Eliminating Racial Disproportionality and Disparities (ERDD)
Impact of Individual and Institutional Bias on Decision
Making in Youth-Serving Systems
Chapter Books
White Privilege
Colorblindness
Stereotyping
Institutional Racism
By, Rita Cameron Wedding, Ph.D.
4
Eliminating racial disproportionality and disparities in youth serving systems such as child
welfare, juvenile justice and education require that social workers, educators, probation officers,
judges; or anyone who participates in decision-making that effects youth be committed to
examining individual and institutional bias. Because biases can affect how decisions are made
decision and policy makers within agencies and institutions need to critically examine policies
and procedures that can create a “race effect” which result in disparities and disproportionality.
As I have considered the various racial correlations in outcome data in all systems that serve
youth there appear to be at least four themes that might contribute to dispraties and
disproportionality, they include white privilege, stereotyping, colorblindness and institutional
racism. These themes persist within and throughout our society and have the potential to mask
individual, institutional and societal bias.
This work is designed to provide technical assistants and practitioners a tool to further their
understanding of how bias occurs in public youth-serving systems and corresponding intervention
strategies and resources which I believe can reduce bias in decision-making.
This work is divided according to the four themes of white privilege, colorblindness, stereotyping
and institutional racism. These are the areas that TA’s indicated a need for further education and
training. Each theme will include a general discussion followed by strategies and resources
designed to reduce bias. The work is based upon my curriculum “Bias in Decision-Making”
which has been presented to the ERDD core group at previous meetings. The work as presented
here is in draft form but will be finalized within the next few weeks. The final draft will be
accompanied by a 6-minute series of DVD’s called “Bias in Decision-Making”. Please provide
feedback as this work nears completion. It is my hope that it will contribute to our efforts toward
eliminating racial disproportionality and disparities in Child Welfare.
Sincerely, Rita Cameron Wedding.
5
Introduction: What is modern racism?
Pro-whiteness, stereotyping, colorblindness and institutional racism as they interact with
one another reflect a modern race system composed of a series of behaviors and practices
which though they appear innocuous they have the ability to maintain construct and
preserve racial arrangement in much the same way as the more blatant racial practices
such as lynching, cross-burning racial epithets etc. Though these more blatant examples
or racism still occur they are illegal in a post-civil rights society. But systems of racial
stratification no longer have to rely on illegal, blatant practices that are incontrovertibly
racists because we have new systems that are much more efficient. Perhaps the most
important characteristic of modern racism is that it can persist within institutions and
throughout society virtually unnoticed. Individuals can commit practices that have racial
consequences with no knowledge that they are doing so for example following some
rules within agencies can ensure a racial outcome, e.g., some structured decision-making
tools assess risk according to family characteristics that are prevalent in one group such
as “single parenting” or “one parent households”, or using the cultural norms of the
“dominant” racial group as the basis for judging “family strengths” of another. Such
practices are built into agency policy or culture and the resulting racial consequences
often than not go completely unnoticed.
Modern or contemporary racism is very complex far more complex than its historic
counterpart. In the past lynching and cross-burning left little doubt about the malicious
6
nature of the acts but contemporary or modern racism can be so nuanced that it is very
difficult to know for sure what racism is and what is not.
Racism should not be thought of as merely the acts of a few misguided individuals, such
as skinheads or white supremacists, nor should it be defined only as those acts deemed as
official hate crimes. Racism is neither random nor coincidental but rather systemic.
Institutional racism “consists of established laws, customs, and practices which
systematically reflect and produce intentionally and unintentionally racial inequalities in
American society”. (Carter, 200) Institutional racism is hard to detect because it utilizes
policies and practices which on the surface appear neutral but can nonetheless result in
racial disparities. “The structural form of racism is difficult to perceive easily, because it
does not use race as the subordinating mechanism, but uses other devices only indirectly
related to race”. (Carter, 200) Even though most people will reject the persistence of
