Archives

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
09
Feb 24

Impact of Stereotypes and How to Solve it

Although we may not want to admit it, we all have experience with categorizing individuals into social groups. Whether it’s unconsciously or consciously, we should avoid it. Here’s why. Socially categorizing individuals or groups can lead to stereotypes and false representations of groups. It can also encourage further biases and acts of discrimination. Negative attitudes or prejudice can arise from stereotypes as well, which can have a negative impact on you and others. 

More specifically, stereotypes can cause you to avoid certain groups of people and create false beliefs about them (Allidina & Cunningham, 2021). Not only that, but stereotypes may cause you to believe individuals or groups of people possess certain characteristics. For instance, a common stereotype is that all Asians are smart. Although, this may be considered a positive stereotype compared to a negative one, such as blondes being dumb. There are still false beliefs and assumptions made about groups of people, which can be harmful. 

Using my two previous examples, stereotypes can be harmful whether they are positive or negative. A positive stereotype such as all Asians are smart is harmful as it labels them with specific characteristics and generalizes them as a whole. Also, it neglects to recognize diversity within the group. On the other hand, negative stereotypes such as blondes are dumb are harmful as they cause people to make faulty initial impressions about them. It can also promote an environment where expectations are expected of certain groups. Stereotypes is a problem that creates conflict and prejudice, but how do we solve it?

One option that is mentioned is the contact hypothesis. The contact hypothesis suggests that intermingling different groups of people where they can share a common goal is effective in reducing prejudice (Gruman et al., 2016). Along with that, the contact hypothesis is associated with reducing discriminatory behavior and stereotypes being made. Besides the contact hypothesis, how can we solve stereotypes? 

Allidina, S., & Cunningham, W. A. (2021). Avoidance begets avoidance: A computational account of negative stereotype persistence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(10), 2078–2099. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001037

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., Coutts, L. M. (2016). Applied Social Psychology : Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems(3rd ed.). : SAGE Publications.

Uncategorized — No Comments
15
Feb 22

Diversity Among Us

Take a moment and observe the people around you. They probably look, think, and behave differently. However, diversity extends beyond one’s outer appearance. It arises from ethnicity, religion, social class, and sexual orientation (Gruman et al., 2017, p.384). These differences make us who we are.

Although diversity fosters creativity and new perspectives, it has its consequences. This happens when we are not willing to accept the differences of others. We develop negative attitudes, or become prejudiced, towards a social group. Oftentimes we learn these attitudes from family members and are exposed to them at a young age. This might make it difficult to change one’s beliefs. However, this is not an excuse to treat others poorly. When we act on these negative attitudes, we discriminate towards a group or its members based upon their categorization (PSU, 2022, L06).

Our society has constructed social norms that are guidelines for how individuals are expected to exist and behave. Failure to abide by these rules and adhere to these expectations leads to social inequality for the minority non-conformists.  One of the existing factors that determines one’s position in society is their sexual orientation. In contemporary society, heterosexuality is considered the accepted norm, especially considering its roots in religious history. Members of the LGBTQ community are targeted and victimized by individuals from the dominant majority group. They face prejudice and discrimination in large institutional practices such as law enforcement, the military, churches, and the workforce. For example, presidents over the last twenty years have differing positions on the acceptance of gay and transgender individuals in the United States Military. According to Gruman et al. (2017), “there is always a bit of danger, however, in looking to large groups for explanations of differences in individual behavior…because they are never completely homogenous” (p.393).

Our legal system and law enforcement authorities have engaged in unfair lawmaking and discriminatory acts towards LGBTQ members. Some states created laws banning same-sex marriages and prohibited living arrangements amongst homosexual couples. Cohabitation is common among same-sex couples since they cannot be married legally. Homosexual couples are not granted the same marriage rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. Therefore, they lack federal benefits such as Social Security, inheritance of their partner, and the ability to jointly file tax returns. There have also been instances where public authorities, such as the police, have harassed them. Homosexuals have been taunted, mocked, beaten, and wrongfully accused by members of the police force.

