Grand Canyon University Social Stratification and Race Presentation

After reviewing the readings and/or videos on social stratification and race, respond to the following prompts in a presentation consisting of 10-12 slides (Not including the title and reference slides). You can use PowerPoint or another presentation program. ( The readings are: Grusky, D., & Kricheli-Katz, T. (Eds.). (2012). The new gilded age : The critical inequality debates of our time. Stanford University Press. ,…



, Neville, H. A., Gallardo, M. E., & Sue, D. W. (2016). Introduction: Has the United States really moved beyond race? In H. A. Neville, M. E. Gallardo, & D. W. Sue (Eds.), The myth of racial color blindness: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact. (pp. 3–21). American Psychological Association.…

Address the following:

  • Describe at least one key idea, fact, or historical event that helps you better understand racism and its effects.
  • What are ways to acknowledge systemic injustices and inequities?
  • Explain how race impacts the social institution that you have selected.
  • Identify a form of racial inequality that could be associated with your specific social institution and use theoretical perspectives to explain the social behaviors that perpetuate racial inequality. (GCU 3.4)
  • Suggest measures and policy changes for the social institution to implement to help alleviate the racial inequality you have identified.
  • Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment
    Kao, Grace;Thompson, Jennifer S
    Annual Review of Sociology; 2003; 29, ProQuest One Academic
    pg. 417
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    Many people in the United States believe that the country has moved
    beyond race and racism, especially after the 2008 election of Barack Obama
    as president and his reelection in 2012. The logic of this position is that
    the United States could not be racist if a Black man was twice elected into
    the nation’s highest office. Others counterargue that race and racism persist
    in the United States, as evidenced by a range of disparities in education,
    income, health, and incarceration rates between people of color and Whites
    as well as by the attacks and killings of unarmed Black and Latino men and
    women by police officers. The 2014 killing of Michael Brown symbolizes these
    later abuses. On August 9 of that year, Michael Brown, an unarmed African
    American teenager, was shot and killed by a White officer, Darren Wilson,
    in Ferguson, Missouri. The African American community erupted in protest
    after the shooting and the subsequent disrespectful and shameful handling
    The Myth of Racial Color Blindness: Manifestations, Dynamics, and Impact, H. A. Neville, M. E. Gallardo,
    and D. W. Sue (Editors)
    Copyright © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    of the situation: Brown’s lifeless body was left by law enforcement personnel
    in the street for more than 4 hours, and community members reported that
    the police desecrated the impromptu memorial site. Police responded to the
    mostly peaceful demonstrators in riot gear and with military-grade weapons.
    They even patrolled the neighborhood in armored vehicles and brandished
    tear gas, a chemical weapon that has been banned in war by most nations,
    including the United States, since the Chemical Weapons Convention of
    1993 (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 1993). Cities
    throughout the nation protested again after the acquittal of Wilson by a
    grand jury; for some, the acquittal symbolized the mounting injustice of
    the killing of unarmed Black and Latino people by police officers that have
    gone unpunished. These incidents provided impetus for the development
    of the Black Lives Matter movement and other calls to action to affirm the
    humanity of Black people in the face of racial oppression.
    Not surprisingly, peopled differed markedly in their interpretations of
    the killing of Michael Brown; some maintained a view that race and racism did not play a role even in this specific tragedy, whereas others believed
    Brown’s death provided evidence of the persistence of racism in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. These varied positions reflected a stark
    racial divide both in initial perceptions of Brown’s killing and in the later
    acquittal of Wilson. According to a Pew Research Center (2014b) poll, about
    80% of the Black Americans compared with 37% of White Americans polled
    believed that the Brown killing raised important issues about race in the
    United States. Moreover, nearly five of 10 (47%) of the White Americans
    polled believed that race was getting more attention than it deserved. There
    were also racial differences in the perception of the grand jury decision acquitting officer Darren Wilson: About six of 10 White individuals polled agreed
    with the decision to acquit, whereas about the same proportion of Black
    adults believed the verdict was wrong and that Wilson should have been
    indicted (Pew Research Center, 2014a). Early in 2015, the U.S. Department
    of Justice (2015) released an investigative report on the Ferguson Police
    Department, which described the prevalence of racial bias on the force:
    Ferguson’s approach to law enforcement both reflects and reinforces racial
    bias, including stereotyping. The harms of Ferguson’s police and court
    practices are borne disproportionately by African Americans, and there
    is evidence that this is due in part to intentional discrimination on the
    basis of race. (p. 5)
    The killings of unarmed boys and men of color by police around the
    United States, including Eric Garner (Bronx, New York), Michael Brown
    (Ferguson, Missouri), Ezell Ford (Los Angeles, California), and Darrien Hunt
    (Salt Lake City, Utah)—all of which occurred in the summer of 2014—speak
    4       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    to potential police misconduct directed at communities of color. These
    were followed by two more deaths in early 2015—those of Walter Scott
    (Charleston, South Carolina) and Freddie Gray (Baltimore, Maryland); in
    both cases, police were charged with murder. Although the killing of unarmed
    girls and women of color by police are less frequent and does not receive
    attention, they occur and further highlight police misconduct. For example,
    within a span of 3 months, Tanisha Anderson (37) was killed by Cleveland
    police in November 2014 and Jessica Hernandez (17) was killed by Denver
    police in February 2015; both killings were ruled homicides.
    The divergent views of community members in assessing the role that race
    and racism played in the incidents highlight the varying racial worldviews in
    society. Some people—mostly Whites but also a few people of color—argue that
    as a society we have moved beyond race and racism. For such individuals, race
    did not play a role in the killing of unarmed men of color by police; instead,
    these incidents were either justified or an unfortunate turn of events. Those
    who argue that race and racism played a role in the killings argue that men
    of color are stereotyped as violent and aggressive, there are racial tensions
    between the police and communities of color (particularly Black and Latino
    communities) primarily because of police misconduct and harassment, and
    society is organized in such a way that creates and perpetuates racial inequality.
    Ferguson offers a case in point. At the time of Brown’s death, approximately
    67% of Ferguson residents were Black, but the city council was 83% White,
    and the police force was about 94% White; it is not surprising, then, that the
    overwhelming majority of the traffic stops in Ferguson involve Black motorists (85%) and that 92% of those searched by police are Black, even though
    few illegal articles are found in such searches (Leber, 2014). The systematic
    practices in Ferguson were part of a larger system of policing that failed to
    protect the members of the community from harm and instead exploited the
    community for financial gain (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).
