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. ,
https://aclu.procon.org/questions/does-the-us-need…
,
https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.o…
, 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.
https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/14754-0…
Address the following:
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.
INTRODUCTION: HAS THE
UNITED STATES REALLY
MOVED BEYOND RACE?
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
HELEN A. NEVILLE, MIGUEL E. GALLARDO, AND DERALD WING SUE
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
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14754-001
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.
3
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
introduction
5
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.
DEFINING CBRI
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.
RACISM PERSISTS: THE UNITED STATES
HAS NOT MOVED BEYOND RACE
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
introduction
7
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).
DEBUNKING THE MYTH OF RACIAL COLOR BLINDNESS
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,
introduction
9
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.
FRAMING CBRI: ORGANIZATION OF THIS EDITED VOLUME
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
introduction
11
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,
introduction
13
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
introduction
15
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
introduction
17
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
introduction
19
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
REFERENCES
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
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). CDC Health Disparities &
Inequalities Report 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/
CHDIReport.html#CHDIR
Chiles, N. (2013, March 5). In the age of Obama, hate groups on the rise in America.
Atlanta BlackStar. Retrieved from http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/03/05/in-theage-of-obama-hate-groups-on-the-rise-in-america
Desilver, D. (2013, August 13). Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of
Whites. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-blackunemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites
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 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011336.pdf
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 http://www.archives.gov/press/
exhibits/dream-speech.pdf
Kochar, R., & Fry, R. (2014, December). Wealth inequality has widened along racial,
ethnic lines since end of Great Recession. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.
org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession
Leber, R. (2014). Ferguson’s police force is 94 percent White—And that’s basically
normal in the U.S. New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com/
article/119070/michael-browns-death-leads-scrutiny-ferguson-white-police
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 http://www.census.gov/prod/
2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0033282
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 http://www.opcw.org/index.
php?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=6357
Pew Research Center. (2014a). Sharp racial divisions in reactions to Brown, Garner
decisions: Many Blacks expect police–minority relations to worsen. Retrieved from
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/08/sharp-racial-divisions-in-reactions-tobrown-garner-decisions
Pew Research Center. (2014b). Stark racial divisions in reactions to Ferguson police
shooting. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/18/stark-racialdivisions-in-reactions-to-ferguson-police-shooting
Sentencing Project. (n.d.). Interactive map. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm#map
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 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/
attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Employment status of the civilian population by race,
sex, and age. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Labor force statistics from the current population
survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm
introduction
21
EDITORIAL
Disparities, Disproportionalities, Differences,
and Discrepancies
James Herbert Williams
D
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
309
REFERENCES
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.),
8–17.
310
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: james.herbert@du.edu. 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
311
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.
