106
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
The Color of Affirmative Action: Exploring Contemporary
Racial Ideologies through Public Responses to
Affirmative Action Policies in Michigan
Belisa E. González
Ithaca College
Kathryn A. Sweeney
Purdue University Calumet
In November 2006, Proposal 2 asked Michigan citizens to vote yes or no to “amend the state constitution
to ban affirmative action programs.” The proposal passed ending existing affirmative action efforts in all state institutions including state public colleges and universities. Using an analysis of 1,909 comment board responses to
the passing of Proposal 2 we argue that the ways in which people react to affirmative action policies indicate how
entrenched colorblind, individual level racial ideology is in the U.S. We find that both proponents and opponents
of affirmative action utilized superficial understandings of the ways that race and racism manifest and affect people’s
everyday life to argue their respective points. Our findings indicate that people on all sides of the issue focus on race
when discussing affirmative action and fall back on colorblind ideas as well as place emphasis on people of color
regardless of what position on affirmative action they hold. We argue that new racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003), laissezfaire racism (Bobo, et al., 1997) and modern racism (McConohay, 1983; Pettigrew, 1979) are thriving and each has
important policy implications in this post-racial Obama era.
O
n June 23, 2008 NPR’s Morning Edition news analyst Cokie Roberts commented
on the then impending presidential campaign entering a new phase. After discussing general poll results, co-host Rene Montain prompted Ms. Roberts, “There were also some
interesting polling data on the question of race.” To which Ms. Roberts responds:
Yes, the ABC Washington Post pollsters were trying to get at that question
of racism. And so they asked [a] question about ‘Do you have friends of the
other race?’ and ‘Do blacks in your community face discrimination?’ People
who said no to both of those questions were deemed less racially sensitive.
That was about a third of the population, about a third of blacks and a third
of whites. Among those whites, they are people who will probably not vote
for Barack Obama. They were overwhelmingly for McCain. But they were
also counter balanced by about 20 percent who were highly sensitive on the
issue of race and they were overwhelmingly for Obama…The good news
in this poll was how racial attitudes have really changed in this country.
Young people in particular don’t seem to be concerned about it whatsoever
(Roberts, 2008).
We begin our discussion about affirmation action with a comment about the presidential
campaign to highlight how a simple statement, even by broadcasts considered as liberal (e.g.,
Morning Edition) can say so much about race relations in the U.S. Specifically the poll references only black and white people and Ms. Roberts assumes that not being concerned with
race is “good news” and reflects positive race relations. Barack Obama’s entrance as a viable
presidential candidate and presidential winner has brought race to the forefront of political and
public conversations across the country. A similar phenomenon occurs when affirmative action
policies are publicly challenged.
In November 2006, Proposal 2 asked Michigan citizens to vote yes or no to “amend the
state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups
The Color of Affirmative Action
107
or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.”1 The proposal passed with 58% approval, ending
existing affirmative action efforts in all state institutions including state and local government,
public colleges and universities, community colleges, and school districts. The campaign and
the passage of Proposal 2 returned affirmative action to the forefront of politics and public
discourse both in the state of Michigan and across the country as Michigan joined California,
Washington and Florida in passing a constitutional ban on affirmative action. Beyond telling
us about attitudes toward affirmative action policies, responses to this legislation and others
like it, serve as a barometer of sorts to race relation in the U.S. Initial analysis of responses to
the passing of Proposal 2 indicated that people’s ideas about race relations in the United States
are imperative to understanding the discourse surrounding affirmative action (see Sweeney and
Gonzalez, 2008). In this article we refine our analysis by looking at those responses in favor
of affirmative action to focus on what these responses tell us about current racial ideologies in
the U.S.
In this article, we use comment board responses to a series of newspaper articles on Michigan’s Proposal 2 as a source of public conversations to discuss race relations in the U.S. One of
our key findings, illustrated by Ms. Robert’s statement above, is the assumption that because
young people report not being concerned with race, that racism is somehow not an issue. For
example, both the current discussions of the presidential election and those surrounding affirmative action are examples of the tendency to racialize issues or events that involve people
of color, in particular African Americans, but ignore whiteness as a racial construct especially
when people of color are absent. That is to say that both issues have just as much to do with
race as they do gender, class, education, sexuality, citizenship status, merit, etc., but both are
overwhelmingly viewed through a racialized lens. In particular, the tendency to view affirmative action as primarily racial preferencing supports our belief that it is a valid indicator
of whether “racial attitudes have really changed in this country.” Despite the insistence that
racial prejudice has declined, claims of colorblind ideologies freely abound. Moreover, public
responses continue to reveal traditional patterns of race relations, including the continuing
significance of race in the U.S. and the strength of the black-white binary (e.g., “do you have
friends of the other race). The tendency to equate race with racism (e.g., Ms. Montain asks
about race and Ms. Roberts responds with a discussion of racism) and the popularly held belief
that we have come so far as evidenced by not being “concerned about it [race] whatsoever” (i.e.,
colorblind ideology) is also prevalent (National Public Radio, 2008). Additionally, we find that
similar ideologies are used by both proponents and opponents of affirmative action policies.
Those ideologies include individual level explanations of race and racism, a one-dimensional
understanding of diversity, and an ahistorical understanding of the cumulative affects of racism. Finally, we find that both staunch opponents and liberal supporters of affirmative action
primarily view affirmative action through a racialized lens, only occasionally including references to other categories of people (e.g., women, veterans, or the disabled) in their discussions
of affirmative action policy.
By analyzing responses to Proposal 2 our research contributes to the scholarship and general understanding of race and race relations in the U.S both theoretically and methodologically.