racism if it is not evident or can be proven though we may not always know beyond a
shadow of the doubt exactly which actions contribute to disparities and disproportionality
“If it can be shown that distinct racial differences exist, then what is observed is
institutional racism.” (Carter, 200)
Insert Data-disproportionality and disparities in youth-serving systems:
7
How Racism Persists Virtually Undetected
How do we explain racial disproproportionality and disparities in child welfare? The data
is clear that there is no prevalence of maltreatment by race; nor is one group more likely
to use drugs than another. We know that poverty does contribute to disparate outcomes
but poverty alone cannot explain the disparate outcomes. Bias as a contributing factor has
been given more attention in recent years but a lot of people have trouble accepting bias
as a contributing factor to disproportionality and disparities because they say it is difficult
to prove. In the following sections pro-whiteness, colorblindness, stereotyping and
institutional biases will be explored as factors that can mask the presence individual and
institutional bias.
Though each of these four themes will be discussed separately, in practice they operate
simultaneously and interdependently.
8
Chapter Book I
White Privilege-the Conscious or Unconscious Conviction That
Whites Are Superior
Andrew Hacker in his 1992 book “Two Nations” recounts the results of a classroom
exercise which probed the value of whiteness according to the perceptions of whites. The
study asked a group of white students how much money they would seek if they were
changed from white to black. “Most students seemed to feel that it would not be out of
place to ask for $50 million, of $1 million for each coming black year.” (Harris, p.286)
Whiteness is defined by its relationship to racial subordination. It is more than just skin
color, it is the embodiment of race entitlements.
If asked, many people would deny that they believe whites are superior. In the pre-civil
rights era beliefs in white supremacy were openly expressed through word and deed but
today such beliefs must remain discrete because linking whiteness to privilege contradicts
color-blind beliefs that “race no longer matters”. Ideologies that once showed direct
correlations to whiteness, privilege, and power have been replaced by those which say
that “white” is just a color or just a group equal in status to any other group.
The articulation of exactly what whiteness constitutes is difficult for many white people.
However, what is not as difficult for them to articulate is the superiority they feel in
comparison to non-white people. (McIntosh 301) According to Peggy McIntosh “whites
are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also
9
ideal”. The privileges she was socialized to expect in almost all daily interactions have
trained her to feel and act superior to non-white people. Most white people claim that
whiteness doesn’t bring unearned privileges-that whatever privileges are accorded to
whites are earned through merit because whites as a group perform better than People of
Color in all kinds of arenas. In fact, most white people deny that their “race” brings them
any privileges until such privileges are at risk of being lost. It is in the process of loosing
white privilege such as in the passing of Affirmative Action (which was established to
“level the playing field”) that whites acknowledge the privileges they previously denied
whiteness brought them. Whites while socialized in a racially constructed world are
taught not to be aware of themselves in racial terms.
Because all U.S. social institutions were based on notions of white superiority and
entitlement pro-whiteness is a prevailing ideological framework. Pro-white ideology is
the “conscious and unconscious conviction that white Euro-American cultural patterns
and practices, as reflected in values, language, belief systems, interpersonal styles,
behavior patterns, political, social roles, economics, music, art, religious tenets, and so
forth, are superior to those of other visible racial/ethnic groups (Asian, Black, Hispanic,
Indian)”(Carter, p.200). Because these assumptions are not associated with anti-group
sentiments they can easily conceal racial biases which favor whites. Such attitudes even
though they are not “negative” toward other groups cannot be seen as neutral because
they rank cultural patterns, practices and values, of other groups based on how closely
they approximate those of the privileged class (Jewell, p.6).
10
In youth-serving systems like child welfare what this means is that being white creates
unspecified advantage. While poor white families are disadvantaged by their social class
status they unlike non-whites are not disadvantaged by race. Data show that white
families and black families with identical risk factors; white children are more likely to
be given in-home services and black children are more likely to be removed.
