African American Progress: Four Intergroup Ideologies

African American Progress: Four Intergroup Ideologies

On the heels of the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation slowly made its way onto the national stage and into the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which banned segregation at the federal level. Since the 1964, however, an onslaught of public policies and ideologies continued to limit African-American economic and social progress. The battle for marriage equality in Loving v. Virginia preceded by Perez v. Sharp, followed by an era of sociopolitical colorblindness, created a demand for assimilation while ignoring diversity and cases of great economic and social discrimination for black Americans. Black identity, which was once impossible due the tyranny of slavery, was formulated out of the civil rights movement in an effort to formulate a collective memory of black American struggles. And no matter what intergroup ideology was used, segregation, desegregation, or colorblindness, none automatically reduced prejudice between ethnic groups. However, a new approach called multiculturalism is starting to show promise.

As the American civil war ended, a measure of success in the fight for equality was brought to African Americans. But between 1870 and 1890, southern legislatures and the U.S. Supreme Court adopted segregation as a way to defend white supremacy with the force of law like seen in the creation of the poll tax and requirements that voters explain constitutional passages to white election judges or pass literacy tests in order to vote. Because of loopholes like the grandfather clause that allowed poor and uneducated whites to vote, these laws reaffirmed the notion of black inferiority by implying that blacks lacked the intelligence and good character to be citizens. And further, the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson indoctrinated the phrase of “separate but equal” which encouraged the proliferation of these laws. The hallmark of the segregation laws was controlling the spaces in which people of African descent were allowed to occupy. Black Americans were not allowed to serve on juries, hold a public office, hold skilled occupations, enter movie theatres, museums or schools that were shared with white people. Instead black Americans were given separate entrances and even sometimes separate buildings to work or entertain. In most every aspect of life, even with the end of slavery and reconstruction promising improvement, black Americans were still perceived as inferior to whites (“Encyclopedia of African American history”).

By the 1960’s, the United States saw mass demonstrations for civil rights and a call to end segregation. But not everyone seemed fully committed to the idea. Rather than insisting on legal segregation for all public facilities, masses of white southerners opted simply to leave urban centers and withdraw from tax-funded, public spaces. Many embraced seemingly race-free philosophies that emphasized individual freedoms: the rights of home owners to select buyers for their properties, of business owners to operate without undue regulation, and of parents to choose schools for their children, free of government intervention. Less visible but equally damaging to the cause of genuine racial equality, these ideologies fueled the rise of a new conservative coalition in American politics, a movement that flatly rejected federal attempts to remake social relations, including race relations.

Hannah Arendt, in her essay “Reflections of Little Rock,” suggests that desegregation of schools infringes on the private right of citizens to choose with whom they socialize. Ardent suggests the state’s role is to uphold the “equality” of “separate but equal” but not to end segregation in education. While not in favor of the unequal treatment of segregation, Ardent believes that education is part of a so-called “social realm” untouchable by politics (236-238). Her view overlooks the reality that living separate lives attributes to intergroup tensions and does not create the ability to fairly share public places with other groups. And as mentioned in the monumental 1954 case Brown vs. Board of Education, separate schools are inherently unequal. Furthermore, humans naturally self-segregate, and are free to choose their own friends, even in integrated schools.

Shortly after segregation ended and schools began to be integrated, assimilation became the new approach to intergroup relations. Assimilation is the idea that the minority should embrace and become part of the dominant culture, and grassroots organizations sprang up across the South in a last ditch effort to maintain white dominance. At its peak the membership across the South may have been as high as a quarter of a million, and frequently had cozy relationships with local mayors, police chiefs, state representatives, and governors. (“Encyclopedia of African American history”).

In the book Ralph Bunche: model Negro or American other? author Charles Henry asks that when assimilating, “do you concede the validity of racial groupings…or deny the existence of racial groups? If so, how do you explain the obvious difference in status and behavior among them?” (229-230). In an effort to protect their communities, black Americans during the 1960’s rioted and protested the societal pressures for blacks to simply “become white” and move up from the lower to the higher caste. In his book To be suddenly white, author Belluscio discusses the issue of assimilation as well as the idea that many whites perceived black Americans as “European Americans in black skin” (1-2). The civil rights movement, in part, solidified a unity and cultural identity to black Americans for them to remain “black and proud.” At this point, assimilation was impossible.