Understanding how affirmative action policies are viewed by the public could prove crucial for
shaping it and other so called “race-based” policies in this “post-race” Obama era. Analysis of
data collected from 1909 online responses to 38 articles each focused on Michigan’s Proposal 2
and published in one of Michigan’s major newspapers provide insight into why the movement
to end affirmative action has been successful in the midst of continuing racial inequality. Findings support past scholarship, which shows that respondents tend to understand affirmative
action solely as a race-based policy that benefits people of color (Chesler et al., 2003; Dyson,
108
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
2000; Gamson and Modigliani, 1987; Hurtado, 1992; Skrentny, 1996), primarily African
Americas, at the expense of whites in general and white males in particular. Additionally, we
argue that through our use of a relatively new data source, comment board responses, we
begin to address one of the key methodological obstacles of gauging contemporary race relations, namely the lack of reliability of survey data on racial practices. As Bonilla-Silva (2008)
states, these surveys can “become like multiple-choice exams where respondents work hard to
choose the ‘right’ answers”(139). Scholars have long critiqued the use of survey data designed
to capture Jim Crow racism in contemporary society because of the tendency of respondents
to what to choose the “right” or more politically correct answer in their responses. Scholars
argue that because overt racism is no longer accepted as a framework of public discourse to
the same degree that it once was, analysis of these data sources claim that racism has declined
when in fact, they argue, it has merely changed form and become more covert (Bonilla-Silva,
1997, 2003; Lipsitz, 1998; Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi, 2008). We argue that analyzing data
collected from comment board responses begins to answer this call for new sources of data on
racial attitudes that will more accurately gauge U.S. race relations (Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi,
2008). Through a nuanced analysis of the underlying ideologies informing both positive and
negative responses to the Michigan ruling, we add another layer to our understanding of the
state of race relations in this post civil-rights and “post-race” era.
RACE RELATIONS AND RACIALIZES POLICIES
One of the paradoxes in race relations is the steady decline of “traditional” measures of
racial prejudice and discrimination among whites (Bobo, 1998; Kluegal and Smith, 1986;
Schuman et al., 1997). This coincides with the continued opposition to public polices like
affirmative action which were specifically designed to make up for the past discrimination
against people of color (Bobo, 1998; Kinder and Sanders, 1996; Kluegel and Smith, 1986;
Sears, 1988; Sniderman and Camines, 1997; Schuman et al., 1997). To explain this paradox,
many scholars have theorized a “new racism” hypothesis (Williams et al., 1999). Like all social systems, racism is dynamic, meaning that it has changed over time. Scholars have argued
that the racism of the post-civil rights era has become increasingly covert. “This ‘new racism’
couches the old hostilities in abstract, ideological terms or ‘code words’ that appear to have
rational rather than emotive connotations” (Perry, 2001, 78). For example, whites rationalize
racial inequality by stating that success is due to an individual’s skill, talents, intelligence, work
ethic, etc. and thus individuals who do not succeed are to blame because they do not try hard
enough or have the right values or skills. The position of disadvantaged racial/ethnic minority
groups can be blamed on the individuals themselves and not larger systems that privilege some
and oppress others. People are then able to justify racial inequality because “neutral supposedly
‘nonracial,’ spaces, jobs, and life partners are seen to be under [white] jurisdiction because it
has always been that way” (Lewis, 2004, 633). Thus, part of the ‘new racism’ is the logic that
everyday issues (e.g., unemployment) and institutions (e.g., education) are not racialized in the
same way they were pre-civil rights legislation and therefore are race neutral.
Bonilla-Silva (1997) argues that the way social scientists have conceptualized racism
in past scholarship is problematic because, among other things, it treats racism as an individual psychological pathology. Similarly, Lipsitz (1998) writes about the tendency of people
to dismiss systematic racial discrimination in employment and education as isolated individual
acts of discrimination. He discusses the need to evolve our understandings of race and racism
as current racism will not “look” the same as that of the past. Thus we must look for contemporary manifestations of racism and integrate those conceptions into our understanding
of contemporary race relations. Because many of the overtly hostile race relations that were
The Color of Affirmative Action
109
socially acceptable 40 years ago would be unconscionable in today’s politically correct society
(e.g., refusing service or clearly racially motivated violence), we can not expect to use the same
indicators to measure race relations in the contemporary U.S. Instead, we should expect to see
what Bonilla-Silva (2003) calls a “kinder gentler racism.”
In responding to race-based politics and using this “kinder gentler racism,” white people
tend to rely on a combination of ideas including that inequality exists and is natural, people
have equal access to opportunity, and that there are differences in behavior and aspirations
attached to race (further explaining away evident inequities) (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). While
people of color can also fall back on the language of dominant colorblind ideology (DuBois,
[1903]1999; hooks, 1984; King, 1989; Collins, 2000; Bonilla-Silva, 2003), they recognize
the benefits attached to being white, the limited opportunities that people of color face, and
everyday forms of racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). White people, however, rely heavily on colorblind ideology and tend to see only large overt events as racist, such as actively excluding
families from white neighborhoods (Frankenberg, 1993; Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Additionally,
these events are framed as isolated acts of particular white individuals instead of attributed to
whites as a category with white people using their dominant position to view others as raced
while strategically recognizing themselves as a group only when choosing to draw on their
group power (Gallagher, 2003; Lewis, 2004). Colorblind ideas about race allow people to
dismiss the role race plays in our society and believe that success and failure are due solely to
individual efforts. This enables people to deny the structural privilege and power that whites
receive (McKinney and Feagin, 2003).
A key element missing from colorblind logic is the historical cumulative effect that unequal opportunities and discrimination has had on contemporary race relations. Such effects
have been measured both in terms of tangible resources, such as wealth (Conley, 1999; Oliver, and Shapiro, 1997; Shapiro, 2004) and educational attainment (U.S. Census, 2008) and
intangible resources. Shapiro (2004) illustrates how the lack of accumulated wealth due to
past practices of racial discrimination, has affected the social and economic status of African
Americans as well as other racial groups over time. Additionally, overt racial incidents (e.g.,
racial slurs and implied and actual violence) and the covert role of race both have serious implications for individuals. Solorzano, et al. (2000) describe intangible covert race and racism
as microagressions, which are “subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/or visual) directed toward
people of color, often automatically or unconsciously” (60). Research finds that these microagressions along with the ways in which students are often judged based on negative group
stereotypes (or the threat of being perceived as such) leads to a cumulative negative effect on
academic performance (Solorzano, Ceja, and Yossa, 2000; Steele and Aronson, 1995).
