Debbie Artis
Janette De La Rosa Ducut, Ed.D.
Colleen Farnham
Julia Jenkins
Responding to Bias with the
STAR treatment
Diversity has been a key item on every major organization’s “to do” list since the Civil Rights Act of 1961 was enacted. While
there has been significant progress made through their implementation of AA programs, little attention has been paid to
promoting the spirit of laws by which under-represented groups are afforded the opportunity to join and advance in such
organizations. Diversifying an organization, especially in ways that the “Making Excellence Inclusive” diversity certificate
program intends, involves more than adding a few members of under-represented groups to an organization’s payroll. A
paradigm shift in the organization’s attitudes about what it means to be excellent as well as each member’s personal perspective
on society as a whole is required. While it is the responsibility of the organization to implement programs and ensure the
execution of policies designed to diversify, the ultimate success of a diversity program lies heavily on the individual person, be it
a member of a dominant social or cultural group, or a member of an under-represented group. The attitude that propels diversity
as a means of achieving organizational excellence is one of acceptance, understanding, and compromise. The objective of the
STAR treatment approach to diversity is to provide all members of the organization with helpful tools that can be used when
confronted with difficult situations where diversity is not being promoted or its promotion is not being accepted.
Executive Summary
When employees hear a biased comment or observe biased behavior, they often don’t know
how to respond. The purpose of this project is to create a diversity resource that will be made
available to the UCR campus community. We present here the “STAR” acronym; an easy-toremember 4-step process that will aid employees in responding to bias. The Stop, Think, Act,
and Respect (STAR) concept will be perpetuated through creation of a brochure, poster, and
training module.
Bias is a broad reaching issue that can affect everyone. Bias and bias crimes inflict pain on not
only the individual experiencing the hurt, but also on the community to which the member
belongs, as well as society as a whole (Lawrence, 1994). In the context of responding to bias the
authors approach the subject from the perspective of the individual.
The simple, action oriented framework may be used by individuals to response to bias, but may
also be supported and implemented on a system-wide basis with responsibility at the senior
management and supervisory level. In this manner, each individual is empowered to respond to
bias in actionable ways themselves with the support and infrastructure of the entire
organization behind them.
Implementing the STAR treatment involves bringing diverse groups together in a facilitated
workshop process. Ideally the groups should be as diverse as possible across as many
dimensions as possible (i.e. learning styles, age, race, gender identification, ability, job position).
Potential risks include the possibility of poor reception, backfire, deterrants to change, incorrect
implementation, miscommunication, and lack of proper resources. Benefits of the program
include an opportunity to educate the organization, a chance to train senior management staff,
an ability to implement policies and best practices, an opportunity to create a training and
development program, and the ability to create an environment where diversity initiatives
aren’t needed; that diversity is ingrained as part of the university culture
The first level of program evaluation will focus on participant reaction to the program and the
facilitators as well as how the participants intend to implement the STAR treatment post
training. This will consist of an anonymous survey delivered at the end of training. The
participants will work with structured scenarios in pairs or small groups and practice the skills
learned in STAR training.
This paper concludes with recommendations for use of the program at UCR.
Page 2 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Introduction
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective,
ideology, or result; especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial,
unprejudiced, or objective. Bias stems from our everyday sense of “the way things are”, which
informs our everyday workplace interactions. Bias affects what we notice about people, how we
interpret their behavior, and what we remember about them. The assumptions we make about
people are pervasive: Everyone makes them. The biases that result affect our interactions both
with people we know and with people we don’t know. Even small judgments based on bias can
have powerful cumulative effects on careers (UC Hastings College of Law, 2009).
When employees hear a biased comment or observe biased behavior, they often don’t know
how to respond. Many methods assume that individuals want to maintain a positive and
ongoing relationship with the person. They also assume that it’s important to respond and try to
do something. Many methods may not always work and it may be hard to choose which method
to use.
When one is confronted with biased treatment, it is often difficult to speak out against it.