Another institutional practice that unfairly treats LGBTQ individuals is churches. Religion plays a huge role in what is deemed morally right and acceptable. Certain churches believe it is sinful to be homosexual, often claiming it is the devil’s conquering of the soul that leads to this behavior.  The Church teaches to hate the sin but love the sinner, implying that homosexual behavior is sinful.  Some members of the church who are homosexual end up being rejected and banned from returning. The last institutional practice is the workforce. Many LGBTQ members feel that they need to keep their identity a secret so that they are not judged or discriminated against. Some fear that they may risk losing their jobs, receiving a lower salary, or being harassed if they reveal their identity. They are also unable to provide health insurance for their partners under many company provided insurance plans.

Although LGBTQ members are stigmatized for violating social norms and face serious consequences, they continue to fight for equality. There have been several acts of human agency aimed to bring about change. There have been LGBTQ movements, parades, and protests to try and bring awareness of the inequality of the treatment they receive. Memorial services and candle lit ceremonies are common to recognize the LGBTQ members who passed away from suicide or from being victims of violent acts against them. In recent decades, more and more LGBTQ members have been “coming out” to their peers, family, and society. Some people decide to be role models for those scared to “come out” and be advocates for change and equality. The more people that stand together to promote change, the greater the attention it will receive.  Many LGBTQ movements have been aired on the news and have articles written about them. Social media is a great source to help spread awareness to this problem. I think these types of uprisings and events will bring about change and reform in society. I believe the key is educating people on the topic and making them aware of the mental, physical, and emotional harm it causes. The majority of people existing in the social “norm” need to realize that despite our differences, every one of us are human beings with feelings, and deserve the same rights, benefits, and freedoms as everyone else.

 

References

Gruman, J.A., Schneider, F.W., & Coutts, L.A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2022). Lesson 06: Intergroup Relations and Diversity. In PSYCH 424: Applied Social Psychology. Course offered through The Pennsylvania State University’s World Campus.

Uncategorized — No Comments
07
Oct 19

Double Discrimination for Disabled Workers

Often times when we think of discrimination, we think of injustices against people of color and women in a variety of settings like criminal justice, civil rights, and education. Unfortunately, discrimination stretches much further over many groups of people like those who are physically and mentally handicapped. Those with disabilities are often discriminated against in the workplace and lose many opportunities that other groups of people are afforded. Many of those with disabilities stay unemployed because employers do not want to or cannot accommodate for their disabilities. Although the American Disabilities Act is supposed to protect those with disabilities from experiencing this type of treatment, it is still prevalent in today’s society.

Currently, there are about 61 million people in the United States that have a disability that impairs normal functioning and daily activities (CDC, 2018). Unfortunately, of those 61 million people with a disability only about 19% of them are employed according to the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). Many of them are unemployed because they are physically or mentally incapable of working, but many also are unable to find jobs that will cater to their needs or be open to hiring them. Many employers hesitate to offer employment to disabled applicants because they have an uniformed or ignorant perspective on what disabled people are capable of in the workplace. One research study examined viewpoints of several employers and what their concerns were pertaining to hiring disabled applicants (Bonaccio et al., 2019). This study found that many employers believed that disabled applicants were underqualified and were concerned that they could not ask questions pertaining to the disability that would determine if they were qualified. Employers also expressed concerns over the costs attributed to hiring a disabled person like adding wheelchair access to buildings or flexibility of schedule. Many of these concerns are just due to ignorance because studies have shown that the costs related to accommodating disabilities are not as excessive as presumed and can even save a company money because of the many tax credits available to employers that hired disabled works (as cited by Bonaccio et al., 2019). It seems that U.S employers exhibit as Gruman, Schneider, and Coutts (2017) describe as uncertainty avoidance because they perceive that by hiring those with disabilities, they are accumulating a high amount of risk. If more employers were educated on disabilities and how many are capable of effectively working even with the circumstances surrounding their disability, I believe there would be a dramatic decrease in unemployed among the disabled community.