    This edited volume is designed to provide an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept of color-blind racial ideology (CBRI)—the widely held
    belief that skin color does not play a role in interpersonal interactions and
    institutional policies/practices. In this collection, scholars in psychology,
    education, sociology, and related fields provide a probing analysis deconstructing racial color blindness; all of the contributors point out the problems with the concept as it is currently practiced in society. These scholars
    deconstruct the theoretical and empirical literature on the definitions and
    manifestations of racial color blindness, point out major flaws in the myth
    of racial color blindness, and reveal its harmful impact on the lives of
    people of color. Moreover, the contributors provide new conceptual frameworks to understand the clash of racial realities that occur between people
    of color and White Americans and why such highly publicized killings
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    of unarmed Blacks and Latinos are viewed so differently. As long as the philosophy of color blindness maintains its role as a dominant belief in our society, not only will people of color continue to suffer individually, but it will
    perpetuate inequities in health care, education, and employment. The balanced strength of the text is that all authors provide useful research, practice,
    and policy implications for anyone interested in reducing racial inequalities in
    society and thus challenging so-called racial color-blind discourse and policies.
    The volume thus is intended to serve as a resource for students, researchers,
    and practitioners interested in understanding contemporary expressions of
    racism and race relations.
    As a way to contextualize the topic, we first outline the varying perspectives on racial color blindness; there are multiple approaches to the concept,
    and there is not one agreed-on definition. We then debunk the myth of a
    racial color-blind society by outlining current national racial disparities and
    by unpacking three key arguments used to assert a racial color-blind position.
    This is followed by the organization of the collection and a summary of each
    chapter. We conclude with a discussion of future directions for researchers and
    practitioners, together with the need to increase the sophistication of empirical studies in this area and to disrupt the faulty logic of racial color blindness.
    A color-blind racial perspective embodies the view that the United States
    has moved beyond race and racism and that the color of someone’s skin does
    not matter in today’s society. People arguing that “race” was made too much
    of an issue in the Brown killing reflect a certain type of racial color blindness.
    There are debates in the field about the definition of racial color blindness that
    include whether the term is best captured through the denial of the color of
    someone’s skin, through the denial of institutional racism, or both. These varied positions are outlined in Neville, Awad, Brooks, Flores, and Bluemel (2013)
    and Sue (2015); they also correspond to the sociologist Ruth Frankenberg’s
    (1993) articulation of color- and power-evasion approaches. Frankenberg
    defined color evasion as the emphasis on “sameness as a way of rejecting the idea
    of white racial superiority” (p. 14). From this standpoint, researchers explore
    the development and implications of someone adopting the belief that “I do
    not see race.” In contrast, power evasion can be captured by the sentiment that
    “racism is not a big deal today” or rather that everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and consequently “any failure to achieve is therefore the fault of
    people of color themselves” (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 14).
    Because the contributors of this collection represent varying ideological
    and disciplinary approaches to the topic, most authors provide a brief definition
    6       neville, gallardo, and sue
    of racial color blindness in their chapter. These definitions provide a context
    in which to understand the perspectives of the authors and sub­sequently the
    arguments they present.
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    The persistence of racial disparities in education, health, wealth, poverty, and incarceration supports the notion that we live in racially hierarchical society, which affords unearned benefits to White Americans and unfairly
    burdens people of color. The very existence of these disparities challenges
    claims that race does not matter in U.S. society. Although a handful of people
    of color have been elected to political offices, confirmed to sit on the U.S.
    Supreme Court, or earned millions of dollars, these individuals are the exceptions. The reality is that people of color are disproportionately represented
    among many indicators of poor quality of life broadly defined.
    People of color are overrepresented among the poor and those who are
    unemployed (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012), and consequently, they have
    lower wealth compared with White Americans (Kochar & Fry, 2014). The
    poverty rates for American Indians and Alaskan Natives (27%) and Black
    Americans (25.8%) are nearly twice the national average (14.3%); specific
    Latino ethnic groups such as Mexican Americans and Dominican Americans
    also have high rates of poverty (upward of 23%; Macartney, Bishaw, &
    Fontenot, 2013). The unemployment rates of Black Americans is consistently at least two times higher than those of their White American counterparts; for example, in 2014, Black American unemployment for persons aged
    over 20 years was about 9.7% compared with 4.2% for White Americans; the
    unemployment rates for Latinos and Asian Americans were 5.9% and 4.5%,
    respectively (U.S. Department of Labor, 2015). Furthermore, the gap in
    wealth between Whites and Black and Latinos is growing. In 2014, the average wealth of White Americans was $141,900 compared with only $11,000
    for Black Americans, and $13,700 non-Black Latinos (Kochar & Fry, 2014).
    There are mounting data documenting the racial disparities in all aspects
    of the criminal justice system (Alexander, 2010). The Department of Justice
    report on Ferguson highlights the nature and extent of the disparities in one
    American town. These disparities reflect national trends. For example, in 2013,
    Black (38%), Latino (21%), and other races (6%) constituted the majority
    of those incarcerated during the year, and although Whites make up about
    63% of the U.S. population, they comprised only 35% of those incarcerated
    during that time (Carson, 2014). Black Americans suffer the largest disparity. Nationally, the racial and ethnic disparity in incarceration is 5.6 Black
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    Americans to 1.0 White American and for Latinos it is 1.8:1; felony dis­
    enfranchisement for Black Americans is 7.7% compared with 2.5% nationally (Sentencing Project, n.d.).
    Many people of color experience health inequalities, primarily due to
    limited access to quality health care or living in neighborhoods with higher
    concentrations of poverty. For example, the infant mortality rates for Black
    women are twice that of White women, and Blacks are more likely to die
    from a stroke or coronary heart disease before age 75 compared with their
    White counterparts. They also have the highest rates of diabetes. Blacks and
    Latinos have greater rates of tuberculosis, HIV infection, and preventable
    hospitalization compared with Whites (Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, 2013).
    Even when confronted with government statistics documenting the
    disparities in a range of quality-of-life indicators between people of color and
    White Americans, some individuals maintain their viewpoint that race does
    not matter in a person’s life experiences or day-to-day reality. This edited
    volume provides cogent retorts to three commonly held interrelated assertions we hear from people who continue to argue for the virtues of a racially
    color-blind perspective.