Biased incidents leave the victim feeling powerless, angry or despondent. These are normal
emotions that, if acted upon, can send an already uncomfortable situation spiraling out of
control and, if not acted upon, foster an environment where biased incidents are overlooked
and go unreported. Neither of these scenarios is beneficial to the continued progress of the
University or the global community in which it operates.
Because emotions tend to run high in situations where a person has experienced or witnessed
biased treatment, it is important that there be tools available that individuals can draw from to
assist in handling the situation in a manner that not only addresses the cause of biased
treatment but allows all involved parties the opportunity for self realization and growth.
The purpose of this project is to create a diversity resource that will made available to the UCR
campus community. The following sections present the “STAR” acronym; an easy-to-remember
4-step process that will aid employees in responding to bias. The Stop, Think, Act, and Respect
(STAR) concept will be perpetuated through creation of a brochure, poster, and training module.
The STAR treatment method of responding to bias provides the tools necessary to counteract
bias and create a more globally aware environment starting with the individual.
Page 3 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Problem Definition
A bias incident is an incident of verbal or non-verbal conduct or behavior that is threatening,
harassing, intimidating, discriminatory, or hostile. Bias occurs whether the act is intentional or
unintentional and towards an individual or group regarding factors such as race, religion,
ethnicity, disability, national origin, age, gender, or sexual orientation (Roger Williams
University, 2009).
Bias is a broad reaching issue that can affect everyone. Bias and bias crimes inflict pain on not
only the individual experiencing the hurt, but also on the community to which the member
belongs, as well as society as a whole (Lawrence, 1994). In the context of responding to bias the
authors approach the subject from the perspective of the individual. Upon experiencing bias
directed at oneself, or witnessing bias directed at another or a group of others, one may
experience a range of feelings and emotions and may exhibit a number of behaviors in response
to these emotions. Many of these behaviors and emotions may be unproductive,
counterproductive or worsen the issue at hand. Whether experienced in a school setting, in the
work environment or in a home or social setting, the consequences of experiencing and
responding to bias can be wide-reaching. Examples include a lingering sense of fear and
vulnerability, severe emotional and psychological impacts, a loss of importance and self-worth
for both the victim and the victim’s group and a reactionary response such as action or bias
against the perpetrator’s group (Roger Williams University, 2009).
One type of bias, weight bias, can serve as an example of the effects that bias in general may
have on individuals. In interviews with overweight adolescents about their experiences of bias it
was found that the most common forms of bias were weight-related teasing, jokes and
derogatory names. Many reported being teased about their weight throughout elementary
school and high school and indicated that they had not learned how to cope with these
stigmatizing encounters (Cramer and Steinwert, 1998). This type of teasing and lack of
knowledge regarding how to respond is likely a common thread through many different bias
experiences. When one does not learn appropriate coping and response mechanisms, bias will
continue to occur into institutions of higher education and the workplace and the responses to
bias will continue to escalate as well.
According to the Community Relations Service, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, there
is no place where hate crimes and bias motivated incidents are occurring with increasing
frequency, more visibility and hostility than in institutions of higher education. The workplace is
not immune to this phenomenon. In a 1991-92 study sociologists found that 27% of all
Page 4 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
respondents who reported “prejudiced based” episodes experienced them at work (Weiss,
Ehrlich, and Larcom, 1992). More recent reports from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) have indicated a 15% increase in discrimination related filings in FY 2008.
The lack of a proper response mechanism to bias in the workplace includes lower employee
morale, lower retention rates, higher attrition and recruiting costs, costly discrimination claims,
poor decision-making, and productivity being jeopardized (UC Hastings College of Law, 2009).
Best Practice Solution
Based on the increasing frequency and the impact on the individual receiving the message of
bias, it is important to provide tools and a framework under which the individual may respond.