Within the disabled community, even after being hired with a disability many experience discrimination within the workplace. Many disabled workers experience harassment, unequal pay, and even get laid off or fired without reasoning. In one study that analyzed many of the circumstances of discrimination in the workplace for those who had sensory (learning disabilities, hearing, and vision impaired) and non-sensory disabilities (Graham et al., 2019). For both non-sensory and sensory disabilities, involuntary termination was ranked the number one complaint of discrimination while those with non-sensory disabilities rated harassment as the third most prevalent discriminative action. Those who had sensory disabilities were less likely to be promoted or receiving training compared to all other disabilities. Many of those with disabilities may experience relative deprivation, which is the feeling that they are deprived of the same opportunities and capabilities of an able-bodied person (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2017). They may try to compensate with this deprivation by seeking employment opportunities so that they can achieve independence and a positive social identity within society.

It is unfortunate that in today’s society, our disabled are becoming the forgotten people in the workplace. They often try to seek employment so they can provide some financial security and independence especially with their higher medical costs that can become crippling. It seems that many disabled people are stigmatized on both sides of the workplace. They are stigmatized and discriminated against when applying for the position because employers do not understand or do not want to hire disabled workers for the concern of liability. They are also stigmatized once they are hired and as a result are subjected to harassment, lack of opportunities, and wrongful termination. Fortunately, technological advances are allowing more disabled workers to be hired like in the case of Starbucks that has expanded its stores to include technologies that allow deaf and visually impaired workers to work as baristas.  Hopefully with more education and social contact with those that are disabled more employers would be open to hiring those with physical, mental, and behavioral disabilities.

 

References

Bonaccio, S., Connelly, C. E., Gellatly, I. R., Jetha, A., & Ginis, K. A. M. (2019). The participation of people with disabilities in the workplace across the employment cycle: Employer concerns and research evidence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9602-5

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, August 16). 1 in 4 US adults live with a disability. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0816-disability.html.

Graham, K. M., Mcmahon, B. T., Kim, J. H., Simpson, P., & Mcmahon, M. C. (2019). Patterns of workplace discrimination across broad categories of disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 194–202. doi: 10.1037/rep0000227

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. (2017). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, February 26). Persons with a disability: Labor force Characteristics Summary. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.

 

 

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
07
Oct 19

Football and Discrimination

I love the New England Patriots, but when I say that, especially after someone has already met and spoken to me, they immediately give me a look. Most of the time their face is filled with disgust. You would think that would bother me. Does it? Absolutely not. I love my team, win or lose.
The New England Patriots is an in-group I belong to. In-group means when someone categorizes themselves as a part of a group they feel committed to. I promise you, I am 100% committed. Now, there are many teams that I don’t like which would be the out-group (any other groups seen as potential rivals). Being the fan of a winning team, clearly, we have some rivals. We won today 33-7 against the Redskins.
What’s interesting is how this could play out in real life relationships. I do know plenty of people who are a part of the out-group regarding football and my in-group. That has not affected my relationship with them in any way. We’ve remained friends that hang out. I mean my best friend is an Eagles fan and I dated a Giants fan at one point in my life. For others that is not the case.
Prejudice is a set of attitudes towards members of a group. There are some that have prejudices against fans of other sports teams. For example, I could say that I do not like Seahawks fans (this is actually not true, but they were the first team to come to mind), but I wouldn’t allow that to stop me from working with one or hiring one when I used to work in HR. I even hired Steelers fans.
Discrimination is an overt negative behavior towards a person based on his or her membership in a group. Discrimination has begun to play a large role in sports teams and relationships. A lady I was acquainted with discussed with me that she refused to date anyone that was a Redskin’s fan (she loved the Cowboys). A coworker of mine gave up her love for the Cowboys to become an Eagles fan to keep the peace in her home with her fiancé. Personally, I could never and secondly, I would never have thought to use that as a determining factor on dating someone.
Stereotypes can also be projected based on your in-group, by out-group members and vice versa. Stereotypes are defined by Gruman as beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of members of certain groups. When I worked in HR, an interviewee saw my Patriots lanyard and tried to make a funny remark about if I like the Patriots, I must be a cheater too. He thought it was funny, I however, did not.
Statements and actions like those create conflict. They go beyond the original reasons why two teams are rivals in the first place. This is how things get personal. While I use football as a way to relax and release stress by yelling at my television as if Coach Belichick and Julian Edelman can hear me calling out plays, others may use a win to feel validation over other people as a part of their emotional significance attached to their membership to that group.
Social identity reflects a sense of identity based on the social groups to which individuals belong or with which they identify according to Gruman. A sports fan’s commitment to their group may include putting down others.
While I do believe that contact hypothesis which is “the assumption was that positive contact with members of an out-group could decrease negative stereotyping of the out-group by the in-group and lead to improved intergroup relations” (Gruman, 2017) could work in other situations. It’s important that both parties feel relatively equal in power and status, but with sports, if a team loses, you can throw that notion out of the window.