After the civil rights revolution became public policy, many assumed there would be "statistical equality" between whites and blacks in all categories from family income levels to loan-acceptance rates, automatically without any infiltration by government or public policy. After it was legal to integrate, the only thing necessary for a balanced economic and social system was to treat everyone as equals. Needless to say, this did not happen and the only explanation according to many liberals was that systematic racism was still rampant. An evaluation in 1978 found that desegregation alone did not reduce the prejudices of white towards blacks, nor did self-esteem increase among minorities in newly integrated schools (Stephan 218). To tackle these issues, new laws to further integrate schools and governmental agencies focused on affirmative action policies which strived to counteract prejudice.

Affirmative action, mostly, is a legal and social policy intended to foster equal opportunity and benefit underrepresented groups by placing more resources into the hands of those communities. Often these programs were developed to offer reparations or self-help principles or both as representing alternative approaches to the problem of persistent inequality and injustice in the United States. One example was the idea of offering compensation to the descendants of enslaved Africans for their ancestors' unpaid labor over the centuries (“Encyclopedia of African American history”).

These types of policies infuriated many conservatives. Rather than insisting on legal segregation for all public facilities, masses of white southerners opted simply to leave urban centers and withdraw from tax-funded, public spaces. Many embraced ostensibly race-free philosophies that emphasized individual freedoms: the rights of home owners to select buyers for their properties, of business owners to operate without undue regulation, and of parents to choose schools for their children, free of government intervention. Less visible but equally damaging to the cause of genuine racial equality, these ideologies fueled the rise of a new conservative coalition in American politics—a movement that flatly rejected federal attempts to remake social relations, including race relations. The growing conservative movement of the 1980s caused affirmative action increasingly to be attacked as “reverse discrimination” and as being harmful to both minority and majority populations. To them, to be truly equal, race or ethnic groups should not be the focus of any law. The reasons for inequality in the first place were not due to racism, but to the job and educational choices black Americans made. Further, continuing inequality is a result of innate deficits of character, culture, or intellect, not discrimination. It was not racism but the “culture” of black Americans that was hindering their rise. And since prejudice across the conservative south was on a steep decline after desegregation (mainly due to “cohort replacement”, where the older generation was replaced by the younger generation; a key role in tolerance of such polarized issues as interracial marriage), conservatives pointed to the newly changing attitudes. Since the midcentury in the south and across the United States, social acceptance of segregation and prejudice declined significantly (Firebaugh and Davis 267).  Conservative critics also pointed to advances in racial integration and the improved social and economic conditions of many African Americans as proof that affirmative action was no longer needed. Therefore, the criticism of affirmative action and other polices by conservatives was not about prejudice or racism, but simply a defense of conservative principles (Sniderman and Piazza).

Conservatives wished to remain faithful to the constitutional promise of equal rights by repealing affirmative action and other race or class-based remedies that are antithetical to a colorblind society. Colorblindness is a concealed, indirect form of assimilation, which says that racial categories have no relevance to one’s behavior, and ethnic group membership is immaterial to how everyone should be treated (Richeson and Nussbaum 417). Under colorblindness, everyone is the same, and should be treated and rewarded as an individual, not a member of any group or social category. The established American value of individualism is what made the colorblindness perspective so appealing to many conservatives, but also to many liberals as well (Schofield 233-234).

Liberals were highly motivated to follow a strict egalitarian approach to intergroup relations. They avoided discrimination and wished to treat others in equal ways. Many denied they even noticed race when describing others (even though a substantial body of data from research suggests that we are always aware of our own race and the race of others). Nevertheless, liberals had a strong commitment to an ideology that promised to provide a positive environment for interracial education while treating everyone exactly the same. Furthermore, colorblind policies are a useful tactic to protect an institution from charges of discrimination and help to minimize overt conflict, social awkwardness or embarrassment within groups. Not discussing or even acknowledging controversial issues such as race, disability, weight and the like in social situations can be a good, although temporary, strategy for conflict-avoidance. The assumed special treatment in many alternative policies like affirmative action is much more likely to spark controversy or conflict (Schofield 232-248). It’s easy to see then, on the heels of segregation, which sought to discriminate and treat people differently solely on the basis of race, that a colorblind approach, which claims no difference between people, would seem a worthy adversary to prejudice and racism. So by the mid-to-late 1990’s affirmative-action in many key states was abolished in favor of the colorblindness theory. Even in liberal California, Proposition 209 passed by a large majority in 1996 banning affirmative action in the state.