Keeping in mind the limitations of contemporary work on race and ethnic relations in
addition to the fact that race is a social construct and therefore constantly changing, Gallagher
(2003) calls for research that contextualizes contemporary race relations by taking into account
the role of racial ideology. Part of our research is to understand how public discourse surrounding so called “race based” legislation (like affirmative action) often uses contemporary racial
ideologies to understand past legislation. Because ideologies can be manipulated much quicker
than legislation and institutions, contemporary ideologies are being used to understand institutionalized legislation that was written at a particular economic, social and political moment
under a different (albeit related) racial ideology. Even though racial ideology and by extension
racism has become more subtle and covert, its effects are just as profound and devastating in
the contemporary U.S. as they were in the era of overt racism. However, if one accepts this
contemporary colorblind racial ideology and reads the necessity of legislation—like affirmative
action—through that lens, then it can appear that the legislation is no longer needed. Recent
events, such as the election of President Barack Obama have likely only fueled this logic as
110
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
people now look at the first family as proof that discrimination and its effects, no longer exist.
ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The 1964 Civil Rights Act included Title VII, a section focused on employment, which
prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, and promotion on the basis of race, religion, or
national origin (Weiss, 1997). This Civil Rights legislation has influenced contemporary affirmative action, which in its most general application, references official and unofficial, public
and often institutionalized statements of nondiscrimination (Skrentny, 1996). The colorblind
model of nondiscrimination developed into a model of preferencing and race-consciousness
through a series of Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions (see Raza et al., 1999 for
further discussion). Thus history and current definitions of affirmative action are far more
complex than contemporary discussions often recognize. The term was first used in the 1935
National Labor Relations Act to reference the intentional action employers were ordered to
take to correct past discrimination against union members and organizers (Skrentny, 1996),
which at the time, would have been majority white and male. Today, the term affirmative action is more politically charged and more likely to elicit images of racial/ethnic minorities than
union organizers.
From their inception, affirmative action policies have drawn scrutiny from both their opposition and supporters. One of the most often cited critiques is that preferencing of any kind
undermines the meritocracy upon which the U.S. was built (Lipset and Schneider, 1978; Bobo
and Kluegel, 1993; Skrentny, 1996). Racial groups (primarily black people) remain the focus
of public discussion and media attention regarding affirmative action despite the fact that
the majority of the policies also reference other factors, particularly gender (Graham, 1990;
Skrentny, 1996; Burstein, 1998; Williams et al., 1999; Skrentny, 2001). Empirical research
illustrates the influence of racial attitudes on opinions toward affirmative action and other
raced-based policies with findings suggesting that whites who hold negative racial attitudes
towards black people are less likely to support race targeted policies in general (Kluegel and
Smith, 1986; Sears, 1988; Bobo, 1991; Bobo and Kluegel, 1993) and affirmative action more
specifically (Kluegel and Smith, 1986). Interestingly, white people tend not to support “preferential” racial policies in job hiring or college admissions, but typically support policies designed to compensate black people for past discrimination or “compensatory” policies (Kluegel
and Smith, 1986). These findings are particularly perplexing given the fact that affirmative
action policies were designed to do just that.
Fine et al. (1997) finds that white working class men construct affirmative action as a
threat because they view it as facilitating a process where people of color are taking “their jobs.”
In her study of attitudes toward affirmative action, Pierce (2003) finds that white male lawyers
construct a similar narrative. While not as direct as Fine et al.’s (1997) respondents, the lawyers
in Pierce’s (2003) study displayed general critiques of the unfairness of the affirmative action
programs. Our past work (Sweeney and Gonzalez 2008) found similar commentary about the
unfair nature of affirmative action, however, the dialogue more closely resembles that of Fine
et al. (1997) in its blatant anti-affirmative action construction (Sweeney and Gonzalez, 2008).
METHODS
To better understand racial ideology in the context of support for affirmative action, we
systematically analyzed data drawn from 1909 online responses to 38 articles each focused on
Michigan’s Proposal 2 and published in one of Michigan’s major newspapers. This sample represents all online comments for non-opinion articles specifically focused on affirmative action
The Color of Affirmative Action
111
published between November 5, 2006 (the date Proposal 2 passed) and January 26, 2007 (a
week after the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the State Constitutional ban). Article
titles predominantly highlight higher education or the University of Michigan specifically (22)
and the government (13), including references to the attorney general and the legal system.
Fewer article titles focused on affirmative action or Proposal 2 more generally (8), delay in
enacting Proposal 2 (3), and/or diversity or race specifically (3).
The online articles provide the opportunity for any reader to comment via the web to
specifics of the article, the general topic, or each other through the discussion board. Readers are able to comment on the article without limitations of grammar, language, or spelling.
Discussion boards serve as a means to express public opinions surrounding sensitive issues that
are typically avoided in public spaces and provide a forum for responses from a more general
audience than published opinion pieces. The online discussions give a sense of anonymity as
people choose their own username. One’s chosen name may or may not be related to their
actual name and is not tied to any information that identifies who they are, allowing for responses that are not filtered by political correctness. While these usernames provide anonymity,
which increases the likelihood of an uncensored response, they also prevent the collection of
demographic information, making it difficult to determine how well this sample represents the
general population of Michigan. However, these data do not have the limitations of survey research (e.g., predefined questions and in some designs, answers) and provide a platform where
respondents are not trying to determine what is the “right” answer. Discussion forums provide
a unique source of data representing various conversations taking place about racial inequality, affirmative action, and Proposal 2. The discussion boards create a space for debate among
people who may not otherwise be in conversation. They also provide opportunities to gauge
public opinion outside of polls, where respondents may be hesitant to openly reveal opinions
related to racial politics, particularly if those opinions do not coincide with what is considered
acceptable in contemporary society. This phenomenon is similar to the “Obama effect” which
many thought would cause voters to say they would vote for Obama in public polls and then
change their position once within the confines of the voting booth. Using the comment boards
allows for completely anonymous expression of racial attitudes, whether positive or negative,
respectful or hostile.