Gruman, J. A. (2017). Applied Social Psychology. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781506353968/

create an entry — No Comments
17
Feb 19

Ageism in the Workplace

I am going to start this out with a personal story: the setting is a corporate office. I am sitting across the table from my manager and longtime friend. It is time for my yearly review. I have worked for the company for nearly four years.

I am a 28 year old woman and sitting across from me is a man approaching his 67th birthday.

He begins by paying me many compliments, and gushes about what a great employee I have been. I thank him and say what a pleasure it has been working here. He continues by telling me how critical I am to the team and reminds me of all of the policy and operational changes I have implemented over the years and how those changes have really helped the company. I thank him again and begin to state that I love working here and see myself moving up within the company, hopefully one day soon. He looks a bit troubled by my comment and then gets up to close the door. After the door is closed, he looks me in the eye and says that he would like to “level with” me. He then tells me that while he thinks that I have done an incredible job, there are others within the agency, such as his boss (whom I also do quite a bit of work for) that have actually advocated against me to a certain degree. I asked what he meant, and he stated that they “see me as a child, and that is all they will ever see me as”.

This was a devastating blow, as I had just let him know that I was looking for advancing my career within the company. His boss, is a 78 year old woman. Her and my boss have both stated in multiple meetings that “millennials are all idiots who don’t know anything about real world experience or how to actually put in a hard day’s work”. I have butted in on occasion, as one of two under 40 year old employees in our department to state that that is simply not true, however they respond with “we weren’t talking about you, no need to be defensive”; but now it seems that this is exactly what they were talking about. Those in power in my department happen to be two generations ahead of me, and now I am told that it does not matter how hard I work or how much qualifying experience I have—I will never be able to move up at this company because of my age.

“Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age” (U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). There are some laws that have been put into effect that are meant to keep discrimination out of the workplace. “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older” (U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). However, this does not protect those who are discriminated against for being too young. “The Supreme Court has established that an employer does not violate the ADEA by providing preferential treatment to older worker over younger ones, even where the younger workers are over the age of 40” (Midwest New Media, 2019).

Social dominance theory indicates that all individuals belong to groups and each group provides resources, both physical and cognitive, for the people that belong to the group; therefore people are motivated to protect the group, so that it in turn can protect them. In this theory, people are believed to be always motivated to protect the group(Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012). This theory also indicates that society is arranged by systems of group-based hierarchies and the persons within those groups are typically motivated to behave in ways that perpetuate and continue those established hierarchies. Age demographic is an easily discernable factor in identifying an individual belonging to one group or another.