Pro-whiteness masks how whites are “positively” racialized and as just people. This
allows benefits that accrue to them as a result of being white to be seen as the
consequences of individual merit, circumstance or even coincidence. Take for example
the court case of Andrew Fastow the former CEO of Enron Corporation and his wife who
were both sentenced to serve time in prison. But the courts negotiated an arrangement
whereby the Fastows did not have to be incarcerated at the same time in order that their
children will not be displaced from both parents. Though many people would see this
case as having no bearing on race or social class it is important to recognize how different
outcomes are when wealth intersects with whiteness. In this way we can see that the
outcomes are not just about individual merit but how what’s in the best interest of the
children, e.g., keeping them with at least one parent is based on the race of individuals
involved.
Mobilization a formidable defense: White Privilege Can Still Deliver
White privilege is preserved through all social institutions.
One of the best measures of white privilege to deliver is its ability to mobilize the
necessary institutional systems for its preservation and survival. This is possible because
11
whites are in charge of these systems and therefore they have the power to pass laws,
build institutions, and influence public opinions.
Since whites benefit from ideological representations of merit and neutrality, even the
most deviant who are white benefit from the positive ideological constructions of their
group. Group membership has a much different consequence for blacks. Blacks as a
group and as individuals are “foreshadowed by omnipresent racial signs and symbols that
have no meaning other than pressing them to the lowest level of the racial hierarchy. (T.
Morrison, as cited in hooks, 1995, p. 3)
Media depictions offer broad representations of whites. Where imbalances in media
portrayals exist, they favor consistent and widely held assumptions of whites as models
citizens. In contrast, portrayals of black men as drug addicts and drug dealers are
consistent with widely held assumptions of their criminality. In discussions on racial
profiling, even criminals who are white and male benefit from the positive ideological
constructions of their group. Conversely, all members of racialized groups, (People of
Color) are disadvantaged because they are judged first by negative assumptions and then
required to prove that they are the “exception” to the rule.
Despite the fact that the privileges that accrue to whites are highly contested it is wellknown that the media disproportionately portrays people or color as the problem while
whites are more frequently portrayed as the victims. African Americans and Hispanics
were overrepresented as perpetrators in news reports, especially those involving violent
crimes and underrepresented as victims. Moreover more articles were written about white
victims of homicide than about black victims, and the articles about white victims were
longer. In local television news coverage, black suspects were less likely to be identified
12
by name than white suspects were not as well dressed as whites suspects and were more
likely to be shown being physically restrained. African American suspects were regularly
depicted as poor, dangerous, and indistinct from other noncriminal members of the black
community (Entman OJJDP).
The ideological connections between black men and criminal behavior are a part of our
collective awareness. In Michael Moores’ Stupid White Men he states “….when I turn on
the news each night, what do I see again and again? Black men alleged to be killing,
raping, mugging, stabbing, gangbanging, looting, rioting, selling drugs, pimping, ho-ing
having too many babies, dropping babies from tenement windows, fatherless, motherless,
Godless, penniless. I believe we’ve become so used to this image of the black male
predator that we are forever ruined by this brainwashing”(p.59). Despite the fact that
more crimes are committed by whites, white men are not pathologized as a threat to
society. Black faces on the other hand are usually attached to what we think of as a crime.
The relationship between media and law enforcement in reinforcing white privilege was
very evident in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. When the attack was first
assumed to be the work of “terrorists” ideological constructions that targeted men of
Middle Eastern descent were employed. When it became clear that white men were
responsible, race became irrelevant. Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices were not
treated as “white terrorists” but as individual men who bombed the Oklahoma City
Federal Building. Crimes for which white men are the suspects become focused and
specific, as they should, so that all white men are not treated as potential terrorists. Thus,
white men have escaped the racial profiling that many argue is an essential law
enforcement tactic.
13
Additional Research