While the data provide unique information that is otherwise difficult to obtain, they also
present certain limitations, including the lack of generalizability to the larger population. The
demographic information of respondents in our sample is limited to what he or she reveals in
the content of his or her response, thus, it is impossible to know whether our sample mirrors
the demographics of the general population of Michigan or the U.S. While this lack of generalizability is noteworthy, we argue that our analysis of comment board responses contributes to
the scholarly work on racial ideology by participating in what Snow et al., (2003) calls theoretical refinement. Theoretical refinement is the “modification of existing theoretical perspectives
through extension or through the close inspection of a particular proposition with new case
material” (Snow et al., 2003, 191). This method of theory building was developed as a way
to articulate the relationship between ethnography and theory. While we are not conducting
an ethnography, many of the limitations of our data, namely a lack of generalizability, are also
leveled at ethnographic and other qualitative methodology. Using theoretical refinement, social scientists extend existing theory Using rich sources of data, social scientists refine exiting
theory to fit patterns in new case material (i.e., new sources of data). In our case, we extend
theories of racial ideology by illustrating how similar logics underlie both colorblind and Jim
Crow racial ideology when individuals use them to make an argument about a racialized issue
like affirmative action. Additionally, because the individuals in our sample are responding to
an issue and not an abstract question, such as “race should/should not be a factor in deciding
112
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
admission to a university,” their responses offer a richness and depth of data akin to that collected during interviews. In other words, it is one thing to say that one is colorblind or that race
is an important factor in considering college admission, but another to use one’s stated racial
ideology to interpret and act in a given situation. Thus, analyzing comment board responses
serves as a vehicle for theoretical refinement by allowing a more nuanced picture of what racial ideology “looks like” in the social world. Finally, findings may be used to inform future
research instruments that allow for random selection and generalization by refining theories of
racial ideology and informing better survey measurements.
Another limitation of the data is that people of lower socioeconomic status are less likely
to have internet access than those of the middle and upper class. In 2000, 51% of households
in the U.S. have personal computers and 41.5% of those had home internet access (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, by 2010 74%
of American adults reported using the internet. While these trends indicate a general rise in
internet access and use, there is still a digital divide along class lines. In 2004 DiMaggio et al.,
reported a linear relationship between family income and internet use, with 25% of families
making $15,000 or less using the internet compared to almost 80% of families with income of
$75,000 or more. They reported a similar positive linear trend between internet use and years
of education (DiMaggio et al., 2004). While public internet access in schools, libraries, and
the workplace is becoming more commonplace, it is unlikely that people with limited internet
access would use these venues to respond on comment boards.
CODING AND ANALYSIS
Responses were copied from online comment boards into a Word file, which was imported
into the visual data management software Atlas.ti for storage, coding, and analysis. Each comment was coded in an iterative process based on both deductive and inductive codes. Deductive overarching codes used in this paper were based on existing theory on racial ideologies
and the history of affirmative action. For example, existing research on colorblind ideology
informed what was coded as “colorblind ideology,” including comments conveying that there
is only one race, the U.S. is a meritocracy, racism does not exist, and success is based on individual efforts, and the like. Inductive codes include emerging categories such as “understanding diversity” which were passages that indicated how a respondent understood the need for or
point of diversity on college campuses. In the first round of analysis, presented in a previous
paper, we parsed out passages expressing negative attitudes toward affirmative action and/
or Proposal 2 from those expressing positive attitudes or support of Proposal 2. Building on
that work for this paper, we looked at pro- and anti-affirmative action passages separately and
together to compare the types of ideologies people who were in favor of affirmative action and
Proposal 2 were using versus those who were against the policies and/or Proposal 2. This type
of analysis allows for theory refinement as it relies on existing theories, yet also leaves room for
additional themes to emerge. As Snow et al., (2003) state, theories are viewed “more in terms
of repertoires than blueprints” (193).
Analysis began as overarching codes were further examined to reveal sub-categories,
themes, and overlapping areas. For instance, quotes coded to “race relations,” which were any
statement that focused on the state of race relations, were examined using the network view
tool in Atlas.ti. All quotes coded to “race relations” were analyzed to indicate emerging subcategories of the black/white binary, ahistorical narratives and inequality exists, to name a few.
This process was repeated for each of the overarching codes identified in the initial analysis.
Quotes used throughout the findings represent examples of patterns in the data. Quotations
used in this article are from respondents who were both for and against Proposal 2. To main-
The Color of Affirmative Action
113
tain the style of comment boards, the language and grammar of quotes in the findings section
have not been corrected.
The comments overwhelmingly focused on the connection between affirmative action and
race. Other themes, such as the role of democracy, voter rights, and the separation of university
governance from State government also emerged from the data; however, we focus our discussion on the comments relating to affirmative action and higher education. While the following
passages demonstrate general attitudes about affirmative action, in this paper we are concerned
less with the support or opposition aspects of the statements and more on what the responses
tell us about the racial ideologies of the respondent. Thus analyses will focus on the underlying
assumptions and logic of the comments not the respondent’s position on affirmative action.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Devaluing Diversity
We find that the majority of comment board respondents thought that affirmative action
polices were intended to “bring diversity” to college campuses. In their posts, many people
acknowledged only the diversity in appearance that people of color bring to college campuses.
The following responses are representative of the general understanding of the necessity and
value of what diversity “brings” to an academic setting. In this quotation, a person who we call
M.A.S. writes in response to an article about University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action plan.
A more accurate headline for this story would read: U-M still seeks diversity of skin color at the expense of some white folks and Asian folks; avoids
diversity of viewpoints Freedom!
This attitude toward affirmative action as a way to diversify the University of Michigan
(U of M) in “skin color” only is indicative of public understanding of not just affirmative action policies, but the value of the presence of people of color in any setting. This speaks to an
underlying current of race relations in the U.S. where diversity is understood as only a change
in appearance or numbers. In the comment referenced above and others like it, the only value
people of color are thought to bring to any setting is literally the color of their skin. This illustrates a lack of understanding of the many ways race permeates and affects everyday interactions, understanding, experiences and worldviews, not to mention what those experiences, etc.
contribute to an educational environment. Additional comments to different articles illustrate
a similar underlying perception of diversity.
We don’t have enough dark-skinned faces on our campus; let’s give those
potential students advantages that don’t apply to others? (R.P.)
It’s interesting U-M touts diversity in admissions when there are so few
white players on their basketball or football teams. If Mary Sue is so interested in opening things up, you’d expect to see a white kid in a wheelchair
as starting center next year. (D.C.)
In the first comment, we see a very common racialized assumption about affirmative action, which is that all applicants of color are granted an advantage simply because U of M
needs more diversity (i.e., “dark-skinned faces”). The sub-text underlying both of these statements is that the only thing these students contribute to the university setting is literally their
physical appearance and thus students of color do not deserve the “advantages that don’t apply
to others.” The second quote also illustrates a common understanding of diversity. In it, the
writer mocks diversity by pointing out the lack of racial diversity—or rather the lack of white
114
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
students—on the athletic teams and further suggesting that racial preferencing gives such an
advantage to students of color that if applied to athletic teams, U of M would have a “white kid
in a wheelchair as starting center next year.” Not only is this comment in poor taste, but the
use of such exaggeration “a white kid in a wheel chair” indicates the just how much advantage
the writer believes students of color receive in the application process. Additionally, the author
also fails to make the connection as to why athletic teams are primarily students of color in the
first place, again suggesting that he/she is using an individual level racial ideology to explain
the outcomes of systemic intersecting structures.