    “Racial color blindness is a good thing.” This comment is often associated
    with a vague reference to Martin Luther King’s (1963) “I Have a Dream”
    speech delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial more than 50 years
    ago. King eloquently stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will
    one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
    skin but by the content of their character” (para. 16). The quote is commonly decontextualized in these lay discussions because the speaker does not
    take into consideration the context or entirety of the comments. King never
    intended for people to ignore the realities of racial inequalities. To live in a
    society in which race does not matter and that people are judged solely on the
    content of their character is ideal and assumes a level playing field; unfortunately, as King noted in his speech, we did not then—nor do we now, for that
    matter—live in an ideal society in terms of race. The United States remains
    a racially hierarchical society in which people of color face individual and
    institutionalized discrimination. Race matters in terms of social indicators
    and peoples’ lived experiences. Thus, to deny race and ignore the existence of
    racism actually causes harm to people of color because it (a) falsely perpetuates the myth of equal access and opportunity, (b) blames people of color for
    8       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    their lot in life, and (c) allows Whites to their lives in ignorance, naiveté,
    and innocence.
    The idea of a living in a world in which the color of someone’s skin does
    not matter in terms of social relationships and lived experiences is especially
    attractive to some. For example, for White individuals who benefit from
    racial privilege, not seeing race or racism provides an opportunity to maintain
    a positive sense of self: “I am a good, moral, and decent human being and do
    not discriminate. I do not think about someone else’s race.” On the surface,
    it may seem like “good people” do not consider race when interacting with
    others. The assumption here is that by not noticing race, the individual does
    not treat people differently based on racial group membership. As we shall
    see in future chapters, engaging in strategic color blindness is nearly impossible because it has been shown that we begin to distinguish race and gender
    differences early in life.
    Unfortunately, “good people” with the notable goal of ignoring race actually do harm in interracial interactions. There are multiple theories and emerging research documenting the problems with “ignoring” race in interpersonal
    interactions. Jones (Chapter 2, this volume), Gullett and West (Chapter 4),
    and M. C. Jackson, Wilde, and Goff (Chapter 7) review the research that examines this question, primarily from the color-evasion perspective. Findings overwhelming suggest that when White individuals do not pay attention to race
    (e.g., “I don’t see race”), there is often a negative effect on people of color,
    such as feeling less motivated and engaged in the workplace. Part of the issue
    is that because the United States is racialized, to say one does not see the color
    of someone’s skin is similar to not acknowledging the proverbial elephant in
    the room.
    Researchers adopting a power-evasion perspective argue and provide
    empirical data indicating that by ignoring the reality of institutional racism,
    people rationalize or explain away racial inequality that exists in terms of,
    for example, income, housing, education, and criminal justice. Often underneath the color-blind racial discourse is antipathy toward people of color and
    justification for policies that, in the end, create race problems. For example,
    the implementation of stop-and-frisk policing was intended to create safe
    neighborhoods regardless of race. However, because of racial stereotyping,
    the actual implementation of this policy in places such as New York City has
    created racial disparities. In 2013, District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in
    Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. that the “stop-and-frisk” practices of
    the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of racial
    and ethnic minorities in the city and reflected a form of racial profiling of
    Blacks and Latinos.
    “Race(ism) isn’t as relevant today as it was before the civil rights movement.”
    The assumption here is that the United States has moved beyond racism,
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    as exemplified by the election of Barack Obama as president. However, a
    number of the authors in this collection argue that contemporary forms of
    racism have morphed from the publicly sanctioned vitriol and corresponding racial policies of the Jim Crow era to public discourse that masks covert
    forms of racism that may on the surface appear more “civil” (see Chapter 1
    by Bonilla-Silva, Chapter 2 by Jones, Chapter 5 by Warren, and Chapter 6
    by Bell, all in this volume). After the election of President Obama in 2008,
    membership in hate groups rose about 60% over a 5-year period (Chiles,
    2013). On average, the unemployment rate for Blacks is consistently double
    that of their White counterparts (Desilver, 2013). Asian American teenagers
    experience bullying at significantly higher rates than other racial and ethnic
    groups (DeVoe & Murphy, 2011). Together with the death of Michael Brown
    and other unarmed people of color by police officers, these facts all point to
    the persistence of racial inequality.
    “Talking about race makes things worse.” Some people claim that talking
    about race promotes racism or is racist in and of itself. By claiming that the
    discourse is the problem, people are able to evade the real culprit—that is,
    racist acts or behavior. The following example exemplifies our point. “Laura,”
    a Latina freshman living in a predominantly White residence hall, was given
    the nickname “Taco Lover.” She told her residence hall coordinator about
    the incident and mentioned that she found the joke racially offensive. The
    coordinator told Laura that everyone was given nicknames and that she was
    making things worse by implicating racial insensitivity to a harmless moniker. In situations like these, the spotlight is shifted from the perpetrator to
    the person (or people) harmed by the racial insensitivity. Shining the light on
    racism is not racist, nor does it heighten racial tension. What is made worse
    in such situations is the comfort level of Whites who want to ignore race.
    By noticing race and naming racism, one calls into question racial privilege
    and unequal treatment of people of color. For some, this causes anxiety and
    discomfort. On a larger scale, claims that discussions about race and racism
    cause racial problems provides people and institutions with a convenient
    rationale not to explore policies and practices that create inequalities, either
    intentionally or unintentionally.
    This book is organized around answering three main questions:
    1. What is CBRI?
    2. How is CBRI measured or assessed?
    3. What are the manifestations of CBRI?
    10       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    We organized the book to appeal to the varied interests of the targeted
    audience. The first question has the broadest appeal, and answering this question is essential to ensuring a common language in which to understand the
    nature of the problem. The second question is of primary concern to people
    interested in researching racial beliefs, particularly racial color blindness.
    We end by describing the multiple ways in which racial color blindness manifests in everyday interactions at the intrapsychic, interpersonal, group, institutional, and societal levels. Delineating these manifestations is of special
    concern to practitioners and others committed to identifying policies and
    practices that will counter the ill effects of racial color blindness and promote
    more racial equity.
    What Is CBRI?
    In Part I, “Theoretical and Methodological Foundations,” the contributors provide a review of the theoretical perspectives of CBRI. The chapters
    differ in their theoretical standpoint (e.g., color and power evasion) and in
    their (sub)disciplinary approach (e.g., sociology, social psychology, counseling psychology, education, international studies); they also differ in their foci.