Discrimination is not always black and white and thus our laws regarding it should perhaps not be so black and white.“In the recent discrimination case, General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc v. Cline, No. 02-1080, 540 U.S. (2004) the company and its union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that offered retirees health benefits only to those employees who were at least 50 years of age at the time of the agreement. A group of employees who were in their forties sued, claiming that the age requirement constituted illegal age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The Supreme Court held that the ADEA only prohibits discrimination in favor of younger employees and does not address discrimination that favors older workers” (Midwest New Media, 2019). Meaning that the ADEA does not protect anyone of being discriminated against for being too young, even the person is over 40.

“As of 2017 –56 million Millennials (those ages 21 to 36 in 2017) were working or looking for work. That was more than the 53 million Generation Xers, who accounted for a third of the labor force. And it was well ahead of the 41 million Baby Boomers, who represented a quarter of the total. Millennials surpassed Gen Xers in 2016” (Fry, 2018). This is the largest demographic who is entering or has entered the workforce and there are no protections for anyone in this age group in reference to policies concerning age discrimination. “More than one-in-three American labor force participants (35%) are Millennials, making them the largest generation in the U.S. labor force, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data” (Fry, 2018). I personally have been effected by the lack of protections for those who the older generation might consider as “under-aged”. It is sad to me that there is nothing I can do at this point besides look for other employment if I would like to move up in my career, but it seems under the current protections that is all I can do.

 

References:

U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2019). Age Discrimination. Retrieved February 14, 2019, from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

 

Fry, R. (2018, April 11). Millennials are largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Retrieved February 14, 2019, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: Sage.

 

Midwest New Media. (2019). Workplace Fairness. Retrieved February 14, 2019, from https://www.workplacefairness.org/age-discrimination#7

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
17
Feb 18

The Disturbing Truth of Workplace Discrimination

If someone were to ask you to provide a definition of three terms, specifically, stereotype, prejudice and discrimination, what would you say? How would you respond? What language would you use? Would you phrase your response in a positive or negative light? Most importantly, would you be able to effectively differentiate these three terms? It can certainly be argued that society has come a long way with respect to all three but the unfortunate truth is that they all still exist today. But, going back to the original question, what do they actually mean and why do they matter?

In order to grasp the purpose of this post, you need to know the definition of the above terms. A stereotype is a belief held by an individual, about certain characteristics or behaviors for members of a specific group (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Prejudice can be described as an attitude towards someone else based on specific group membership; when that attitude becomes an actual behavior towards another, it is referred to as discrimination (Schneider et al., 2012). For example, a stereotype regarding gay men is that they are all sexually promiscuous. An example of prejudice is when people say that they dislike all gay men because they are sexual predators. Discrimination can then occur when gay men experience negative insults or slurs based upon these common misconceptions.

The examples provided above are not just based upon observation; instead, they are all things that I have directly experienced throughout the last 10 – 15 years. Truthfully, I had never realized that I was the victim of discrimination until after high school. Looking back, it is easy to pick out examples of some truly unfortunate behaviors towards me. As the years have passed though, I have seen a decline in the amount of direct discrimination towards myself and others; however, it is still prevalent enough to warrant a discussion, specifically regarding workplace discrimination of LGBT individuals. Some people seem to be under the false understanding that LGBT individuals no longer face workplace discrimination, but the following statistics and studies paint a much different picture.

First, one in four LGBT employees reported experiencing employment discrimination in the last five years; the transgender unemployment rate is three times higher than the national average; nearly one in 10 LGBT employees have left a job because the environment was not welcoming; eight percent stated that this discrimination made their work environment negative and even worse, one in four LGBT adults struggled to put food on the table (Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, 2017). It is true that some states protect LGBT individuals within the workplace, but there is currently no federal law that prevents employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (Stern, 2015). In other words, there is no true consistency when it comes to protection for LGBT individuals. Some wonder how the EEOC can believe sexual orientation to already be illegal, without a true federal law. The short response is that it all relates to interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the EEOC believes it protects LGBT individuals, the current Department of Justice disagrees (Riotta, 2017) and the Supreme Court has refused to consider a case to make a final determination (Wolf, 2017). So why does this matter and what types of discrimination can occur?