More than Race
In this next quote we see the tendency of respondents to racialize an issue that even the
writer admits is about more than just race.
No more reverse discrimination toward white’s, which is what AA is all
about. Just because your a minority doesn’t mean you deserve special treatment. Now if your a minority and you get admitted based on your grades
and merit, then you deserve it. You succeed by your actions, not by your
race, sex, age, whatever you want to blame it on. U of M is not above the
law. The law was voted by the people to ban discrimination against those
who are deserving. The sleeping giant is awakening and this crap of AA is
going to be a thing of the past. In the 21st century the people are no longer
going to tolerate special treatment for people based on their skin color.
(Alex)
Here the writer begins with a very common sentiment about affirmative action being
reverse discrimination toward whites (see Sweeney and Gonzalez 2008 for a more detailed discussion) and quickly moves on to assuming that racial/ethnic minorities would generally not
be admitted to U of M if it were not for the “special treatment” they receive. This is indicated
when she/he writes, “if your a minority and you get admitted based on your grades and merit,
then you deserve it.” Missing from this statement and all of the statements of similar sentiment, is a single reference to white students needing to work harder to get in based on merit.
The default assumption is that students of color are primarily admitted to universities because
of affirmative action and that they do not meet the same qualifications as their white peers.
Referencing the example above, if someone “succeed[s] by your actions, not by your race,
sex, age, whatever you want to blame it on” then you are “deserving.” In combination with
the next line, “In the 21st century the people are no longer going to tolerate special treatment
for people based on their skin color,” we find that while, this respondent briefly recognizes
other preferenced categories of people (“race, sex, age, whatever you want to blame it on”), the
“deserving” are those that are not racially preferenced (i.e., “no longer going to tolerate special treatment for people based on their skin color”). Thus, even when respondents from our
sample acknowledge that affirmative action policies are not limited to racial/ethnic groups, the
negative emphasis and association with undeserving is placed exclusively on non-white racial/
ethnic groups.
Same Logic Different Conclusion
While the absence of systematic understanding of race and racism were prevalent overwhelmingly in response against affirmative action, we found that proponents of these policies
displayed similar types of analyses and employed similar racial ideologies to formulate their
positions. We argue that just as much, if not more, can be learned about racial ideology and
The Color of Affirmative Action
115
race relations from those respondents who were seemingly in support of affirmative action
and diversity, given the transition to what Bonilla-Silva has termed “kinder gentler racism”
(2003). We found that, when it comes to issues of diversity, supporters’ racial frameworks were
similar to their opponents in the reliance on an individual level understanding of the effects of
race and racism. In a series of comments about a young woman from Detroit who was denied
admission to U of M, self identified conservative and liberal respondents went back and forth
about the merits of her denial and qualifications.
Regardless of the fact that 17- year-old Lauren Hollier of Detroit is qualified
and meets the prescribed academic criteria, because she is black, she is more
apt to be denied admission. That’s what the statistics show, and that is the
cold hard truth in today’s America.
Here we have an example of how those supporting the efforts of affirmative action understand how race operates in the U.S. The respondent, like those discussed in the previous section, presents a one-dimensional understanding of what it is that makes African Americans less
likely to gain admission to an elite university such as U of M. The writer indirectly suggests that
the reason Ms. Hollier was denied admission was because she was black. This understanding of
racism and discrimination as overt, clear-cut acts of prejudice indicates a static understanding
of racism that is rooted in the past (Bonilla-Silva, 1997). Limiting the scope of discrimination
and racism to overt acts stifles our understanding of the systemic nature of race and racism
and therefore confines our approach to undoing those systems (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). In this
case, a framework that took into account the systemic nature of race relations would argue that
Ms. Hollier did not gain admission to U of M not because she is black, but rather because the
meanings that have been attached to blackness both historically and contemporarily, mean she
was more likely to be disadvantaged by systems of oppression that range from not being called
on in the classroom to being taught in substandard classrooms (Solorzano, Ceja, and Yossa,
2000; Kozol, 1992). The subtle yet significant difference is where the emphasis is placed; on
the individual “because she is black” as it is here, or on larger systems of inequality and institutional discrimination which carry with them a cumulative affect. Placing the emphasis on
individuals, (particularly by individuals in support of affirmative action) could be detrimental
to its future because affirmative action policies were designed to undo systemic discrimination.
As we begin to see more examples of racial and ethnic minorities “making it,” a systematic approach to race and racism will become increasingly crucial.
Another theme among supporters of affirmative action policies was the notion that minorities need “help” to participate in the land of opportunity. This sentiment is exhibited in
this next comment which is taken from the same string of messages about Ms. Hollier referenced previously.
All you racist fools that don’t want to help minorities get into college and
improve their and their families lot in life are the same people that complain
about crime in Detroit. Give people a hand up. Helping EVERYONE go to
college is a good thing. Take your white hoods off and realize that helping
minorities makes are country a better place.
Here, the author connects the state of minority families (which we can infer are racial/
ethnic minorities) to crime in Detroit. The implication is that crimes are (a) committed by
minorities and (b) are linked to the state of minority families. By using the phrase “Take your
white hoods off,” the author suggests that the logic of anyone who is not pro-affirmative action is akin to that put forth by White Supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. In doing so, this person separates him/her self from the “obvious” racists that do not want to help
116
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
minorities “get into college and improve their and their families lot in life.” The underlying
assumption is that the problem and perpetuation of racism lies with these individual white
supremacists rather than larger systems of inequality and racism. Even if we were to accept such
an extreme connection, Ferber (1998) argues that the ideology of white supremacy groups is
an indication of more widespread ideas about race held by the general population. Far from
being a distinction between proponents and opponents of affirmative action, we argue that this
racial framework is actually shared by respondents in our sample who are both pro- and antiProposal 2. While we recognize again that this is not a representative sample, it is noteworthy
that the same racial ideology is used to reach two seemingly opposite conclusions, a point we
argue provides insight into how powerful yet subtle racial ideologies can be.