According to the authors of Best Practices or Best Guesses? Diversity Management and the
Remediation of Inequality, responsibility structures had the largest impact on elimination or
reduction of bias. Thus, establishing a framework which may be used by the individual, but also
easily implemented by the management structure, is a critical step. Education alone has little
effect on behavior change (Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly, 2002). Thus, this paper proposes a simple,
action oriented framework that the individual may use in response to bias, but that may be
supported and implemented on a system-wide basis with support responsibility at the senior
management and supervisory level. In this manner, each individual is empowered to respond to
bias in actionable ways themselves with the support and infrastructure of the entire
organization behind them.
As identified by Roger Williams University (2009), there is potential for a reactionary response
by those experiencing bias. This is not a desirable response. The STAR treatment response
framework enables the receiver to have a controlled, reasoned response to bias and provides
senior leadership a tool to use in formulation of the necessary responsibility structure.
The STAR treatment is best viewed from the perspective of the individual. Upon experiencing
bias directed at oneself, rather than immediately reacting, the individual stops, thinks about the
effect of the act or word, then acts in some respectful fashion, ideally by asking the offending
party to stop and think about their actions. In this fashion, a dialog may be created and a
feedback loop occurs. In the event that dialog does not occur, the receiver of the message may
still engage in RESPECT by respecting the actor’s right to feel differently. In this way, the
receiver has taken the time to process information and is less likely to have a reactionary
response. In the event that the issue is severe and/or pervasive, additional remedies are still
available and will be provided in training.
Page 5 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Solution details
At the University of California Riverside (UCR), Chancellor Timothy P. White spoke of Living the
Promise (2009). Learning how to respect one another’s viewpoints and rights, while
simultaneously acting on our own right to be heard and respected for our differences, is a
critical aspect of living the promise. Recently, Abdel Malik Ali spoke at UCR, at the invitation of
the Muslim Student Union. Subsequently, due to some of Mr. Ali’s disputed viewpoints,
Chancellor White was asked to denounce the speaker. Chancellor White declined to do so, on
the basis of free speech. This is an example of the respect doctrine alive and well on UCR’s
campus.
As Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly (2002) point out, responsibility structures have the largest impact on
elimination or reduction of bias. Chancellor White’s support of diverse viewpoints is a crucial
point in the creation of responsibility structures. Support must start at the highest levels in an
organization in order for the impact to be felt throughout. For a program based on individual
response to be widely disseminated as an educational tool it must have support throughout the
organization, be simple to understand and communicate and empower individuals to change.
The STAR treatment has the ability to do just that.
While developing responsibility structures requires high level buy-in, the STAR treatment is in
reality an individually based process that can be taught and practiced at all levels. Rank and file
employees may respond better to the process if they perceive high level support, but
maintaining a focus on individual change will support the process as well.
Implementing the STAR treatment involves bringing diverse groups together in a facilitated
workshop process. Ideally the groups should be as diverse as possible across as many
dimensions as possible (i.e. learning styles, age, race, gender identification, ability, job position).
The facilitators should also represent diversity dimensions. While diverse methodologies may
apply, one will be presented here.
As previously indicated, the STAR acronym stands for Stop, Think, Act, Respect. Since bias is a
learned response (Thiederman, 2008) responding to bias in a more appropriate manner can also
be learned. Teaching learners to recognize their own filters and biases is a critical first step in
enabling a reasoned response when experiencing bias from another. As Carlos Cortés indicated
in his paper Principles for Dealing with Diversity (2009), it is important to realize that one’s own
filters may inhibit efforts at understanding alternate perspectives, despite efforts at sincerity.
Although stopping one’s own filters and biases may be a difficult task, being aware and taking
the time to think may stop the process of a poorly reasoned response.