András Tilcsik (2011) demonstrated that gay men encounter barriers in a hiring process because employers will more readily disqualify openly gay applicants than equally qualified heterosexual applicants. Additionally, gay job applicants were 40% less likely to be offered a job interview. Geographic variation was also found to be very high, with some states in the southern and midwestern U.S. showing strong discrimination practices and those in the western and northeastern states showing little discrimination (Tilcsik, 2011). Badgett, Sears, Lau and Ho (2009) demonstrated, by examining 10 years of data, that sexual orientation-based discrimination and gender identity discrimination was a common workplace practice in many areas across the country. Additionally, gay men were shown to earn approximately 10% – 32% less than heterosexual men and findings show that employers, sales clerks and some outside observers have treated LGB applicants or customers differently than heterosexuals (Badgett, Sears, Lau, & Ho, 2009).

In a more recent study, 37 percent of LG individuals had experienced workplace harassment during the previous five years, 12 percent had lost their job because of sexual orientation and 33 percent refused to be open about their sexuality within the workplace (Pizer, Sears, Mallory, & Hunter, 2012). Some people argue that they would prefer not to hear about sexuality in the workplace anyway, which is completely fair and understandable; however, the problem arises with the inevitable relationship discussions or common workplace banter. In having been in those situations, it may seem easy to simply ignore those questions or ask that they not be discussed but you then run the risk of being ostracized or being labeled as cold and rude.

There is no dispute of the fact that there have certainly been improvements relative to workplace acceptance of LGBT individuals. However, these improvements are not equally spread or applied in a consistent manner. Worse yet, even with some of these protections, levels of experienced discrimination still run high enough to warrant change. That said, the purpose is not to force a particular agenda; rather, the purpose is to provide awareness, especially given that stereotypes, prejudiced behavior and discrimination are very much still in existence. The question then is how can we go about helping to reduce this discrimination? What interventions can be implemented to ensure that we are providing a more equal and welcoming atmosphere? And if it may seem that these questions are of little importance, I can assure you that having been in some of these situations, you would certainly not want to be in them for yourself.

References

Badgett, M. V. L., Sears, B., Lau, H. S., & Ho, D. (2009). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination 1998-2008. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=faculty_publications

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates. (2017). 2017 Workplace Equality Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://outandequal.org/2017-workplace-equality-fact-sheet/

Pizer, J., Sears, B., Mallory, C., & Hunter, N. D. (2012). Evidence of persistent and pervasive workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibiting discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits. Loyola Law Review Los Angeles, 45(3), 715-779. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3wf4t3q9#main

Riotta, C. (2017, September). Trump administration says employers can fire people for being gay. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/trump-doj-fired-being-gay-lgbt-issues-jeff-sessions-673398

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Stern, M. J. (2015, July). EEOC rules workplace sexual orientation discrimination already illegal under federal law. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/16/sexual_orientation_discrimination_at_work_eeoc_says_it_s_illegal_under_federal.html

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice. Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586-626. doi: 10.1086/661653

Wolf, R. (2017, December 11). Supreme Court won’t hear LGBT job discrimination case. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/11/supreme-court-wont-hear-lgbt-job-discrimination-case/940028001/

Uncategorized — 4 Comments
12
Oct 16

Racism in the Justice System

Although the founding fathers of our nation did their best to ensure fair and due process of law when they established our justice system, there is a sickness that’s eating away at what we know as the due process of law. Racial bias is alive and well in our justice system, and it has been found to influence jury decisions and subsequent sentencing. Right now, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on two cases involving explicit racial bias that has affected juror deliberations and ultimately the sentences recommended by these juries.

