Lesson 19: Racial and Ethnic Minorities


Attention

Edward Thorndike was the first to do real research on the Halo Effect

The halo effect or halo error is a cognitive bias in which one's judgments of a person’s character can be influenced by one's overall impression of him or her. It can be found in a range of situations from the courtroom to the classroom and in everyday interactions. The halo effect was given its name by psychologist Edward Thorndike; subsequent researchers have studied it in relation to attractiveness and its bearing on the judicial and educational systems. (Wikipedia Link)

What halo effects do we have about race and ethnicity? What do we assume based on a person being Muslim?


Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of this lesson's material, students will be able to:

  • Explore the sociological definition of "minority"
  • Explore personal experiences with racial or ethnic friction

Teaching

Race and Ethnicity  

A race is a category of people who have been singled our at inferior or superior, often on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture and eye shape.  

An ethnic group is a collection of people distinguished, by others or by themselves, primarily on the basis of cultural or nationality characteristics.

Looking at these two definitions it challenges the common use of these terms.  We often think of topics such as "racial identity" and we are certainly hearing a lot of reports about "ethnic groups" worldwide right now.   We study these topics as we have learned that we can see inequality in our society and in the world that correlates highly with a person's race or ethnic background.   Most interesting is the term race, and it’s connection to an assumption of superiority or inferiority.   

Within a given society there are majority (dominant) and minority (subordinate) groups.  Do not let the terms "majority" and "minority" trap you in an interpretation that these have anything to do with numbers.   In any organization (including societies) there is often a pyramid shaped distribution of power (dominance). 

Small numbers of individuals residing at the top of the pyramid have a disproportionate amount of power and influence when compared to the masses below them.  

In Sociology we refer to majority and minority groups not so much in terms of their numbers, but in terms of their power and influence.   Consider the following example:  

A few years ago there was a group of Mainer's that brought to referendum a bill that would disallow discrimination based on a person's sexual preference (what was commonly referred to as gay rights…though the bill was actually a civil rights bill)  

Those in favor of the bill argues that gays and lesbians were discriminated against by the dominant members of society and therefore should afford protection that provides for suits and litigation based on other forms of discrimination again other groups such as blacks.  

One of the reasons that the bill may have failed is because gays in our country do not, as a group, fit the description of a "minority" (sociological definition).  A minority group, or a group that has attained "minority status" must present that due to its status as a group they have not been able to access education, jobs, and other parts of regular living in our country.   When we look at the statistics we see that the exact opposite is true.  As a group, gays have higher education, more money in their banks, higher paying jobs, etc. etc. than other groups.  By this standard they could not be considered to have minority status which would provide them with the protections that other minority groups have.

Prejudice and Discrimination  

Prejudice is a negative attitude based on faulty generalizations about members of selected racial and ethnic groups.  

Stereotypes are overgeneralizations about the appearance, behavior, or other characteristics of all members of a category.  

We hear these terms in the news a lot as well.  Although many of us may feel that we are not prejudiced or do not carry stereotypes about categories of people, most of us do.  They were often part of our social upbringing.   Some stereotypes that we may have might include our perceptions of people who are gay, rich, Muslim, wife-beaters (batterers), and alcoholics.   

STOP and think for a minute!  

As you were reading the categories of people I just listed…did images pop into your head at all…possibly exaggerations that you saw in the media or funny incidents you may have encountered, possibly some not-so-funny incidents?   These represent the stereotypes that you carry with you.  All of us have them.  Remember also that stereotypes can be positive.  By this I mean that we can carry positive stereotypes about people such as "blacks have more rhythm and dance better" or "Chinese students are better at Math".  These can be just as harmful and certainly interfere with our accurate perceptions of others.  

Prejudice occurs when we find out that a person is a member of a category for which we have a stereotyped image.  Let us say that you have a strong image of what rich people are like and then you find out that a person you know is very, very wealthy.  You may assume that some of what you assume is characteristic of rich people also applies to them.  