Stephanie Coonz Families: The Way We Never Were

Stereotyping exercise

Judge Joe Smith “White Privilege”
Resources
14
Chapter Book II
Colorblindness
The term colorblindness emerged as the so-called solution to ending race-based politics is
instead a strategy to preserve and protect racial hierarchies. In the Supreme Courts’
review of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs, the court determined that
race should be narrowly construed to mean skin color devoid of any historical, political,
or economic value, or determination or history. This “color-blind” ruling disavowed any
knowledge of the historic meanings of race and established a precedent that “nobody’s
skin color should be taken into account in government decision-making” (Crenshaw,
p.284). “When a previously degrouped group begins to fight back, the dominant group
steps up its restrictive controls. Therefore, it is not surprising that when there are
increasing numbers of people of Color in the United States, as well as increasing
awareness of how “race” is socially constructed-that is at the very moment when race is
on the verge of taking center stage in the analysis of oppression-all of a sudden, race
doesn’t matter and we should be color blind” (Stewart, p.304).
The terms of modern day racism relied on a very specific definition of colorblindness.
Color-blind discourse reframed the discussion on race by asserting the following: (1) race
is just skin color and not a marker for status, history or power but a false phenotype, (2)
race is made up and treating people differently on the basis of “made up” categories is
15
unacceptable and (3) racism lacks any nexus to power and therefore must be treated as a
personal not a governmental concern (Guinier, p.39). Critical Race Theory insists on
historical knowledge of discrimination based on legally produced racial categories, while
color-blind ideologies deny the importance of this history asserting instead that we are all
now “on a level playing field” and race doesn’t matter. The shift in the political race
discourse suppresses the historic relevance of race as well as its continued social, political
and economic consequences.
Co-opting color-blind ideology the State argues that it cannot interfere to redistribute
racial value because to do so is an illegitimate end that would upset the natural outcomes
of the market (Crenshaw, p.283). Therefore in a color-blind culture any historical or
structural conditions that institutionalize injustice such as inadequate education, poverty
etc. are considered irrelevant. Racial disparities in employment and housing and in other
spheres are simply the consequences of a private market - the fact that whites are more
competitive. Programs designed to target outreach and support to people of color such as
bilingual education programs are considered out-of-bounds because such activities could
upset the “natural” order of things. The same government that authorized and legitimized
race based systems including slavery, segregation in housing, schools and public
accommodations now abdicates its authority and some would argue responsibility for
corrective action.
16
Colorblindness controls and regulates the public and private discourses on race and sets
the necessary conditions for colorblind laws and social policies that enforce patterns of
inequality.
The following list of strategies is common to colorblind society. How many do you
recognize?
Colorblind Strategies Used to Control Race Discourse
1. Silencing those who fight for social justice. Individuals who speak out against racism
are often seen as a problem greater than racism itself. “Playing the race card” is an
accusation used to attack, discredit and silence anyone who raises the specter of race
discrimination. Terms like militant and femi-nazi are also used to label people involved
in social justice movements. While the word militant targets Black men, the word feminazi made popular by conservative Rush Limbaugh specifically targeted white women.
Feminist and social justice movements have formed racially diverse coalitions to fight
racism and sexism. But any demonstration of activism by women puts them in violation
of gender role prescriptions.
2. Slandering affirmative action and shaming those who benefited.
Affirmative Action gave millions of people of color and white women access to the
playing field for the first time in history. Some whites have intrinsic notions of
superiority and feel that minorities who “made it” did so at their expense because
17
affirmative action allowed them to jump to the head of the line. As a consequence the
legitimacy of these programs was always highly contested. But also under attack were
those who were considered beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. Ironically, very little
attention has been paid to the fact that white women largely benefited from affirmative
action programs which were designed to protect against both race and gender
discrimination. Because white women typically marry white men, white families
benefited greatly from a program associated mostly with Blacks. Drawing from the body
of ideological constructions which depict minorities as being inferior to whites it was
then relatively easy to enforce the notion that affirmative action candidates are minorities
and therefore inherently undeserving and unqualified. Thus affirmative action programs
and minorities were yoked and as a result both were tarnished reputationaly. This
strategy supported the anti-affirmative action movement by shaming minorities and
stigmatizing them as “recipients” who were inherently unqualified. Consequently many
people who should have benefited from these programs instead (at least in theory)
rejected them because they did not want to be stigmatized.
3. Attacking“political correctness”.
Political correctness was an ideological framework based on tolerance, inclusivity and
cultural sensitivity. It is amazing how the political right could destroy the one ideological
approach to building sensitivity and make it the butt of jokes and fodder for late night
TV. Being “politically correct” became a laughing matter.
18
4. Renaming the racist.
Social justice vernacular which utilizes terms such as racism, or racists is restricted under
colorblind culture. Naming someone or something racist is seen as a seditious act. Who is
the racist? Because talk about racism is censored under colorblind ideology, the person
who utters race first is the racist in the room. Conservatives associate racism with the
actions of skin heads, white supremacist hate groups and the KKK while making off
limits the use of the terms racism and racist as they might apply to the actions of
everyday people which make modern oppression possible. Aversive racism is a form of
modern prejudice that explains how many whites who regard themselves as nonprejudice and liberal minded can nevertheless discriminate in subtle rationalizable ways.