Almost ten years ago, the Supreme Court asserted that it is unconstitutional to base decisions on the assigning of students to particular schools on race, regardless of the goal being the integration those schools. The opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority dismantled two school districts’ plans for desegregation and created obstacles inhibiting the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. He justified the Court’s ruling by stating that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

There are two cases before the Supreme Court right now that shine a light on the type of indisputable, unequivocal racial discrimination that fly in the face of the Chief Justice’s colorblind statement. The Court’s handling of matters of racism will decide the fate of two men and will also bring into focus the Court’s recurrent disposition to overlook the implicit racism that undermines our criminal justice system.

Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado and Buck v. Davis are two very distinct cases. Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez was convicted of allegedly attempting to grope two teenage girls. Dwayne Buck was convicted of murder. Mr. Pena Rodriguez received a sentence of two years’ probation and was required to register as a sex offender. Mr. Buck was sentenced to receive the death penalty. The similarity between these two cases arises in juries that were both contaminated with explicit overtures involving racist stereotypes, which in turn jeopardized the process of deliberation.

In Mr. Buck’s case, his own attorney called an expert witness during the penalty phase of the trial, Dr. Walter Quijano, who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to commit future crimes because he is Black. In Texas, where Mr. Buck was tried, future hypothetical danger posed, or “dangerousness”, is a factor that the jury must unanimously determine as existing in order to introduce the death penalty. The expert’s testimony was then utilized by the prosecutor during his closing arguments to convince the jury that Mr. Buck was too dangerous to not receive the death penalty. The jury subsequently issued a death sentence.

In Pena Rodriguez, the jury was in the middle of intense deliberations, when (according to two jurors’ affidavits) a juror who established himself as a former law enforcement officer, made a number of racist statements. Included in these statements were remarks that the defendant probably committed the crime because in his (the juror’s) experience, when he “used to patrol, nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” The juror also cast aside an alibi provided by a witness, who was also Latin, because the juror asserted that the witness was an illegal immigrant, even though the witness was in fact a legal immigrant. The jury was not able to come to a verdict on a felony charge, but instead found the defendant guilty of three misdemeanors.

Though in both cases the claims of racial bias are largely admitted to, the lower courts denied requests for relief due to obstacles in procedure. In the Pena-Rodriguez case, the Colorado Supreme court denied the racial bias claim based on the statute stated in the so-called Mansfield rule. The Mansfield rule states that jury deliberations are inviolable and does not allow testimony from jurors about those transactions, even in proceedings where jurors may have behaved improperly. It is now within the power of the Supreme Court to repair this error and elucidate that unequivocal, racist stereotyping during jury deliberations is so immoderate as to exceed any benefits awarded by the Mansfield rule.

In comparison, the lower courts have maintained that Mr. Buck waived his right to appeal the issue of the performance of his attorney in calling the expert witness and has defaulted in procedure on any claims in connection with the ineffective assistance of counsel. In this as well, Supreme Court precedent permits exception to such defaults in procedure, but lower courts maintained that Mr. Buck’s assertions weren’t “extraordinary” enough to warrant such an exception. The Supreme Court now has an chance to right the lower court’s improper decision that being subject to the death penalty because of racist stereotypes is not an exceptional circumstance.

These are just two instances of implicit racial bias in our justice system that are being heard by the highest court in our nation. The fact that racism is allowed in juror deliberations seems to undermine the entire process. Many jurors are sequestered from the outside influences of TV and print media as well as public opinion. Would it not also be prudent to ensure that juror’s explicit biases are not skewing their better judgment?

Buck v. Davis – Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from https://ballotpedia.org/Buck_v._Davis

Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007).

Peña-Rodriguez v. State of Colorado. (2016, July 1). Retrieved October 11, 2016, from https://www.aclu.org/cases/pena-rodriguez-v-state-colorado.

Totenberg, N. (2016, October 11). Supreme Court Hears Case On Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/497196091/top-court-hears-case-on-racial-bias-in-jury-deliberations.