However, shortly after state-mandated colorblindness was seen as a widespread success, cracks in the theory were soon evident. The subject of race became a virtual taboo. The utilization of the words such as white and black to describe a racial group membership were highly frowned up and became a sign of potential prejudice. Negative affect related to taboo inhibited intergroup relations and predisposed people to react negatively towards others. Anger and stereotypes festered, while meaningful, helpful and fuller conversations about differences were strictly forbidden. In other words, colorblindness created a safe haven for prejudice to flourish. Discriminatory action of an aversive racist became difficult to challenge under the protection of a new colorblind society (Schofield 232-248).

And in the early 1990’s, after the Supreme Court issued three major decisions, lower courts released numerous school districts from the legal obligation to uphold desegregation. As a result, a gradual increase in racial “re-segregation” led to an increase in black dropout rates. Among the worst being the 50% drop in minority enrollment in University of California schools after the state dropped its affirmative active policy (Lutz 27). And further data shows that health, education, employment, housing, and voting rights discrimination persisted and that this discrimination limited the life opportunities of individuals from these groups. Failure to diversify police and law enforcement agencies is connected to the persistence of racially discriminatory policing (racial profiling) and to a situation in which dramatically disparate numbers of black Americans and Latinos (compared to whites) are incarcerated in greater and greater numbers. Affirmative action was part of the effort to fix some of these remaining issues.

Even while GPA’s remained the same between blacks and whites, LSAT and SAT scores were far lower among blacks. One reason for this, according to a lecture by U.C. Berkeley attorney Ronald Cruz, is testing bias. On many standardized tests, black Americans consistently answered questions differently than white Americans (Men and women differed in answers as well) and the “white answers” were chosen as the correct answer. Furthermore, many minorities switch their answers as if they were answering them as “white,” suggesting the standards used for many tests discriminate against diverse answers. Other explanations may include a lack of role models or diverse educational material for minority students.

English teacher Dottie Blais, in her essay “The Peril of Color Blindness” was faced with a young black student’s objection to her assumed colorblind curriculum, “You ought to quit trying to make us white…All of these stories you’re making us read are by white people, about white people.” Nonverbal behaviors, or unknown biases, then, could be interpreted by blacks as a sign of prejudice and making them suspicious, which increase racial tension. Blais concludes that if she had chosen to even acknowledge race in her classroom she could have been more inclusive instead of exclusive which would allow her students to fully explore their own cultures through literature “that extended and enriched the traditional canon.” (1-6). Standardized testing and lack of diverse material without the protection of affirmative action harmed minorities.

Colorblindness and “political correctness” in theory may have seemed like a positive step in the right direction, but instead, the reluctance to recognize differences impeded efforts to effectively deal with each other. Colorblindness in many cases, led to anxiety of appearing racist, avoidance of interaction and advocated reducing, eliminating, and totally ignoring category memberships. Colorblindess may cause more rather than less racial bias because it denies what other inevitably see, requiring a sort-of Orwellian perspective on race, see and not seeing at the same time. In many cases, colorblind perspectives served to maintain rather than dismantle social stratifications. Furthermore, colorblindness did not value a poor-class culture or similar modes of behavior because individualism rewards those who strive to advance into mid-to-upper level classes. Racial discrimination is an additional characteristic of the culture of poverty as the burdens of poverty are systemic and imposed upon certain members of society. These burdens can lead to the formation of an autonomous subculture with distinctive social structures, norms, values, and practices that underpin social identities and behaviors. Colorblindness encourages individualism while it simultaneously discriminates against differences, and eventually inhibits the development of positive relations between groups (Schofield 233-249).