While many people would not discriminate in ways that are overtly racist most people do
discriminate in ways that requires implicit agreements that can be achieved from little
acts of discrimination not directly linked to oppression. (Gaertner, 168) Modern day acts
of racism are often small incremental actions which alone would hardly appear racist but
accumulatively can produce pervasive racial disparities. New racism involves the
participation and complicity of all members of society to some extent or anotherincluding People of Color. Modern day racism remains efficient because it involves little
personal culpability because actions which promote racist consequences are a normal and
routine aspect of routine interactions.
5. Litmus test for racism: the question of intentionality.
Consider this statement made by Rush Limbaugh: “I don’t think he’s been that good from
the get-go” (referring to Donovan McNabb the Black quarterback for the Philadelphia
19
Eagles). “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has
been overly desirous that a Black quarterback do well. There is little hope invested in
McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn’t deserve.
The defense carried his team”. ( http://www.Sportsline.com/nfl/story/7000602.html) this
comment was considered by some to be racist. What many conservative pundits argued is
that no one knows if Rush’s actions were racist because to know this we would have to
know “what’s in his heart”. In other words the new litmus test for racism is that of
intentionality. Was the action intended to be racist? Asserting that actions can’t be racist
if they were not meant as racist will protect even the most incontrovertibly racist actions
because no one can ever know what’s in anyone’s “heart”.
6. Who is the minority?
In a society in which the majority of the population is represented by people of color, the
term minority which referred to non-white populations has truly outlived its usefulness.
Historically the term may have referred to a statistical minority or a non-white group or
groups smaller in number than whites. But the term has also been used to refer to power
differentials denoting that whites as the “majority” group were more powerful and
dominant compared to the non-white “minority” or “subordinate” group. Despite the fact
that immigration policies have historically favored European immigration in ways that
allow whites to stay in the “majority” the majority of people in the U.S. are non-white.
Not only is the term minority statistically obsolete but it’s problematic in the way it
reinforces the inherent nature of superiority for whites and inferiority or minorities.
20
7. Regulating public discourse that names whiteness.
While it is routine to discuss minorities, the disadvantaged, single parents, and welfare
mothers, exposing whiteness and white privilege is protected under the “white male
bashing act” of colorblindness. Thus any academic discussions which critique this most
privileged group are often seen as white male bashing.
8. Why can’t we all just get along?
Many people think that the problem of racism is an individual problem and that if we as
individuals would just be nicer to one another the problem would be resolved. But racism
is more than an individual problem, it is structural. Racism does rely on individuals to
transmit racial values and give their consent to practices and laws which legitimate racial
hierarchies, but where does the incentive for individuals to do so come from and what is
the collective stimuli for a society to act in such a uniform fashion? Clearly the core of
such actions can be found in the hegemony, a social structure; laws, policies and practices
the normalize race hierarchies and allow them to be seen as commonsense and just
despite the fact that such systems reproduce racial inequalities. Individuals are then
taught to see these inconsistencies as the outcome of individual failings of individuals
who as members of certain groups just can’t seem to get it right. In the video Color of
Fear David the white former vineyard owner described his perception of how people of
color clung to their ethnic identities instead of just being Americans. “How can I be an
American I can’t so I won’t, is this clinging the problem? Why can’t they [people of
color] just be individuals and go out and make a place for themselves?”
21
While individuals could become more aware of how they are complicit in racism on a
day-to-day basis their ability to identify and perceive racism is determined which side of
the color line they are on. If individuals could understand the historical and structural
constructions of race they could then “just say no” to laws, public policies and
institutionalized racism and sexism as it occurs. Most scholars will argue that this is
unlikely because the inequitable distributions which oppress some operate to privilege
others. We all have a personal stake in racism.
9. Denying racism and blaming the victim.
There is a tendency for whites to think that the solution to ending racism lies in the
attitudes of Blacks. We are once again reminded by David from the Color of Fear, “the
world is open to you but you think the white man is a dam and a block to your progress.
He is not. I think you put a block and dam your progress in regards to the white man.”
10. Ahhhhhh This sound is caused by a release of air from the mouth of a person who has
just heard something that violates colorblind protocol such as naming racism or sexism,
or calling an individual or an institution racist. This sound which is typically
accompanied by a look of incredulity or a scowl, symbolizes that what they have just
heard is out of bounds and that this discussion has summarily ended. This response is an
extremely common and effective means of controlling interpersonal discourse because
its ability to regulate speech or shut it down admonishes the violator. The ahhhhhh effect
22
can be achieved by any verbal or non-verbal action that brings a halt to conversations that
are perceived to violate the rules of colorblindness.
Controlling the race discourse through color blind principles insures their standardization.
As these ideals are normalized and reiterated by “culture-makers” and policy makers or
“the white men in positions of influence and power; political leaders, editors, novelists,
educators, ministers, military leaders, doctors, and business men,” (Takaki, vii) and even
Dr. Phil, colorblindness provides the context through which new racism is understood
and articulated.
Colorblindness does not “blind” us to race but instead suppresses the public and private
discourse of race which allows racism to function undisturbed. If we don’t notice race we
can’t be culturally competent. Colorblindness masks differences in how we apply policies
and procedures in youth-serving systems.
Colorblind strategies and ideologies suppress the public discourse on race by punishing
people for having open discussions about race and racism.
Additional Research:

Study-children’s videos with multi-cultural storylines have effect on racial
attitudes
Resources

Color of Fear

A Girl Like Me
23
Chapter Book III
Stereotyping: Ideological constructions of Blackness
Ideologies are not neutral. They are by definition distortions which when shared, applied
and reproduced throughout society can rationalize and reconcile dramatic inconsistencies
in the ways race-gender groups experience social life. Ideologies often work on a
subliminal level. We often unconsciously accept the ideological interpretations of the
most inexplicable social facts.
The conditioning that allows us to connect Blacks to violence requires that we normalize
ideologies of Black criminality so that they don’t conflict with our values of justice and
fairness. Even while the U.S. positions itself as the model for social justice to the world,
liberty and justice is not distributed equally to all Americans. For example, the U.S.
incarcerates a higher percentage of black men by a factor of six than did South Africa’s
Botha government during apartheid. (Guinier, 263) This glaring example of racism is
morally reprehensible and yet through the insidious mix of ideologies of colorblindness
and stereotyping these inconsistencies can be reconciled within principles of “liberty and
justice for all”.
24
Stereotyping Exercise: Social theories portraying Black people as intellectually inferior,
criminally inclined, and sexually deviant have informed ideological constructions in ways
that set up conditions for their mistreatment in all spheres of social life.
Labeling Exercise:
Attribution Exercise:
Resources:

Psychology of Stereotypes

Harvard Implicit Bias Test

Why Americans Hate Welfare
25
Additional Research

William Bennett-Freakanomics

Don Imus

Trader Joe Story-Connecting white privilege, stereotyping, colorblindness and
implicit bias.
26
Chapter Book IV
Institutional Racism-Cross-OverYouth

The collaboration of major social institutions, e.g., child welfare and education in
constructing pathways to juvenile justice through routine everyday practices and
public policies-all under the framework of laws to which we have given our
consent such as: war on drugs, tough on crime, zero tolerance.

Schools appropriation of language from the criminal justice system, e.g.,
detention, lockdowns.

Schools referral to probation problems that used to be handled by counselors.