Page 6 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
(Insert short description about the brochure)
(Insert short description about the poster)
(Insert short description about the training module)
Risks








Won’t be received well (or person wouldn’t respond well)
Might backfire and push people back into a corner
May offend because people don’t like change
Implementation might not be done correctly
Miscommunication of concept
Assumption that messenger is attacking one’s beliefs with this process
Lacks training and resources
It’s another fad
Benefits
The most dreaded phrase one may hear in corporate America is “diversity training.” Today,
“diversity training” is an integral part of business and laws have been passed prohibiting overt
bias. Yet, in corporate America there are many incidents of unconscious bias that may not
violate any law. Whether verbal or non-verbal, intentional or unintentional, bias treatment in
the workplace can create levels of risky behavior that are intense, intimidating and hurtful. If
bias incidents in the workplace are not addressed, such incidents may create an environment in
which an individual may not feel safe, valued or respected.
According to Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, authors of Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice, and Leadership (1997), a good workplace is serious about treating everyone well;
workers as well as executives; women as well as men; Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics
as well as whites; gay as well as straight. Sometimes they do it because they think it is right.
Often, they do it because they were forced to by bad publicity, a lawsuit, or government
pressure. Implementing a workplace diversity program that includes preventing bias treatment
is not only good business sense; it is also beneficial for managers and employees.
Additional benefits include:
 Opportunity to educate the organization
 Chance to train senior management staff
 Ability to implement policies and best practices
 Opportunity to create a training and development program
 Create an environment where diversity initiatives aren’t needed; that diversity is engrained
as part of the university culture
Page 7 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Measures
Measurement outcomes are critical in order to determine the effects of the treatment on the
behavior. Training will be measured at two levels. Level one measurement focuses on reaction
data collected from those attending training. The data focuses on participant reaction to the
program and the facilitators as well as how the participants intend to implement the STAR
treatment post training. This will consist of an anonymous survey delivered at the end of
training (Appendix IV). The data will be used to improve the training program and the
effectiveness of the facilitators.
Level two measurement focuses on measuring learning. Data is collected on participants in
order to determine whether they have learned the tools delivered during training. Since the
STAR treatment is an interactive, behavior based model, measurements will be collected in two
ways. The first type of data collection is role-playing, scored and evaluated by the facilitators.
The participants will work with structured scenarios in pairs or small groups and practice the
skills learned in STAR training (Appendix V). The second type of Level 2 measurement is self
assessment. Participants will have the opportunity to report anonymously on their assessment
of their acquisition of skills and knowledge (Appendix VI). Level 2 data will be used to provide
individual participant feedback to reinforce the learning process and build confidence; to ensure
that learning has taken place; and to improve the training program and the effectiveness of the
facilitators.
Resources








UCR Resources
o Yolanda Moses, Associate Vice Provost Conflict Resolution
o Marlene Zuk, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity & Diversity
o Indumati Sen, Ombudsman Office
o Gladys Brown, Affirmative Action
o Debbie Artis, Title IX Office
o Tony Giorgio and/or Jadie Lee, Labor Relations / Employee Relations
o Marsha Marion, Disability Management
o Michele Coyle, Campus Counsel
“We are the same, we are different” book
Brochure
Training Module
Video (list)
MEI speakers
Web placement (diversity.ucr.edu)
Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.tolerance.org: Offers a wealth of information,
resources, and curriculum materials.
Page 8 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Reference
Bolman, L.G., and Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cortes, C. (2009). Principles for Dealing with Diversity. unpublished manuscript.
Cramer, P., and Steinwert, T. (1998). Thin is good, fat is bad: How early does it begin? Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 19, pp. 429-451.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., and Kelly, E. (2002). Best practices or best guesses? Diversity Management and the
remediation of inequality. Retrieved February 18, 2009.
Lawrence, F.M. (1994). The Punishment of Hate: Toward a Normative Theory of Bias-Motivated Crimes.