Discrimination is defined as actions or practices of dominant group members that have a harmful impact on members of a subordinate group.   Having discussed with you that many individuals carry a lest some stereotypes around in their head and may even be prejudiced in their assumption that they are accurate…the real problem enters when we actually treat people according to our prejudices rather than reality.  

Sometimes we can engage in Individual Discrimination where we treat a particular individual differently based on our stereotypes.    Sometimes an institutions or organization can engage in

Institutional Discrimination when the day to day operations of a business have an harmful impact on a subordinate group.   

Institutional Discrimination is often times hard to identify.  Let's look at KVCC for an example!   In the nursing program there are very few male students.  In fact, there are very few male students in any of the allied health programs.  Conversely, there are many more males in the electrical and line-worker programs than there are women.  

Now, one can argue that the principle reason for this difference is based on gender-role and gender-work expectations in our society.  However, a good sociologist would also explore whether or not the institution was participating in any practices that might contribute these numbers.  Let's look at some possibilities.   (I'm making this stuff up so don't assume that these activities are actually going on here at KVCC!)  

Consider what may happen if the faculty and staff responsible for recruiting new nursing students hung posters at the daycares and shopping malls in the area.  I'm not sure what the statistics are but it may be that these locations would be more likely to be noticed by women than men since they spend more time in these locations than men do.  

Now consider that the faculty and staff responsible for recruiting students to the line worker program contact all the teachers of industrial arts at local highs schools.  Again, I’m not sure about the statistics but would the students taking industrial arts in high school be mostly men?  (I might be reflecting my own prejudices here!)  

This said…policy makers have tried to provide incentives to companies and schools to be more fair and ultimately reduce the incidence of institutional discrimination (it is nearly impossible to legislate individual discrimination).  

Laws that have come to be knows collectively as Affirmative Action and the advertising of companies hiring policies as providing equal opportunity reflect this move towards fairness.  

Affirmative Action concluded that if you look at a school or a company in a particular geographic area and then recorded demographic information from the area, the demographics of the employees or students should match the area.  

For example:  If a small city in Maine consisted of 52% women, 32% blacks, 12% Hispanics, 10% Muslims, etc. etc. then the composition of the local college student population should reflect similar numbers.  (52% of the students should be women, etc. etc.)   This is where the concept of quotas came into being. 

Administrators monitoring their numbers compared to the local demographics were sometimes forced to hire possibly less qualified individuals who helped them approximate the demographics.  Some wonder if the time has come to set aside the laws of Affirmative Action and begin to look at the problem from another point of view.  

Some assume that the root of all discrimination is at the individual level.  Policy makers, hiring professionals, owners of businesses will conduct their business in some ways which reflect their personal views on equality and equal opportunity.   Efforts such as the "Jigsaw Classroom" technique are targeted at younger people and emphasize cooperative learning among various groups as a way to teach principles contradictory to discrimination.   I am of the opinion that it is not enough to learn the ways and cultures of various ethnic and racial groups…we need to have the opportunity to interact with and work with various individuals in a cooperative, mutually dependent manner if we are to overcome our discriminatory ways.   (These practices may not remove the incidence of prejudice, but they may reduce the incidence of discrimination.)


Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Relations  

Symbolic Interactionist Perspective  

Just as I stated in the previous notes that discrimination is at some level a product of individual choice and perspective, so does the symbolic interactionist perspective.   Advocates of this perspective support that contact with other groups serves to reduce the experience of prejudice and discrimination.  I agree, however, I would think that it takes more than simply contact.  The contact needs to be structured in such a way as cooperation is required to meet a goal and that the members of the "work group" be of equal status.  

Functionalist Perspective  

Societies can, from this perspective be viewed as organisms.  If we were going to take a "survival of the fittest" perspective on the survival of societies we might come to the conclusion that societies best suited to adapt to changes would be the most likely to survive (long enough to keep socializing the next generation).   Ability to adapt may be a function of the society's diversity.  A diverse group would have many different talents and skills and would, as a group be better able to deal with change, to adapt.   Societies incorporate diversity into them when groups become assimilated into the society.  Chinese culture, for example, has been assimilated into our culture to a very high degree, as it would be difficult to find someone who has not eaten at a Chinese food restaurant or seen a Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan movie.  