The next quotation is an example of a similar but more nuanced defense of affirmative action indicative of what Bonilla-Silva (2003) calls “new racism” and what we discuss in another
paper as a larger pattern of zero-sum arguments.
Whenever the economy is bad, people feel their livelihood is threatened. So
many white males and uneducated people voted to ban Affirmative Action
because they feel their chances of employment, etc. were threatened. I assure you, women and some minorities are really going to have a tough time
in some sectors. I can also assure you that U of M is still over 90% Caucasian, so minority students aren’t taking over the college… The job market
in Michigan is less than favorable, and as I watch colleagues graduate with
Masters and PhD’s, I am saddened that their job search is a difficult one
here. If they are female, which many of them are, their chances have been
further challenged. You see, white male affirmative action, has always been
in place. The little policy that was designed to benefit women and minorities only hurt a few, and I mean a few white males.
In what appears to be a comment defending affirmative action policies we see very similar
patterns of racialization as those usually associated with opponents of affirmative action. The
writer begins with an argument of why people voted against affirmative action, including that
they “feel their livelihood is threatened.” Interestingly, the writer turns his/her commentary
away from race as he/she draws on personal experience and legitimizes the challenges women
are having in the bad economy. However, it is only when admitting that white males, albeit a
few white males, are “hurt” by affirmative action that we see race reenter the picture. Our point
here is that, while this writer clearly supports affirmative action policies, his/her framework is
still couched in terms of what affirmative action policies do to the mythical white males who
are being denied jobs and college admission because of “women and minorities.” This quote is
representative of a larger pattern indicating similar more subtle forms of racism as respondents
seemingly side in favor of racial minorities while simultaneously legitimating the fear of racial
preferencing. Notice the writer does not talk about the challenges people of color are having
on the job market or if any of the female colleagues are women of color. Rather the reader is
left with the notion that women are deserving benefactors of affirmative action because of the
challenges they face in the contemporary Michigan labor market, while people of color are
only mentioned in reference to white males losing out because of affirmative action. These
comments are indicative of covert racism, which simultaneously gives a nod to the abstract
“white male affirmative action” while legitimizing individual while male fears about being
disadvantaged by affirmative action (Bonilla-Silva, 2003).
Structure Anyone?
Although the previous quotations are representative of the general level of analysis dis-
The Color of Affirmative Action
117
played on the comment boards, there were occasional outliers that in addition to individual
explanations also utilize what Bonilla-Silva (1997) would call a structural interpretation of racism meaning that the roots of racism and discrimination are not located at the individual level,
but rather understood as imbedded in the foundation of larger institutions.
I can not believe what I am reading. It is a sad state of affairs, when individuals make comments about situations in which they have no experience.
Proposal 2 has brought to the fore front issues that people have had for
a long time. AA was developed in order to allow people who were disadvantaged opportunities that they would never have been given. Racism is
embedded in this society and is displayed differently from how it was 100+
years ago. In order to change society you have to change the mentality of
those who control the avenues for fairness. How can an underprivileged
child be allowed an opportunity, when they are
already considered a
failure by some individuals who are in responsible positions (i.e., teachers,
administrators etc) to give 4.0 grades. Believe it or not, there are individuals
deserving of 4.0 grades, however do to the teacher’s biases are not graded
fairly. I am not going to get into a discussion on races racism, but given the
opportunity to give a 4.0 grade to an African American or a Caucasianguess who will win. Racism shows its ugly face in many forms. You have to
be here to understand.
The above is an example of the handful of comments that utilized a structural framework
to articulate the affects of racism and thus, the necessity for a systematic approach to addressing that racism. The use of the phrase “racism is embedded in this society” and the reference to
those who “control the avenues for fairness,” imply that the source of disadvantage experienced
by some are beyond the individual acts of racial discrimination that most other respondents
refer to. While the writer does address the role individuals who hold particular positions within educational institutions, such as “teachers, administrators etc.,” his/her focus incorporates
other aspects of a structural analysis including the observations that (1) the racism of today will
be “different from how it was 100+ years ago,” (2) that race/racism is an issue that “people have
had for a long time” and (3) that affirmative action policies were created to provide “opportunities that they would never have been given.” Each of these phrases suggests an understanding
of the multiple and cumulative affects of race and racism (e.g., “racism shows its ugly face in
many forms”) in everyday life and the awareness that as society changes so do forms of racism.
This response both echoes and departs from other entries in its author’s articulation of the systematic mechanisms through which racism works in our society and the overt individual acts
of racism that affect students of color, “there are individuals deserving of 4.0 grades, however
do to the teacher’s biases are not graded fairly.” Although it is impossible to know for certain,
the beginning and ending phrases, “It is a sad state of affairs, when individuals make comments
about situations in which they have no experience” and “You have to be here to understand,”
indicate that the author is likely a person of color and that his/her understanding of racism are
rooted in personal experience.
DISCUSSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Since Proposal 2 passed in Michigan, the U.S. elected our first black president. President
Barack Obama is now used as the ultimate token or symbol of supposed racial equality, and
some argue, the ultimate example of affirmative action; if a black man can become president
then racism must no longer exist and/or he must have been the beneficiary of affirmative action. Obama’s election has seemingly catapulted the country into a post-racial era, a concept
that is being used by both supporters and opponents of social policies like affirmative action to
118
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
argue their respective points. However, our findings suggest that despite data from surveys and
polls, such as that referenced at the beginning of this paper, indicating that racial prejudice is
declining and that we “don’t seem to be concerned about it whatsoever,” racialization is alive,
well and thriving among the opponents and proponents of affirmative action policies. Our
analysis of comment board responses to Michigan’s Proposal 2 found that both proponents
and opponents of affirmative action utilized superficial understandings of the ways that race
and racism manifest and affect people’s everyday life. Among these respondents there was also
little recognition of the historical and cumulative affects of racial discrimination. Overall, respondents framed their discussion of affirmative action primarily in terms of race, rather than
other aspects of affirmative action, such as sex or veteran status. If other forms of preferencing
were mentioned, they were quickly abandoned in favor of a critique of racial preferencing.