Poorly resourced schools over-reliance school resource officers

Data on zero tolerance

Impact of 3rd grade reading levels on prison projections

Zero tolerance placing kids on trajectory of failure with penny candy offenses
Exercise: Accumulative Impact of Institutional Racism
27
All individuals have been socialized to interpret, understand and react to race in ways
which are insidious and operate to keep the color line in tact. To the extent that
institutional practices emulate those of broader society, individuals can reenact them with
little or no awareness. Such transactions become an integral part of institutional culture
especially when compliance is enforced from the top.
Institutional racism absolves individuals of personal accountability. By learning how to
“not notice race” individuals can participate in routine race practices under the guise of
“just following the rules” and feel no personal culpability for decisions which may in fact
be based on race. Because racism is de-linked from government mandates individuals and
society in general can appear to be neutral to race while operationalizing racism as part of
every day social and public life.
Color-blind culture requires more or less the cooperation of every individual. Even those
disadvantaged by such systems are pressed into service unwittingly to protect the very
system that results in disadvantages to them. Individuals ratify and replicate social
arrangements of race in every major social institution. Whether the individuals in these
institutions are members of the dominant group is irrelevant to the fact that their ability to
do their job as a teacher, counselor, social worker, probation officer or judge is linked to
their ability to uphold the wishes of the dominant group; thus many assimilate,
acculturate and embrace the dominant values upon which criteria for excellence is based.
In this way we all become agents of a race-gendered and classed system that we are
taught to view as neutral or “professional” and void of power relations. The practices by
which individuals operate must comply with value systems which emerge from the
28
cultures of those in charge. The individual-institutional relationship results in the
reproduction of social arrangements in the broader society. The attitudes which reproduce
these arrangements in all institutions reflect the tension between values of equality and
allegiance to a racial order within which non-compliance will be punished. Individuals
will apply their interpretation of race and gender in every private and public interaction
unless they consciously an intentionally work against it. Ideological belief systems
infused into laws, customs, and social practices produce intentional and unintentional
race and gender inequalities. (Cameron Wedding, 63)
All organizations, businesses and social institutions have rules which can be applied or
implemented arbitrarily. When rules designed to control and regulate are
disproportionately enforced for members of certain groups such actions can easily be
defended as “simply following policy”.
Is it possible to see skin color detached from any connotative meaning?
Can any one of us really not notice race or do we just pretend? Can we leave our racial
biases at the door or do they influence our perceptions about who we are the most
comfortable with, who we feel we have the most in common with, who we feel the most
familiar to and ultimately who we perceive as “most qualified person”?
Collaboration of Social Institutions in the Reproduction of Raced Outcomes
Social institutions, such as education, social welfare, the criminal justice system etc.
reproduce social arrangements based on race and gender because the individuals who
staff and run these institutions bring to them a consciousness informed by ideological
29
belief systems that rationalize racial disparities. Pervasive ideological constructions of
race create preconditions for how individuals are perceived and treated. The extent to
which institutional arrangements mirror those of the broader society can be seen as
normal and inevitable outcomes.
Uniformity in managing these tensions of race is found among all major social
institutions. The ability of the criminal justice system to absorb the individuals, who fall
through the bottom in education or social welfare, is predictable and predetermined. For
example, by investing more money in corrections than education our expectations for the
attainment of future generations has been sealed. For the cost of imprisoning one person
for one year California could educate ten community college students, five California
state university students, or two University of California students (Guinier, p.267). The
role of institutions to formalize, document and label individual statuses; (such as college
graduate or felon), to function as tracking systems that influence and possibly even
determine status arrangements, and to obfuscate any arbitrariness within the culture, is
essential to color-blind culture.
30
Case Study
Connecting Zero-tolerance to child welfare to juvenile justice.
A teacher’s authority to label, criminalize and to construct a path of failure and deviance,
which conform to cultural depictions of black kids, has the potential to do irreparable
damage a child, and even change the course of her life.
Institutional racism and sexism is embodied in school polices, practices and teacher
attitudes. Stereotypes and assumptions about student abilities on the basis of race and
gender can influence teacher recommendations in matters of promotion, retention and
suspension.
These biases can also influence routine grading practices. Such biases can be an impetus
for decisions that result in the systematic sorting, selecting or tracking of students.
Like all other social institutions, discrimination practices in education are covert and
often indiscernible. But evidence of persistent discrimination is revealed in outcome
measures of retention, expulsion, drop-out, college-going, achievement, special education
and gifted and talented programs. Differential student achievement outcomes, often
assumed to be the result of biological or cultural differences of race and/or gender, can in
fact be caused by educational practices such as institutional racism embedded in school
31
policy, culture, curriculum, pedagogy and teacher attitudes rather than academic ability of
children. Thus race and gender bias in schooling is an aspect of the hidden curriculum
that communicates behavioral norms and individual status in school culture. This is the
process of socialization that cues children into their place in the hierarchy of larger
society.
The 2002 report Building a Culture of Fairness and Equity in California’s Child Welfare
System (CWS) states that “whatever the contributing factors may in fact be, the disturbing
fact is that there is an enormously disproportionate number of African American children
who are placed in foster care (Roberts, p.8). National indicators suggest that African
Americans represent as many as 42% of children in foster care despite the fact that they