Michigan Law Review, 93, pp. 320-381. Retrieved February 27, 2009 from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1007078
Phillips, J., and Stone, R.D. (2002). How to Measure Training Results. A Practical Guide to Tracking the Six
Key Indicators. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Puhl, R., and Brownell, K. (2009) Weight Bias and its Social, Economic, and Health Impact. NAASO, The
Obesity Society,2004-2009. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from
http://www.obesityonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=44&dpg=1
Roger Williams University (2009). Bias Incident / Hate Crime. Bristol, RI. Retrieved February 18, 2009
from http://www.rwu.edu/about/administration/publicsafety/biashatecrime/
Tahmincioglu, E. (2009). Job Bias Claims Rise to Record. Retrieved March 9, 2009from
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29554931/from/ET
Thiederman, S. (2008). Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace. Chicago,
IL: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
UC Hastings College of Law (2009). Hidden Gender Bias in the Workplace. HR Management, 8. Retrieved
June 1, 2009 from http://www.hrmreport.com/article/Issue-8/Staffing/Hidden-Gender-Bias-inthe-Workplace/
United Stated Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, Responding to Hate Crimes and
Bias-Motivated Incidents on College/University Campuses. Washington, DC: 2000, 2.
Weiss, J., Ehrlich, H., and Larcom, B. (1992). Ethnoviolence at Work. Journal of Intergroup Relations,
Winter 1991-2, pp. 21-33.
Page 9 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
White, T.P. (2009). Messages to the Campus. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from
http://chancellor.ucr.edu/messages/scotmail.html
Page 10 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Recommendations
BY Janette De La Rosa Ducut, Ed.D.
 Solidify the information centers
 Utilize in staff search committees and Affirmative Action Coordinator meetings
 How can we use the program?
 What are some units that can take the lead in implementation?
 Develop infrastructure
Appendices
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Brochure
Poster
Training Lesson Plan
Evaluation Form Level 1
Evaluation Form Level 2
Page 11 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Appendix I
Brochure
Page 12 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Appendix II
Poster
Page 13 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Appendix III
Training Lesson Plan
Page 14 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Appendix IV
Evaluation Form Level 1
Content/Trainer Evaluation Form
Session Title______________________________ Date____________________
Group Type (circle one) Student
Faculty
Staff
Student Leader Administration
Your training team values your comments. The statements below concern specific aspects of this
program. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement and provide your
comments where appropriate, using the following scale:
1
2
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
I.
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
Content
1. Objectives were clearly explained
2. Stated objectives were met
3. I understand the materials and topics in this program
4. Content is relevant to my job/school environment
II. Environment/Administration
1. The classroom location was suitable for this program
2. The classroom setup was appropriate for this program
III. Methodology The following activities/materials helped me to understand the content and
achieve the stated objectives
1. Handouts/printed materials
2. Audio/visuals
3. Exercises/activities/role play
4. Class discussion
5. Communication style
Page 15 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Comments regarding program:
__________________________________________________________
IV. Facilitator
1. Knowledgeable of subject matter
2. Presented materials clearly
3. Promoted discussion and involvement
4. Made an effort to involve all participants
5. Responded appropriately to questions and comments
6. Kept the discussion focused and moving toward stated objectives
Comments regarding facilitator(s)
_______________________________________________________
V. Overall program rating
Poor
1
2
3
Fair
4
5
6
7
Good
8
9
10
Excellent
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Comments________________________________________________
VI. Planned Actions
1. Please indicate what specifically you will do differently on the job or in school as a result of
this program.
a. _________________
b. _________________
c. _________________
2. As a result of this program what do you estimate to be the increase in your personal
effectiveness, expressed as a percentage? _________________%
3. What may keep you from applying what you have learned in this program?
______________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
4. Which target group is best suited for this program?
__________________________________________________________________
5. Please share any information you believe would help us to improve this program.
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to complete this evaluation. Your comments and reactions
are important to us and will be used to help us improve future offerings.
Page 17 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment
Appendix V
Evaluation Form Level 2
Role Play Assessment
Skill to be Demonstrated
Unsatisfactory
Needs
Improvement
Role
Model
Satisfactory
Use of Neutral Body
Language




Communicate the Core
Issue




Ability to Effectively Resolve
the Issue




Handling Objections




Page 18 of 18
Responding to Bias with the STAR treatment