Today there is a growing amount of research dedicated to the benefits of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, or dual-identity model of intergroup relationships, embraces differences and looks to form a consensus among the experiences of diverse groups. One main model to a successful multiculturalism approach is called the Intergroup Contact Theory designed by Allport (1954) which has our main components: 1) Equal status: no group is above the other, 2) Common goals: both groups work on a shared task (In the workplace intergroup tensions are at their lowest), 3) Acquaintance potential: the opportunity to befriend others of different groups and 4) Support of legitimate authorities: public figures and law enforcement can disambiguate and legitimize certain actions.

Coupled with this theory, increasing exposure to out-group members can increase positive evaluations of the out-group and decrease prejudice and stereotyping Consistent with Intergroup Contract Theory prejudices are also reduced by having lived in multiracial neighborhoods or attended interracial schools. Furthermore having a diverse friendship networks is also related to positive attitudes towards cross-race contact (Allport, 1954).

Multiculturalism is a more promising route to interracial harmony. The simultaneous embracing of both superordinate and subordinate group membership reduces prejudice and anxiety, and empowers minorities to present a different point of view. Children from heterogeneous schools show less bias in ambiguous scenarios, more positivity to cross-race contact than children in homogenous schools. Multiculturalism has significant consequences for shaping public policy, and describes important ways in which an ethnically diverse society can exist and simultaneously reduce tension and prejudice which will benefit all groups considerably more than a pure assimilation or colorblind approach. (Richeson, Jennifer A. and Richard Nussbaum 417-423)

The biggest oversight of the colorblind approach was the assumption that we could simply ignore race. Failure to use the most diagnostic information to distinguish people (height, weight, hair color, gender and race) is a strategy that impairs communication and performance. In a study by Norton et. al (2006), avoidance of race was associated with whites making less eye contact with and appearing less friendly toward black partners. Overall, colorblindness did not reduce the tendency for people to group themselves by such factors as race, socioeconomic status, or academic achievement.

Instead of ignoring diversity we should be embracing and encouraging it. Multiculturalism advocates celebrating category memberships and cooperative relationships without dismantling group boundaries or identities. These ideas help reduce interethnic tension and promote curiosity, empathy, positive discussion and longer summaries of interaction between individuals of different groups.

---------------------

Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice. MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1954. Print.

Arendt, Hannah. “Reflections on Little Rock.” Dissent (1959). 47-58

Belluscio, Steven J. To Be Suddenly White: Literary Realism and Racial Passing. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006. Print.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964)

Cruz, Ronald. U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. 14 November 2011. Guest Lecture.

Dixon, A. “Policing Bias”. In J. Marsh, R. Mendoza-Denton, J. Smith (Eds.), Are We Born Racist?: New Insights from Neuroscience and Positive Psychology. Boston: Beacon Press, 2010. Print.

Encyclopedia of African American history, 1896 to the present: from the age of segregation to the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Online.

Firebaugh, Glenn and Kenneth E. Davis. “Trends in Antiblack Prejudice: 1972-1984: Region and Cohort Effects.” American Journal of Sociology. 94.2 (1988): 251-272. Print.

Henry, Charles. Ralph Bunche : model Negro or American other? New York:  New York University Press, 1999. Print.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Lutz, Byron F. “Post Brown vs. the Board of Education : the effects of the end of court-ordered desegregation.” Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, 2005. PDF file.

Norton, Michael et. al. “Color Blindness and Interracial Interaction: Playing the Political Correctness Game.” Psychological Science 17.11 (2005): 949-953

Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Proposition 209: California Civil Rights Initiative

Richeson, Jennifer A. and Richard Nussbaum. “The impact of multiculturalism versus color blindness on racial bias.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004): 417-423

Schofield, Janet. “Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism.” Causes and Consequences of the Color-blind Perspective. Ed. John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner. New York: Academic Press, 1986. 231-253. Print.

Sniderman, Paul M. and Thomas Piazza. The Scar of Race. Boston: Belknap Press: 1993. Print.

Stephan, Walter G. “School Desegregation: An Evaluation of Predictions Made in Brown v. Board of Education.” Psychological Bulletin 85.2 (1978): 217-238. Print.