    Included in this section is a broad sociological view of the issues, consideration
    of racial color blindness on individual and interpersonal levels, and consideration of alternative perspectives. To understand what CBRI is, it is important
    to conceptualize what it is not. Chapters incorporate alternatives to CBRI,
    specifically multiculturalism (i.e., appreciation of cultural diversity) and race
    consciousness (i.e., critical awareness of policies and actions that serve to disrupt racial inequality). Although most of the chapters center on the dynamics
    within the United States, Warren’s chapter includes a multinational analysis,
    with an emphasis on Brazil. This chapter was included in the text as a case
    study in the ways in which racial color blindness operates in a multiracial
    country outside the United States. Warren’s analysis helps to bring perspective
    on the boundaries of racial color blindness and whiteness in racially hierarchical societies.
    Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2001) popularized contemporary
    articulations of color-blind racism in his seminal text, White Supremacy and
    Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. He builds on his earlier work in the first
    chapter of the current volume. Bonilla-Silva sets the stage for first the conversation by defining color-blind racism as the new racism that emerged after
    the civil rights era and that has deepened since the 2008 election of President
    Obama. Color blindness from his standpoint represents the dominant racial
    ideology of the contemporary moment in which people—individually or
    collectively—use racial frames, styles, and stories to minimize or justify racial
    inequalities in society. While Obama for some represents a definitive end to
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    racism in the United States, Bonilla-Silva argues against this stance, citing
    the continued persistence of racism in all sectors in society. He further argues
    that Obama himself contributed to the racial narrative minimizing race and
    racism through the “raceless” persona he adopted during the campaign, his
    distancing himself from dominant civil rights era leaders, and his lack of consideration of structural racism in his public talks on race issues in the United
    States. Bonilla-Silva argues that what is needed to counteract the dominant
    racial perspective that denies the existence of racism, and ultimately to transform society, is new social movements that will raise critical racial consciousness of people of color.
    In Chapter 2, Jones asks a central question that seems to undergird much
    of our ambivalence, confusion, and fear about acknowledging race: Does it
    really matter? He reviews the social psychological literature on social categorization, stereotyping, reaction time studies to racial stimuli, correlation of
    Afrocentric features to criminal justice outcomes, and the impact of colorblind policies in organizations to build a case that ignoring race is impossible.
    He addresses the myth of color blindness while outlining how it provides cover
    for many Whites: (a) It prevents Whites from critically examining their racial
    beliefs and behaviors, (b) it exonerates them from complicit responsibility for
    obstructing the rights of groups of color, and (c) it allows them to continue
    their lives in innocence and naiveté. Jones concludes that color blindness has
    major detrimental consequences to people of color because it perpetuates the
    myth of meritocracy and denies their racial reality. Similar to Bonilla-Silva’s
    critique of President Obama’s adoption of “racelessness,” Jones presents an
    interesting new perspective to color blindness by asserting that racelessness
    (when people of color downplay or minimize their own race) is another side
    of the same coin as “color blindness.” Like color blindness, he concludes that
    racelessness is self-protective, self-delusional, and also not possible for people
    of color. Although racelessness may have functional value in limited situations, it has major harmful consequences for the holder.
    In Chapter 3, Babbitt, Toosi, and Sommers explore the various motivations that people have for endorsing color blindness as a racial ideology. The
    authors provide a useful discussion of how White individuals who perceive
    zero-sum competition between racial groups may endorse color blindness
    as a way to preserve their own privileged status. This is one of the few discussions in the literature that explores in depth “why” people find CBRI
    attractive from the perspective of White individuals. They discuss the psychological mechanisms through which individuals may harbor apprehension
    about being labeled a racist simply for mentioning race, may believe that
    racial categorization is to blame for racism, and thus endorse color blindness
    as a way to avoid this label and because they believe it to be beneficial to
    people of color.
    12       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    In Chapter 4, Gullett and West examine the anticipatory tensions that
    arise in interracial relationships and how entering an interracial interaction
    with a color-blind or multicultural mind-set influences the cognitive and
    affective processes that unfold during interracial interactions. The authors
    use an actor partner interdependence model framework to discuss how individuals’ color-blind or multicultural mind-sets influence not only their own
    outcomes but their partners’ as well. The authors compare the effectiveness
    of color-blind and multicultural approaches to interracial interactions with
    alternative methods for cultivating interracial relationships.
    Warren broadens the discussion of CBRI in Chapter 5 by presenting a
    scholarly rationale on the theoretical and heuristic value of critical race studies
    in other parts of the world, especially Brazil. He adeptly illustrates how the
    study of race in Brazil helps to push back against attacks on black counterpublics, teach how racial literacy is learned, and delegitimize liberal forms of
    racism. In his analysis of Brazilian worldviews on race, Warren concludes that
    White supremacist consciousness is defined by color blindness, race evasiveness, and whitening narratives. In short, an international perspective is useful
    to the tasks of undermining color blindness and universalizing color consciousness in the United States. He concludes with a seldom spoken truth:
    “To move closer toward full emancipation, cultures will have to be violated
    rather than respected.” In other words, to move from color blindness toward
    color consciousness necessitates upending White identities and worldviews.
    In the final chapter in this part, Bell builds on Warren’s conclusions by
    presenting an insightful discussion of race consciousness as an alternative
    to CBRI. Bell provides a critique of CBRI for its failure to understand racial
    inequality in society. A race conscious perspective, she argues, is essential
    to deconstruct race and dismantle racism. She outlines the stories we tell
    ourselves and others to reinforce a CBRI perspective, which she refers to
    as stock stories; there are also stories that counter racism and uncover the
    ways in which race matter as well as stories of resistance, the latter of which
    Bell characterizes as race-conscious stories. Bell provides concrete strategies
    to develop race consciousness. Some of these strategies include recognizing stock or dominant stories that support CBRI, working to uncover ways
    in which Whiteness and race are hidden, exploring the root causes of current disadvantages, creating opportunities to interrupt stock stories through
    rehearsal or role-play, and working to increase racial literacy.
    How Is CBRI Measured or Assessed?
    Understanding and synthesizing the literature on CBRI in the social sciences requires an exploration of the conceptual framework of the researchers
    and also the methodology used to empirically investigate the topic. Part II,
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    “Context and Costs,” consists of three chapters that cover the most common
    methodological approaches in the social sciences (i.e., experimental, survey,
    and qualitative or ethnographic). Each of these methods provides researchers
    with the tools to answer different types of interrelated questions.