This trend was particularly curious among supporters of affirmative action whose logic mirrored that of opponents revealing similar attitudes towards people of color as less intelligent,
hard working and deserving as whites. Another trend among supporters of affirmative action
in our sample was to distance themselves from opponents by suggesting that to oppose such
policies meant that one must be a white supremacist or overtly racist. This fits with colorblind
logic (Bonilla-Silva, 2003) and we argue that this distancing only serves to keep current race
relations firmly in place as it relieves the accuser from having to understand how he/she might
benefit and maintain these racial systems. However, while the majority of our discussion focuses on the individual level analyses of most responses, occasionally respondents illustrated a
historically nuanced understanding of the everyday systemic nature of race in the U.S. Those
in favor of affirmative action policies aimed at addressing structural inequities need to understand all of these views. Future research should build on existing research looking at why/how
some people have a more nuanced understanding of structures of stratification, particularly if
the Obama administration hopes to maintain any affirmative action programs and/or address
any of the racial disparities such as those found in unemployment, poverty, and wealth through
social policy.
Our findings are in line with past scholarship which suggests that, while polls indicate
a decrease in racial prejudice, the issue of race has not declined in significance (Bobo, 1998;
Bonilla-Silva, 1997,2001; Feagin, 2000). In fact, our analyses show that what scholars have
labeled new racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003), laissez-faire racism (Bobo, Kluegel and Smith, 1997)
and modern racism (McConohay, 1983; Pettigrew, 1979) is thriving. Past scholarship linking
race-related policies with racial prejudice have problemitized the correlation between the two
(Williams et al., 1999), however our concern here was not to explain the paradox of the decreasing levels of racial prejudice and increasing hostility toward race-related policies. Instead,
we have argued that much can be learned about contemporary race relations by analyzing
people’s responses to one of those racialized policies, namely affirmative action. While past data
collection on this topic was limited to survey’s and polls, new technology and the increasing
availability of the internet opens up a wide range of views into people’s racial ideologies via
comment boards, blog cites, Facebook, Myspace, etc. We believe that these new technologies
and forms of communication are viable sources of data that can, among other things, reveal
just how concerned we are with race in this post-racial era.
It is the continuing concern with race, which permeates our findings, that we believe will
most affect the Obama administration as they try to push through social policy aimed at rectifying historical and contemporary racial inequity. If our analysis of comment board responses
to affirmative action is any indication of the racial climate race-based policies, such as those
being called for by the Congressional Black Caucus to specifically target job stimulus legislation in Black and Latino communities, will be met with, the Obama administration has their
work cut out for them.
To date, most of the policies the Obama administration has outlined have avoided us-
The Color of Affirmative Action
119
ing the language of affirmative action. For example, Obama’s veterans benefit policy goals
are linked to affirmative action, yet the focus is on affording college and does not use the actual term affirmative action (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans). Given our findings
about the strength of colorblind ideology, avoiding the term affirmative action may be a conscious strategy. Because people primarily understand affirmative action as a race-based policy,
programs focused on women, the disabled, or veterans (all groups who benefit from affirmative
action policies) may face less resistance if they avoid the language of affirmative action. Not
only is the term affirmative action missing from a list of “issues” on the White House website,
but neither it nor race is mentioned in any of the related “issues” that are listed such as Civil
Rights, disabilities, women, veterans, education, poverty or urban policy. Additionally, The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in March of 2010 includes funds to “close
the achievement gap” in access to higher education, including student loan caps and increasing
funds for financial aid and community colleges, however, who is on each side of the “gap” is
not made clear in the discussion of the issue (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education).
Despite the colorblind language, this funding may differentially impact students of color and
the act does provide funds specifically for HBCU’s and minority serving institutions. These
policies may help HBCUs and minority serving institutions improve their programs and stay
afloat during the economic downturn, but they neglect to increase access to elite historically
white institutions that provide cultural and social capital need to be successful in today competitive economy. Again we see a lack of direct reference to racial inequality and only minimal
reference to the value of diversity beyond varied appearances and diversity in numbers.
Our findings illustrate how even those that are in favor of affirmative action understand it
as a race based policy that only benefits people of color while viewing racism as overt individual
level acts of discrimination rather than systemic cumulative inequities. As anti-affirmative action campaigns continue throughout the U.S., the Obama administration will need to comment on the use of affirmative action in higher education admissions. While Obama’s policies
have avoided affirmative action and racial disparity, the Education and Justice Departments
issued a brief in March 2010 in response to a case against the University of Texas at Austin’s
use of race in admissions. The Obama administration supports the continued use of race in
admissions to recognize that racial disparity impacts the traditional measures used (e.g., entrance exams) in college admissions along with the benefits to everyone that stems from varied
life experiences and views represented in institutions (Bravin, 2010). We found that even those
who support affirmative action policies did not recognize the value of diversity beyond varied
skin color on college campuses. The lack of understanding of why racial diversity is valuable
may limit the success of policies designed to address disparity in educational access, achievement, and attainment. Lack of understanding around the value of such diversity and the view
that racism and inequality is perpetuated only by overt racists (e.g., white supremacy groups),
means that it will remain difficult to convince people that racial disparity results from historical and contemporary systemic institutionalized inequality and thus needs to be addressed at
the systemic level. Because the anti-affirmative action movement is organized and perpetuating
ideas of reverse racism, convincing people that raced-targeted policies are not only important
and necessary but do not come at the expense of the dominant population (access to education, employment, housing, etc.) will be key. One additional burden the Obama administration will need to contend with is the simultaneous use of Obama’s election as the proof that
affirmative action works and that it is no longer needed.
120
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
NOTE
1
In 2008, Colorado and Nebraska had ballot measures to ban affirmative action. The ban passed in Nebraska and
was rejected by a narrow margin in Colorado (Frosch, 2008). Texas also banned affirmative action polices for
seven years after its president setting Hopwood v University of Texas only to be invalidated by Gutter v Bollinger
(CITE).
REFERENCES
Bobo, Lawrence 1991. “Social Responsibility, Individualism and Redistributive Policies.” Sociological Forum 6:7192.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1998. “Race, Interests, and Beliefs About Affirmative Action: Unanswered Questions and New
Directions.” American Behavioral Scientist 41:985-1003.
Bobo, Lawrence and James R. Kluegel. 1993. “Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification Ideology,
or Racial Attitudes?” American Sociological Review. 58(4): 443-464.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. “Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation.” American Sociological Review 62(3) 465-480.
_____. 2003. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States.
New York: Rowman B. Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Bonilla-Silvia, Eduardo and Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 2008. “Anything but Racism: How
Sociologists Limit the Significance of Race.” In White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology, edited by T.
