future Repara9ons.
Third edi9on. New York: Routledge; Quillian, Lincoln. 2006. “New Approaches to
Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimina9on.” Annual Review of Sociology 32(1): 299–
328; Schuman, Howard, Charlode Steeh, Lawrence D. Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1997. Racial
Astudes in America: Trends and Interpreta9ons. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.

[19] Ray, Rashawn. 2015. “If Only He Didn’t Wear the Hoodie…” Selec9ve Percep9on and
Stereotype Maintenance.” Pp. 81-93 in Stephanie McClure and Cherise Harris (Eds), Gesng
Real about Race: Hoodies, Mascots, Model Minori9es, and Other Conversa9ons. Los
Angeles: Sage.

[20] Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

[21] Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo
Handelsman. 2012. “Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.”
Proceedings of the Na9onal Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(41):
16474–79.

[22] Morin, Rich. 2015. “Exploring Racial Bias Among Biracial and Single-Race Adults: The
IAT.” Pew Research Center, August 19. Retrieved at: hdps://www.pewresearch.org/social-
trends/2015/08/19/exploring-racial-bias-among-biracial-and-single-race-adults-the-iat/
[23] Ray, 2015.

[24] En9ne, Jon. 2011. “The ‘Scheming, Flashy Trickiness’ of Basketball’s Media Darlings, the
Philadelphia ‘Hebrews’ – err…Sixers.” The Jewish Magazine. Retrieved at:
hdp://www.jewishmag.com/45mag/basketball/basketball.htm

[25] Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive
Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Founda9on.

[26] Reid, Lesley Williams, Harald E. Weiss, Robert M. Adelman, and Charles Jaret. 2005.
“The immigra9on–crime rela9onship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas.” Social science
research 34, no. 4: 757-780.

[27] Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Posi9on.” The Pacific
Sociological Review, 1(1): 3-7.

[28] Pesgrew, Thomas F. 1979. “The Ul9mate Adribu9on Error: Extending Allport’s
Cogni9ve Analysis of Prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulle9n 5: 461-476.

[29] Fes9nger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cogni9ve Dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press.

[30] Putnam RD. 2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First
Century: The 2006 Johan Skyde Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Poli9cal Studies 30: 137–174.

[31] Turner, Margery Aus9n, Stephen L. Ross, and United States. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Office of Policy Development and Research. 2003. Discrimina9on in
Metropolitan Housing Markets. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved from
hdps://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publica9on/42796/900834-Discrimina9on-in-
Metropolitan-Housing-Markets.PDF

[32] Clair and Denis, 2015.

[33] Sewell, Abigail A. 2003. “A Different Menu: Racial Residen9al Segrega9on and the
Persistence of Racial Inequality.” Pp. 287-296 in Rashawn Ray (ed). Race and Ethnic Rela9ons
in the 21st Century: History, Theory, Ins9tu9ons, and Policy. San Diego, CA: University
Readers.

[34] Asad, Asad L. and Madhew Clair. 2018. “Racialized Legal Status as a Social Determinant
of Health.” Social Science and Medicine. 199:19-28; Lewis-McCoy and R. L. Heureux. 2014.
Inequality in the Promised Land: Race, Resources, and Suburban Schooling. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press. Gilbert, Keon, Rashawn Ray, Arjumand Siddiqi, Derek
Griffith, Elizabeth Baker, Shivan Shedy, and Keith Elder. 2016. “Visible and Invisible Trends in
African American Men’s Health: Piyalls and Promises.” Annual Review of Public Health 37:
295-311.
[35] Katznelson, Ira. 2005. When Affirma9ve Ac9on Was White: An Untold History of Racial
Inequality in Twen9eth-Century America. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton.

[36] Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive
Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Founda9on.

[37] Jack, Anthony Abraham. 2019. The Privileged Poor: How Elite Colleges Are Failing
Disadvantaged Students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[38] Gramlich, John. 2017. “Hispanic Dropout Rate Hits New Low, College Enrollment at New
High.” Pew Research Center. Retrieved from hdp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2017/09/29/hispanic-dropout-rate-hits-new-low-college-enrollment-at-new-high/

[39] Drake, St. Clair. 1987. Black Folk Here and There: An Essay in History and Anthropology.
Los Angeles: Center for Afro-American Studies, University of California. Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001.
Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Sta9s9cs Lie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

[40] Madhew O. Hunt. 2007. “African-American, Hispanic, and White Beliefs about
Black/White Inequality, 1977-2004.” American Sociological Review, 72: 390-415.

[41] Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg More
Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimina9on.”
The American Economic Review 94(4): 991–1013; Pager, Devah, Bart Bonikowski, and Bruce
Western. 2009. “Discrimina9on in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment.” American
Sociological Review 74: 777-799.

[42] Oliver, Melvin L. and Thomas M. Shapiro. 2006. Black wealth, white wealth: A new
perspec9ve on racial inequality. Routledge, second edi9on.

[43] Carter, Prudence L. 2003. “‘Black’ cultural capital, status posi9oning, and schooling
conflicts for low-income African American youth.” Social Problems 50, no. 1: 136-155; Clair,
Madhew. 2020. Privilege and Punishment: How Race and Class Mader in Criminal Court.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[44] Ford, Tiffany, Sarah Reber, and Richard V. Reeves. 2020. “Race Gaps in COVID-19 Deaths
Are Even Bigger than They Appear.” Brookings Ins9tu9on, June 16. Retrieved at:
hdps://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/06/16/race-gaps-in-covid-19-deaths-are-
even-bigger-than-they-appear/

[45] Cohn, Nate and Kevin Quealy. 2020. “How Public Opinion Has Moved on Black Lives
Mader.” New York Times, June 10. Retrieved at
hdps://www.ny9mes.com/interac9ve/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-mader-astudes.html

[46] Chudy, Jennifer and Hakeem Jefferson. 2021. “Support for Black Lives Mader Surged
Last Year. Did It Last?” New York Times, May 22. Retrieved at:
hdps://www.ny9mes.com/2021/05/22/opinion/blm-movement-protests-support.html
[47] Jefferson, Hakeem and Victor Ray. 2022. “White Backlash is a Type of Racial Reckoning,
Too.” The Washington Post, January 6. Retrieved at:
hdps://fivethirtyeight.com/features/white-backlash-is-a-type-of-racial-reckoning-too/

Cover Photo Source