    In Chapter 7, M. C. Jackson, Wilde, and Goff review the social psychological research methods used to assess the causes and consequences of CBRI.
    The authors frame the various methodology into two broad groups. They
    discuss first the research that illustrates the consequences when CBRI is the
    norm and, second, the research that investigates which contexts motivate
    individuals to endorse CBRI. They further discuss that predominate research
    methodologies in social psychology laboratory experimental methods. The
    authors discuss that results from this body of research indicate that CBRI
    often has drawbacks even when implemented with egalitarian motivations.
    Finally, they discuss how future CBRI research could benefit from mixedmethod approaches.
    Whereas M. C. Jackson and colleagues’ discussion centers on assessing
    racial color blindness through experimental designs, Awad and K. M. Jackson
    review the primary CBRI measures used in survey research. Their review
    focuses on five published measures with psychometric information, but they
    also identify a handful of other measures that have limited information about
    the validity of the measure. A summary of the scale purpose, sample items, and
    psycho­metric information for the scales are part of the review. This type of
    information is especially helpful to researchers who may be interested in measuring CBRI in future studies. In their identification of future directions, Awad
    and K. M. Jackson encourage researchers to develop additional psychometrically sound measures that assess both color- and power-evasion dimensions of
    CBRI; to date, measures only assess one or the other dimension but not both.
    In Chapter 9, Lewis and Hagerman identify the limitations in quantitative explorations of CBRI. Racial color blindness is complex, and the nuances
    of how race and racism are enacted in systems are not easily captured through
    experimental or survey methods. Instead, they argue that ethnographic research
    designs and in-depth interviews are essential in uncovering the hidden ways
    in which CBRI is practiced in institutional settings and in interpersonal
    relationships. The authors provide three research case examples to illustrate
    the benefits of and methodological strategies used in ethnographic and interview studies in the schools.
    What Are the Manifestations of CBRI?
    In the final section, “Manifestations of Color-Blind Racial Ideology,”
    contributors document the multiple ways in which CBRI operates on individual and interpersonal levels and within various contexts. We intentionally
    14       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    selected three large contexts in which CBRI operates to produce racial disparities: education, the workplace, and health care–related settings. We have
    included two chapters on each of these broad settings to capture the complexities in the manifestations while honoring the diversity represented in
    the broad context categories. The chapters in this section bring to life the
    damaging effects of the denial of race and racism on individuals and within
    institutions. As a way of acknowledging human agency, authors also provide
    concrete strategies that researchers, educators, and applied psychologists can
    use to disrupt CBRI and promote color- or race-conscious practices as a means
    of reducing racial inequalities. We include two chapters that focus on the
    individual manifestation of racial color blindness, one primarily centering on
    White individuals and the other on people of color. We also include chapters
    that outline the broader manifestation of CBRI on contexts in which social
    scientists have collected data and have intervened to promote increased race
    or color-conscious policies designed to disrupt disparities.
    Tettegah weaves together research from psychology, philosophy, and
    neuroscience to connect CBRI to expressions (or lack of) empathy in
    Chap­ter 10. A chapter on empathy was included to better capture an underlying dimension of racial color blindness that remains underdeveloped in
    the literature. Tettegah argues that people are wired to see group differences;
    thus, although people may believe they “don’t see race,” denial of race in our
    society is un­realistic. Drawing on the interdisciplinary research, Tettegah
    raises thought provoking questions about our moral obligation as humans
    to find appropriate ways to understand differences to develop compassion
    and perspective taking, which are critical dimensions of empathy. Tettegah
    critiques White people’s use of “preferential” or strategic color blindness;
    people articulate a vision of themselves as being color-blind with respect
    (and therefore “good”) in some situations but many times inadvertently fall
    back on racial assumptions when judging situations that are racialized, such
    as the killing of Michael Brown or the 2012 murder of Trayvon Martin by
    George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer. The manifestation
    of racial color blindness is thus lack of empathy. In this novel exploration of
    CBRI, Tettegah holds the concept of inclusive empathy—empathy built on
    context and cultural understanding—as a desired goal.
    Both White people and people of color can adopt a color-blind racial
    perspective; however, the frequency and consequences of this endorsement
    differ by race. Endorsement of CBRI among White people helps protect the
    individual from “appearing” racially intolerant and moreover perpetuates
    racial privileges through inaction (and thus maintenance of the racial status
    quo). People of color who adopt a racial color-blind perspective may work
    against their individual and group interest by supporting policies and practices that unfairly discriminate against people of color. We have included
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    a chapter in the collection to explicate the manifestation of CBRI among
    people of color. In Chapter 11, Speight, Hewitt, and Cook provide a thoughtprovoking discussion of the link between internalized racism and expressions
    of CBRI among people of color. They provide a sharp analysis that conceptualizes CBRI as existing within the context of structural racism and as an
    attitude that people of color may, to their detriment, adopt. Writing from a
    power-evasion perspective, Speight and her colleagues identify the underlying core dimensions of CBRI as being the denial of racism. This denial serves
    to legitimize racial inequality and thus suppresses action to remedy the social
    maladies. According to Speight et al.’s review, CBRI and internalized racism
    go hand in hand among people of color. They offer the development of critical consciousness (similar to Bell’s conceptualization of race consciousness in
    Chapter 6, but Speight and colleagues draw more on the work of liberation
    education and psychology scholars) as a way to guard against internalized racism and CBRI. Speight et al. conclude by urging scholars to focus their work
    on critiques of systems of oppression to eliminate inequality.
    Racial disparities are well documented in educational settings, and there
    is growing research on the ways in which color–blind racial beliefs create or
    maintain these disparities. We included two chapters on the manifestations
    of CBRI in the school context to capture the different expressions in the
    kindergarten through Grade 12 (K–12) context compared with the higher
    education. In Chapter 12, Castro-Atwater provides compelling data about
    the detrimental effect of CBRI on learning outcomes for K–12 students of
    color and on teachers’ effectiveness among these children. She unpacks the
    ways in which race matters in schools. For example, teachers’ (inadvertent)
    biased attitudes and behaviors can lead to lower expectations of students of
    color and to lower student achievement. In addition, teachers’ indifference
    or inadvertent biases may lead youth to ignore or dismiss their own experiences with discrimination. Castro-Atwater reviews a set of teacher variables
    that promote CBRI in the schools, primarily through a restricted worldview
    or cultural lens that they bring to the classroom. The hopeful news is that
    teachers can and do provide counternarratives and practices that promote
    a color- or race-conscious school climate. Schools can encourage these narratives and practices by promoting the inclusion of cultural pedagogy in
    the classroom and incorporating color- or race-consciousness training in
    teacher education.