Zuberi and E. Bonilla-Silva, 137-151. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bravin, Jess. 2010. “Government Court Brief Backs Race-Based Admissions”. The Wall Street Journal. March 31.
Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303601504575153502859094306.html
Burstein, Paul. 1998. Discrimination, jobs, and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chesler, Mark A., Melissa Peet, and Todd Sevig. 2003. “Blinded by Whiteness: The Development of White College
Students’ Racial Awareness.” In White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Ashely W. Doane
and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 214-230. New York: Routledge.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought.2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in the Red. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DiMaggio, Paul, Eszter Hargittai, Coral Celeste and Steve Shafer. 2007 [2004]. “Digital Inequality: From Unequal
Access to Differential Use” in The Inequality Reader: Contemporary Foundational Readings in Race, Class, and
Gender, edited by David B. Grusky and Szonja Szelenyi. Bolder: Westview.
DuBois, W.E.B.1903 (reprinted 1999). The Souls of Black Folk. Edited by H. L. Gates Jr. and T. H. Oliver. New
York: Norton & Company.
Dyson, Michael Eric. 2000. I May Not Get There With You. New York: The Free Press.
Feagin, Joe R. 2000. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge.
Ferber, Abby L. 1998. White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy. New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Fine, Michelle, Lois Weis, Linda C. Powell and L. Mun Wong, eds. 1997. Off White: Readings on Race, Power, and
Society. New York: Routledge.
Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gallagher, Charles. 2003. “Playing the White Ethnic Card: Using Ethnic Identity to Deny Contemporary Racism,”
In White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Ashely W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.
145-158. New York: Routledge.
Gamson, William and Andrew Modigliani. 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.”
Research in Political Sociology. 3: 137-177.
Graham, Hugh David. 1990. The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National
Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA:
South End Press.
Hurtado, S. 1992. “The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts of Conflict.” Journal of Higher
Education. 63(5): 539-569.
Kinder, Donald R. and Lynn M. Sanders. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
King, Deborah. 1989. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology.”
Signs 14:42-72.
The Color of Affirmative Action
121
Kluegel, James R. and Eliot R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs About Inequality: Americans’ Views of What Is and What Ought
to Be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kozol, Jonathan. 1992. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools New York: Harpercollins.
Lewis, Amanda E. 2004. “‘What Group?’ Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of ‘Color-Blindness.” Sociological Theory 22: 623-646.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and William Schneider. 1978. “The Bakke Case: How Would it Be Decided at the Bar of
Public Opinion?” Public Opinion 1:38-48.
Lipsitz, George. 1998. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
McConahay, John B. 1983. “Modern Racism and Modern Discrimination.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 9:551-558.
McKinney, Karyn D. and Joe R. Feagin. 2003. “Diverse Perspectives on Doing Antiracism: The Younger Generation.” In White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism. Edited by Doane, W. Ashley and Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva. 233-252. New York: Routledge.
Montain, Rene (co-host). 2008. Morning Edition June 23. National Public Radio.
Oliver, Melvin L. and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.
Perry, Barbara. 2001. “‘White Genocide’: White Supremacists and the Politics of Reproduction.” In Home-Grown
Hate: Gender and Organized Racism. 75-95. Edited by Abby Ferber. New York and London: Routledge:
Pettigrew, Thomas. 1979. “The Ultimate Attribution Error.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 5: 461-476.
Pierce, Jennifer L. 2003. ““Racing for Innocence”: Whiteness, Corporate Culture, and the Backlash against Affirmative Action.” In White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism. Edited by Doane W. Ashley and
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 199-214. New York: Routledge.
Rainie, Lee. 2010. “Internet, Broadband, and Cell Phone Statistics.” Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew
Research Center.
Raza, M. Ali., A. Janell Anderson, and Harry Glynn Custred, Jr. 1999. The Ups and Downs of Affirmative Action
Preferences. Westport: Praeger.
Roberts, Cokie (news analyst). 2008. Morning Edition June 23. National Public Radio.
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1997. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends
and Interpretations. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Sears, David O. 1988. “Symbolic racism.” In Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, edited by P. A. Katz and
D. A. Taylor, 53-84. New York: Plenum.
Shapiro, Thomas, M. 2004. The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Skrentny, David John (ed). 2001. Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Skrentny, John. 1996 The Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Sniderman, Paul M. and Edward G. Carmines. 1997. Reaching Beyond Race. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Snow, D.A., Morrill, C, and Anderson, L. (2003) “Elaborating Analytic Ethnography: Linking Fieldwork and
Theory,” Ethnography, 4(2): 181-200.
Solorzano, D., M. Ceja, and T. Yosso, 2000. “Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial
Climate: The Experiences of African American College Students.” Journal of Negro Education, 69 (½): 60-73.
Steele, Claude M. and Joshua Aronson. 1995. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African
Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5): 797-811.
Sweeney, Kathryn and Belisa Gonzalez. 2008. “Affirmative Action Never Helped Me: Public Responses to Ending
Affirmative Action in Michigan” in New Directions in Race Research. Durham: University of North Carolina
Press.
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007. http://www.bls.gov/xg_shells/ro5xg02.htm#unemp. http://www.bls.gov/
news.release/laus.nr0.htm.
U.S. Census. 2000. “Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000.” http://www.census.
gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
U.S. Census. 2005. “American Community Survey.” http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ ACSSAFFFacts?_
event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US26&_
zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010.
122
Belisa E. González and Kathryn A. Sweeney
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. 2008. “Educational Attainment by Race, Hispanic
Origin, and Sex:1960 to 2007.” Table 222. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/educ-attn.html>.
Weiss, Robert J. 1997. We Want Jobs: A History of Affirmative Action. New York: Garland Publishers.
Williams, David R., James Jackson, Tony Brown, Myriam Torres, Tyrone A. Forman and Kendrick Brown. 1999.
“Traditional and Contemporary Prejudice and Urban Whites’ Support for Affirmative Action and Government Help.” Social Problems 46 (4):503-527.
Zuberi, Tukufu and Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2008. White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.
Belisa E. González is assistant professor of sociololgy at Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York.
Kathryn A. Sweeney is assistant professor of sociology at Purdue University Calumet.
Copyright of Journal of Race & Policy is the property of Old Dominion University 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.