One of the challenges we face here in America has to do with one minority group which has NOT assimilated its culture into mainstream America.  Native Americans have been reluctant to accept being assimilated into mainstream culture mainly due to segregation into reservations, a general mistrust developed over generations of broken promises and agreements, and an unwillingness to allow their culture to be "watered down", meaning that in the process of assimilation one loses some components of the original culture as more strongly supported aspects of the dominant culture come into play.   (Anyone ever watch Star Trek and the shows regarding the "Borg"?)  

Conflict Perspective  

The conflict perspective looks at the problem of inequality in our society being generated along racial and ethnic lines.   There is poverty in America, but why are there a higher percentage of blacks vs. whites who are poor?    The conflict perspective also looks at trends in hiring and business where traditional concentrations of power (white males) continue this trend either through individual or institutional discrimination policies.  

Critical Race Theory  

An interesting perspective on inequality based on racial and ethnic lines is that it has become "expected and normal" in our society.  Consider this example.   Tiger Woods has become one of the most highly successful golfers in the history of golf.  Not only has he been successful on the course, but he has also been successful in the business he has created around himself.  He appears to be hard working, genuine, very friendly and all-in-all an easy person to get along with.   When he won his first Masters (the "Green Jacket"…incidentally, a tournament played at a private country club that disallows women to join) it was not his youth or hard work that was talked about, it was the fact that he was black.   Tiger himself downplayed this entire aspect of his success.   Consider, however, that the newspapers made headlines about a black man winning the masters…why would this be headline news?  Why would this sell so many newspapers?  Could it be that it was "news" because our collective expectations are that it would not happen?    Watch what happens when America finally elects a black person, or a woman, to the Presidency…   …they won't even cover the weather anymore!

Global Racial and Ethnic Inequality  

Ethnic and Racial based violence and war are rampant in our world.  The issues that are currently happening in the Middle East are all conflicts along the lines of ethnic background.  

Palistinian (mostly Muslim) and Israeli (Jewish) children have been getting along for generations.  Something often happens when they grow up and the age-old conflict over who's God gave who this piece of land continues.  

"Ethnic Cleansing" and uprisings have become common household terms.  Our recent war with Iraq has brought to light a great deal of ethnic based killing (although it may be concluded that the ethnic cleansing there had a lot of political ramifications as well…these groups were often in opposition to the dominant political party).  

"Superpower" nations, in cooperation with the UN, have been very involved in suppressing the ethnic conflicts around the world.  Modern nations have come to realize that there is strength in diversity within a nation (even when they do not practice equality perfectly!).  

These nations, including the US, are becoming more and more racially diverse themselves.  As we deal with our own inner "baggage" of inequality and discrimination, we are also trying to be an example of pluralism to the world.


Racial Diversity in the US

Click HERE to view a series of maps that depict racial diversity in the US.

Click HERE to review the questions on the US Census that relate to Race and Ethnicity

The Racial History of US Drug Prohibition

This brief article analyses the development of drug policy and how it relates to race as it was in 2001. One of the perspectives within Sociology encompasses that law can be a tool of those in power to keep those who are not in power in their place. This is an example of this kind of analysis.

Click HERE to download the document.

Race and Ethnicity in America

Article on Race, Culture, and Equality by Thomas Sowell
http://www.hoover.org/publications/he/2896296.html

The Brown University Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Race_Ethnicity/

Microaggressions

Click HERE to review a 2009 article by the APA on Microaggression


Assessment

Possible Class Discussion

Read the article above on Racial History of US Drug Prohibition...look up any internet based article using the terms "race" and "drugs". Provide the link to the article in your post and explore if perspectives about a link between race and drugs is still around.

Lesson 19 Quiz

  1. Write a brief reflective essay evaluating the validity and your personal perspectives/experiences on the concepts around Microaggression.