    In Chapter 13, Kernahan extends the discussion of CBRI to the context
    of higher education. She specifically focuses on the role of higher education
    in challenging CBRI, which is consistent with many colleges’ and universities’ goal to promote inclusivity. Kernahan evaluates the research on the role
    of courses and extracurricular activities in disrupting CBRI. Overwhelming
    empirical data support the effectiveness toward this goal of courses with
    16       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    significant “diversity-related” content. Emerging research also centers on
    uncovering the active ingredients in the courses that promote the desired
    learning outcomes. On the basis of Kernahan’s review, lectures plus intergroup dialogue and learning from other students appear to be key pedagogical
    tools. Kernahan also weaves in the long-standing empirical research on the
    “contact hypothesis” to illustrate the need of institutions of higher education
    to provide students with meaningful opportunities to promote intergroup
    friendships. Kernahan suggests faculty development around these issues be
    provided as one way to better prepare teachers for the difficulty in incorporating these types of experiences and information in the classroom.
    We balance our discussion of color blindness in the workplace by including a chapter on the effects it has on organizational contexts, such as in the
    hiring, retention, and promotion of people of color and on the individual
    adaptive strategies employees of color use to deal with an institutional culture
    that professes not to see color. Block, in Chapter 14, provides an eye-opener
    on how CBRI in institutional policies, practices, and structures contributes
    to inequities in workplace outcomes. Reviewing the large body of literature
    on the workplace, she reveals how disparities for people of colors in the labor
    force exist in every step of the process: entering the job market, the type of
    job an individual is assigned, career advancement, and the associated wages
    that accompany each of these areas. Using the two-component analysis of
    color blindness (power evasion and color evasion) proposed by Neville et al.
    (2013), Block reveals how they manifest in the sociocultural organizational
    context. When organizational philosophy operates from a color-blind philosophy, it places the blame on employees of color for their lack of success and
    also perpetuates the threat of stereotype. Countering CBRI in organizational
    settings means that movement toward awareness of diversity dynamics must
    be instituted. Block takes issue with some who profess that multiculturalism
    alone offers an alternative to combatting injustices in organizational settings.
    Although many aspects of appreciating cultural diversity in employees and
    highlighting the value of different cultures may contribute to a positive climate for employees of color, it is not enough. She believes that these programs
    do not adequately address the systems that create and maintain the disparities and focus primarily on individuals. Block provides alternative goals to
    enhance systemic change.
    In Chapter 15, Shih and Young extend the discussion of CBRI to
    understand policies and practices in the workplace. The authors define organizational color blindness as possessing a policy that emphasizes an overarching organizational identity while ignoring differences in race, culture, and
    ethnicity. Although misguided, a CBRI is intended to eliminate discrimination by treating everyone the same and preventing one group from being
    advantaged over another. The problem, as the authors point out, is that a
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    default standard to White norms and values become the criteria from which
    policies and practices are created. The downside is that instead of eliminating bias, it actually promotes and perpetuates inequities toward socially
    devalued groups in the workforce. It forces assimilation and acculturation
    and uses White prototypical norms to judge performance and the worth
    of employees of color. If color-blind workplaces are detrimental to women
    and employees of color, what does research tell us about how they cope
    in such an environment? The authors identify two major identity management strategies used by employees from socially devalued groups: (a) identity switching that involves deemphasizing a negatively valued identity and
    (b) identity regeneration or replacing a negative identity with a positively
    regarded one. Both are complex methods of dealing with color blindness
    and surviving in an organization that fails either to acknowledge or value
    differences. For those who use identity management strategies, there may be
    benefits such as helping individuals control how they experience discrimination, protect their self-esteem, increase performance outcomes, reduce
    anxiety, and increase interpersonal comfort. The authors point out however,
    that there are major psychological costs associated with these strategies:
    backlash effects, failure to accurately perceive important feedback, being
    placed in a double bind, and alienation from one’s group. Again, the key for
    solution and major responsibility seems to lie with organizations and their
    recognition of the harmful consequences of CBRI.
    We conclude the book with two chapters on the manifestations of CBRI
    in health-related contexts. Hospital settings and the provision of health care
    are additional contexts in which CBRI operates and unfortunately perpetuates inequality on indicators of physical health. In Chapter 16, Penner and
    Dovidio provide a focused discussion on how racial color blindness can negatively affect the quality of health care that Black patients, relative to White
    patients, receive. The authors focus primarily on Black patients, and primarily non-Black physicians, in the United States, considering the historical
    and continued disparities in health care that have dominated the literature
    for Black relative to White patients. Although the authors focus on Black
    patient–White physician relationships in the United States, they believe
    their discussions about the causes of disparities in health and health care
    between races would generally apply to other racial and ethnic minorities in
    the United States and in many other countries around the world.
    In Chapter 17, Burkard, Edwards, and Adams address the manifestation
    of CBRI in mental health settings, particularly in the contexts of counseling
    and supervision. They invite readers to consider the advantages of implementing a racially conscious and inclusive perspective as a way to increase
    opportunities for deeper exploration and understanding within counseling
    and supervisory relationships. The authors review conceptual associations
    18       neville, gallardo, and sue
    between CBRI and other multicultural counseling constructs that are specific
    to counseling practitioners and trainees and examine empirical findings specific to color blindness in counseling and supervision processes.
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    The authors in this edited volume provide a rich discussion of the racial
    color blindness literature in terms of theoretical perspectives, research methods,
    and the manifestations that shape individuals’ and groups’ experiences. The
    insights offered in the chapters provide students, scholars, and practitioners
    with information to identify the ways in which race is still present in U.S.
    society, the reasons some people endorse CBRI, and the harmful effects of
    CBRI on in interracial interactions and in policies that intentionally or
    unintentionally create racial disparities. The authors’ critical analysis of the
    theory and empirical research on CBRI reveals several gaps in our current
    thinking. Of particular note is the lack of interdisciplinary research that
    incorporates both color- and power-evasion dimensions of CBRI and how
    they may potentially affect interpersonal interactions and organizational
    practices differentially.
    These chapters offer a number of consistent recommendations for
    reducing CBRI. A particularly noteworthy strategy is to provide educators,
    researchers, and practitioners with professional development opportunities to learn how to increase their critical awareness about racism and to
    develop efficacy and skills to identify and implement race-conscious actions.