are only 17 % of the U.S. population. Disproportionality exists when there is a difference
between the proportion of children of a particular racial or ethnic group in the child
welfare system and the proportion of children in that particular racial or ethnic group in
the general population (p.156). There is strong support in the child welfare literature that
systemic and attitudinal forces are responsible for the geographic disparity as well as the
disproportionate involvement of large numbers of minority children at all stages of child
welfare decision making. Roberts, for example has written that the child protection
process is designed and operates in a way that practically invites bias and encourages
unfair habits, “vague definitions of neglect, unbridled discretion and lack of training form
a dangerous combination in the hands of caseworkers charged with deciding the fate of
families” (p.157).
32
Racial discrepancies at all levels of the process from intake to disposition are reported.
Obviously the numbers of blacks in the system, their experiences once they are in the
system such as longer stays in foster care, less likelihood for reunification, and greater
frequency of removal from foster care homes, underscore disparities. The role of the
social worker at each intersection is pivotal to the outcome. It is at the discretion of these
individuals that decisions relating to placement, removal, foster care and reunification are
made. The idiosyncratic values and beliefs of social workers, supervisors, court
personnel, legislators and bureaucrats frame the discussion, policies and practices of the
child welfare system that either produce outcomes of fairness and equity or reproduce
systems of injustice.
Resources
DVD Suspension
33
Conclusion
34
Bibliography
Act4justice.com
Cameron Wedding, R., (2003). Colorblindness:Challenging the Discourse of
Contemporary U.S. Racism. In R. Cameron Wedding, E. Vega, G. Mark
(Eds.), Readings in Race, Class, and Gender (pp. 54-67). Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing.
Carter, R.T. (1997). Expressions of Racial Identity. In M. Fine, L. Weis et al. (Eds.),
Off white: Readings on race, power and society. (pp. 198-209). Great Britain:
Routledge Press.
Civil Rights Coalition and “No on 209 Campaign”. (n.d.). Training Manual: No on
209. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Collins, P.H. (1998). Fighting words: Black women & the search for justice. (p. 49)
New York: The News Press.
Crenshaw, K.W. (1998). Color Blindness, history and the law. In W. Lubiano (Ed.),
The House that race built. (pp. 280-288). New York: Vintage Books.
Edmon, L. (1999). Providing Access to Success. Los Angeles County Bar Association:
President’s Page. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from
http:www.lacba.org/lalawyer/apr99/president/html.
Gaertner, S. L. (1997). Does white racism necessarily mean anti-blackness: Aversive
racism and pro-whiteness. In M. Fine, L. Weis et al. (Eds.) Off-white:
Reading on race, power and society (pp. 167-178). Great Britain: Routledge
Press.
Guinier, L. (2002). The Miner’s canary: Enlisting race, resisting power, transforming
democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Harris, C. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw et al. (Eds.), Critical race
theory (pp. 276-291). New York: New York Press.
hooks, b., (1994) Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge Press.
Hurtado, A., & Stewart, A. (1997). Through the looking glass: Implications of
35
studying whiteness for feminist methods. In M. Fine, L. Weis et al. (Eds.) Offwhite: Readings on race, power and society (pp. 297-311). Great Britain:
Routledge Press.
Jewell, K. S. (1993). From mammy to Miss America and beyond. (p. 6) New York:
Routledge Press.
Johnson, A. (1997). The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy. (p. 108)
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Moore, M. (2003). “Kill Whitey”. In R. Cameron Wedding, E. Vega, G. Mark
(Eds.), Readings in Race, Class, and Gender (pp. 54-67). Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing.
Neubeck, K. (2002). Attacking Welfare Racism/Honoring Poor People’s Human
Rights. In R. Albelda and A. Withorn (Eds.) Lost Ground (p. 114).
Cambridge Mass: South End Press.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant, (Eds.). (1994). Racial Formations in the United
States from the 1960s to the 1990s, (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Press.
Parenti, Michael. (1993). Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media. (2nd ed.).
(p. 11). New York: St. Martins Press.
Takaki, Ronald. (1990). Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th Century America.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Wah, Lee Min (Producer and Director), and Monty Hunter (Co-Producer). (1994).
Color of Fear [Motion Picture]. Berkeley, CA: Stir-Fry Productions.
Winant, Howard. (1999). Racial Democracy and Racial Identity: Comparing the
United States and Brazil, ed. Michael Hanchard, (pp. 98-112). Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
36
Building a culture of fairness and equity in California’s child welfare system. (2002).
California Welfare Services Stakeholders Group.
Carter, R.T. (1997). Expressions of racial identity. In M. Fine, L. Weis et al. (Eds.),
Off white: Readings on race, power and society. (pp. 198-209). Great Britain:
Routledge Press.
Collins, P.H. (1998). Fighting words: Black women & the search for justice.
New York: The News Press.
Crenshaw, K.W. (1998). Color Blindness, history and the law. In W. Lubiano (Ed.),
The House that race built. (pp. 280-288). New York: Vintage Books.
Gaertner, S. L. (1997). Does white racism necessarily mean anti-blackness: Aversive
racism and pro-whiteness. In M. Fine, L. Weis et al. (Eds.) Off-white:
Reading on race, power and society (pp. 167-178). Great Britain: Routledge
Press.
Guinier, L. (2002). The Miner’s canary: Enlisting race, resisting power, transforming
democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37
Harris, C. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw et al. (Eds.), Critical race
theory (pp. 276-291). New York: New York Press.
Harris, D. (2002) Profiles in injustice. New York: The New Press.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge Press.
hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage. New York: Henry Holt and Company
Hurtado, A., & Stewart, A. (1997). Through the looking glass: Implications of
studying whiteness for feminist methods. In M. Fine, L. Weis et al. (Eds.)
Off-white: Readings on race, power and society (pp. 297-311). Great Britain:
Routledge Press.
Jewell, K. S. (1993). From mammy to Miss America and beyond. New York:
Routledge Press.
Racial Profiling and Punishment in U.S. Public Schools (1999) Applied Research
Center (ARC)
Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The Color of child welfare. New York: Basic
Civita Books.
Rita Cameron Wedding Ph.D. is the Women’s Studies Coordinator and a professor
in Women’s Studies and Ethnic Studies at California State University, Sacramento.
38
39