    Such actions would reduce anxiety in interracial interactions and promote
    inclusive policies that increase racial equity in a given setting. In addition to
    covering information on theories and research on race and racism in these
    development opportunities, it may be helpful to offer training in how to
    talk about and facilitate difficult dialogues about race and inequality. Being
    racially color-blind is to be racially color mute, so we must begin to help
    one another address nondefensively issues of race, racism, Whiteness, and
    White privilege. On an individual level, talking about race or helping others
    talk about it requires a firm sense of who we are as racial and cultural beings
    and a willingness to acknowledge and explore racial biases. On institutional
    and societal levels, several educational goals seem important. First, we must
    make the “invisible” visible by identifying the manifestation, dynamics, and
    harmful impact of racially color-blind policies or practices that create racial
    inequality in specific settings. Second, we must learn to work within systems
    and organizations to advocate and implement race-conscious policies and
    practices that will help to create equal access and opportunities for all.
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness.
    New York, NY: New Press.
    Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era. Boulder,
    CO: Lynne Rienner.
    Carson, E. A. (2014). Prisoners in 2013. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC Health Disparities &
    Inequalities Report 2013. Retrieved from
    Chiles, N. (2013, March 5). In the age of Obama, hate groups on the rise in America.
    Atlanta BlackStar. Retrieved from
    Desilver, D. (2013, August 13). Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of
    Whites. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.
    DeVoe, J., & Murphy, C. (2011). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying: Results
    from the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey.
    Retrieved from
    Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (2013).
    Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of Whiteness.
    Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    King, M. L., Jr. (1963). I have a dream. Speech by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
    at the March on Washington. Retrieved from
    Kochar, R., & Fry, R. (2014, December). Wealth inequality has widened along racial,
    ethnic lines since end of Great Recession. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.
    Leber, R. (2014). Ferguson’s police force is 94 percent White—And that’s basically
    normal in the U.S. New Republic. Retrieved from
    Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot, K. (2013, February). Poverty rates for selected
    detailed race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007–2011 (American Community Survey Briefs, 11-17). Retrieved from
    Neville, H. A., Awad, G. H., Brooks, J. E., Flores, M. P., & Bluemel, J. (2013).
    Color-blind racial ideology: Theory, training, and measurement implications
    in psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 455–466.
    20       neville, gallardo, and sue
    Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
    Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. (1993). Article 1(5). Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. Retrieved from
    Pew Research Center. (2014a). Sharp racial divisions in reactions to Brown, Garner
    decisions: Many Blacks expect police–minority relations to worsen. Retrieved from
    Pew Research Center. (2014b). Stark racial divisions in reactions to Ferguson police
    shooting. Retrieved from
    Sentencing Project. (n.d.). Interactive map. Retrieved from
    Sue, D. W. (2015). Race talk and the conspiracy of silence: Understanding and facilitating
    difficult dialogues on race. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department.
    Retrieved from
    U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Employment status of the civilian population by race,
    sex, and age. Retrieved from
    U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Labor force statistics from the current population
    survey. Retrieved from
    Disparities, Disproportionalities, Differences,
    and Discrepancies
    James Herbert Williams
    espite decades of social work and other
    social science research on race and ethnic
    differences on the social and psychological well-being of humans, the overall disparities
    and disproportionalities in health and safety persist.
    A preponderance of evidence in research has documented worse outcomes in education, income,
    health, behavioral health, delinquency, substance
    abuse, disabilities, criminal justice, safety, and
    chronic diseases for racial and ethnic minorities
    when compared with white people (Auslander,
    Thompson, Dreitzer, White, & Santiago, 1997;
    Cummings, Ponce, & Mays, 2010; Hardaway &
    McLoyd, 2009; Hirschl & Rank, 2010; Kington &
    Smith, 1997; Mustard, 2001; Nguyen, Ho, & Williams, 2011; Olshansky et al., 2012; Rank, 2009;
    Saez & Piketty, 2003; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997;
    J. H. Williams, Pierce, Young, & Van Dorn, 2001;
    J. H. Williams et al., 2007). The majority of these
    studies have investigated differences among African
    Americans, Native Americans/Alaska Natives, Hispanic and Latino Americans, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders as compared with
    white Americans. Studies of differences and disparities in our discipline are not common just to race
    and ethnicity, they are also quite prominent in
    investigating differences across gender, age, and
    sexual orientation (Dembo, Williams, & Schmeidler, 1993; Mays & Cochran, 2001; Rank & Williams, 2010).
    In addition to the various studies on differences
    and disparities previously mentioned, a new commitment to eliminating health and health care disparities is underway. Various public and private
    organizations have focused on identifying health
    and behavioral health disparities while attempting to
    achieve health equity. Several reports have documented the levels of disparities and identified the
    various social determinants of health that contribute
    doi: 10.1093/swr/svt039
    © 2013 National Association of Social Workers
    to these disparities (Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, 2013; Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008). As the United States increasingly diversifies, addressing health inequities is
    becoming more urgent. The literature shows that
    racial and ethnic minorities systematically experience
    worse health and behavioral health risks and outcomes (Braveman, Egerter, & Mockenhaupt, 2011).
    The population growth and changing demographics
    globally require that social work address health disparities to reduce gaps in health access, quality of
    service, and health outcomes (D. R. Williams,
    Costa, Odunlami, & Mohammed, 2008). Health
    disparities are affected by a constellation of social
    determinants, including poverty, employment,
    neighborhood violence, community disorganization, underperforming schools, trauma, racism, discrimination, social isolation, acculturation stress, lack
    of health insurance, and poor access to health care
    (Braveman et al., 2011; Brondolo, Gallo, & Myers,
    2009; “Healthy Communities Matter,” 2010; U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
    An increasing emphasis on health disparities is
    very much needed and timely. The social justice
    aspect to identifying these differences is important
    for the discipline. However, the increased emphasis
    on these types of studies may be taking the profession away from the strength of the profession. It is
    important that we take stock in the state of our profession. What is the current state of research in our
    profession? Should we move our focus away from
    studies of differences and move our research agenda
    toward developing and testing interventions? Does
    the discipline need more of a balance between disparities and disproportionality research and intervention or implementation research? When do we
    move beyond investigating these differences and
    develop interventions to address these differences
    and affect lives? We need to move forward with
    Auslander, W. F., Thompson, S., Dreitzer, D., White, N.,
    & Santiago, J. V. (1997). Disparity in glycemic control
    and adherence between African American and
    Caucasian youths with diabetes: Family and
    community contexts. Diabetes Care, 20, 1569–1575.
    Braveman, P. A., Egerter, S. A., & Mockenhaupt, R. E.
    (2011). Broadening the focus: The need to address the
    social determinants of health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40, S4–S18.
    Brondolo, E., Gallo, L. C., & Myers, H. F. (2009). Race,
    racism and health: Disparities, mechanisms, and
    interventions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32, 1–8.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC
    Health disparities and inequalities report—United
    States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
    62(Suppl. 3), 1–184.
    Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. (2008).
    Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action
    on the social determinants of health (Final Report of the
    Commission on Social Determinants of Health).
    Geneva: World Health Organization.
    Cummings, J. R., Ponce, N. A., & Mays, V. M. (2010).
    Comparing racial/ethnic differences in mental health
    service use among high-need subpopulations across
    clinical and school-based settings. Journal of Adolescent
    Health, 46, 603–606.
    Dembo, R., Williams, L., & Schmeidler, J. (1993). Gender
    differences in mental health service needs among
    youths entering a juvenile detention center. Journal of
    Prison & Jail Health, 12, 73–101.
    Hardaway, C. R., & McLoyd, V. C. (2009). Escaping poverty and securing middle class status: How race and
    socioeconomic status shape mobility prospects for
    African Americans during the transition to adulthood.
    Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 242–256.
    Healthy communities matter: The importance of place to
    the health of boys of color [Executive summary].
    (2010, June). Los Angeles: The California Endowment.
    Hirschl, T. A., & Rank, M. R. (2010). Homeownership
    across the American life course: Estimating the racial
    divide. Race and Social Problems, 2, 125–136.
    Kington, R. S., & Smith, J. P. (1997). Socioeconomic status
    and racial and ethnic differences in functional status
    associated with chronic diseases. American Journal of
    Public Health, 87, 805–810.
    Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health
    correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian,
    gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American
    Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869–1876.
    Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities
    in sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. federal courts.
    Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285–314.
    Nguyen, D. D., Ho, K. H., & Williams, J. H. (2011). Social
    determinants and health service use among racial and
    ethnic minorities: Findings from a community sample.
    Social Work in Health Care, 50, 390–405.
    Olshansky, S. J., Antonucci, T., Berkman, L., Binstock, R.
    H., Boersch-Supan, A., Cacioppo, J. T., et al. (2012).
    Differences in life expectancy due to race and educational differences are widening, and many may not
    catch up. Health Affairs, 31, 1803–1813.
    Rank, M. R. (2009). Measuring the economic racial divide
    across the course of American lives. Race and Social
    Problems, 1, 57–66.
    Rank, M. R., & Williams, J. H. (2010). The life course
    approach to understanding poverty among older
    American adults. Families in Society, 91, 337–341.
    Saez, E., & Piketty, T. (2003). Income inequality in the
    United States: 1913–1998. Quarterly Journal of
    Economics, 118, 1–39.
    Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1997). Racial and ethnic
    disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United
    States. Crime and Justice, 21, 311–374.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001).
    Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnicity—Supplement to
    mental health: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville,
    MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.
    Williams, D. R., Costa, M. V., Odunlami, A. O., &
    Mohammed, S. A. (2008). Moving upstream: How
    interventions that address the social determinants of
    health can improve health and reduce disparities.
    Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 14(Suppl.),
    Social Work Research Volume 37, Number 4 December 2013
    testing interventions that will address the multiple
    inequities that have been identified in social science
    research. Much of the disparities and disproportionality research should be based on a five-step model
    for identifying and intervening. Initially, we need to
    identify the extent of the disparities, and then assess
    or determine the reasons (causes and correlates) for
    the phenomenon. We then need to develop interventions to address these differences, evaluate the
    effectiveness of the intervention, and monitor the
    disparities trends over time to determine the longterm effectiveness of the intervention. Social work
    research has done an admirable job in the first two
    steps of this five-step model. The gap in the research
    agenda for the discipline is the lack of tested,
    comprehensive, and innovative interventions that
    effectively address these disparities and disproportionality.
    The body of literature identifying the differences
    across various subpopulations has been significant.
    However, these studies alone have not had the
    expected impact without follow-up studies that
    test interventions. Intervening is a core component
    of social work training. At this critical stage of the
    profession, we must expand our research to test
    interventions to build a compendium of evidencebased interventions that will promote equity and
    support social justice. Just identifying differences
    does not adequately address the social and economic justice canons of our profession. A research
    agenda that supports the growth of tested interventions is in the best interest of the profession. There
    is great room in our profession to expand our
    research agenda to include more intervention and
    implementation research. This disciplinary goal
    will affect lives and allow us to move beyond
    just documenting disparities, disproportionalities,
    differences, and discrepancies.
    Williams, J. H., Pierce, R., Young, N. S., & Van Dorn,
    R. A. (2001). Service utilization in high crime
    communities: Consumer views on supports and
    barriers. Families in Society, 82, 409–417.
    Williams, J. H., Van Dorn, R. A., Ayers, C. D., Bright,
    C. L., Abbott, R. D., & Hawkins, J. D. (2007).
    Understanding race and gender differences in
    delinquent acts, alcohol, and marijuana use:
    A developmental analysis of initiation. Social Work
    Research, 31, 71–81.
    James Herbert Williams, PhD, is dean and Milton Morris
    Endowed Chair, Graduate School of Social Work, University
    of Denver, Craig Hall, Room 308, 2148 S. High Street,
    Denver, CO 80210; e-mail: This
    editorial is written in honor of my sister Willie Rose Williams
    Smith, MSW, a dedicated social work practitioner and graduate
    of Portland State University.
    Advance Access Publication December 19, 2013
    Williams / Disparities, Disproportionalities, Differences, and Discrepancies
    Copyright of Social Work Research is the property of National Association of Social Workers
    and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
    the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
    email articles for individual use.

    Calculate your order
    Pages (275 words)
    Standard price: $0.00
    Client Reviews
    Our Guarantees
    100% Confidentiality
    Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
    Original Writing
    We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
    Timely Delivery
    No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
    Money Back
    If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

    Calculate the price of your order

    You will get a personal manager and a discount.
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
    Total price:
    Power up Your Academic Success with the
    Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
    Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
    WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
    Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
    👋 Hi, how can I help?