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
12
Oct 16

[Criminal Justice] Yes on 62: Repeal the Death Penalty

yeson62logo

This November, voters in my home state of California will have two ballot measures to consider that will determine whether the state amends or repeals capital punishment. I will be voting “yes” on measure 62, which seeks to eliminate the death penalty. While the emotional desire to enact this ultimate punishment for murder can be strong, statistics demonstrate that it is an antiquated sentence that should be no longer be implemented. Here a just a few of the many reasons that capital punishment should be abolished not only in California, but across the United States.

It is racially-biased

The death penalty is a demonstrably racially-biased sentence. Study after study has shown that this sentence is disproportionally handed down to blacks convicted of murdering whites. In sum, “in 96% of states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern of either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both (Center, 2016). Check out this link to see a number of startling infographics on this bias and other drawbacks to the death penalty: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf .

It increases wrongful convictions

Both cognitive resource theory (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987) and generic prejudice (Vidmar & Schuller, 2001) increase the likelihood of jurors wrongfully convicting defendants in capital murder cases. This happens because the emotionally stressful nature of deliberating about the facts in a murder trial reduces a juror’s capacity to think rationally, because emotionally-charged facts are more salient than empirical facts. This in turn leads to a bias toward conviction based on the charges alone. Compounding this bias is the fact that jurors who are unwilling to impose a death sentence upon a guilty verdict are excused from serving on a capital case, yet “people who are able to give the death sentence as a punishment for a crime are much more likely to convict than the normal public” (PSU, 2016).

It doesn’t work

The possibility of receiving the death penalty seems like it would be an effective deterrent to murder, but this is an area where, again, the statistics reveal its inefficacy. For example, when surveyed, 88% of former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Lacock, 2009, in Center, 2016). Why? As Freakonomics author Steven D. Levitt points out, “no rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention” (Levitt, 2007). Incidentally, murder rates are lower in states without capital punishment (Center, 2016). No one wants to appear “soft on crime,” but when polled, even law enforcement officials concur that there are better ways to reduce violent crime (Center, 2016). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

 It’s expensive

Since California reenacted capital punishment in 1978, the state has spent approximately 5 billion dollars on death penalty cases and appeals, and has only executed 13 prisoners (“California proposition 62, repeal of the death penalty (2016),” 2016). No need to get out your calculator—that’s an astronomical $384,615,384 per execution. Repealing the death penalty in favor of a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is expected to save California taxpayers approximately 150 million dollars a year (“California proposition 62, repeal of the death penalty (2016),” 2016).

 

In short, abolishing capital punishment will not only lead to more accurate and equitable sentencing, but it will free up considerable financial resources as well. I can only imagine the reduction in violent crime that could occur if instead of acting on our desire to seek revenge for heinous crimes, we instead followed the recommendations of police chiefs, who believe that being able to hire and properly train more officers, along with greater access to social services, would be a much better use of funds. I hope that this fall California will join the other 30 states in which capital punishment is illegal.

Resources:

California proposition 62, repeal of the death penalty (2016). (2016). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_62,_Repeal_of_the_Death_Penalty_(2016)

Center, D. P. I. (2016). Deterrence: States without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Levitt, S. D. (2007, June 11). Does the death penalty really reduce crime? Retrieved October 12, 2016, from Freakonomics Blog, http://freakonomics.com/2007/06/11/does-the-death-penalty-really-reduce-crime/

PSU WC. (2016). Lesson 8:  The Legal System/Criminal Justice [Online lecture]. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802487/modules/items/21234175

 

create an entry — 4 Comments
27
Sep 16

New POTUS job requirement: “A presidential look”

What, exactly, comprises the “presidential look” that according to Republican candidate Donald Trump, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton lacks? Although he demurs when asked for specifics, stating “I’m just talking about general,” (Parker, 2016), it can be concluded based on his former comments about women in general and former female political opponent Carly Fiorina in particular that there are gender politics at play in his remarks (Estepa, 2015). Unfortunately, Trump is not alone in his doubts about whether someone who looks like Clinton (i.e. female) would be able to project the aura of authority the office of the Presidency requires. The uncomfortable truth is that hidden sexism operates in our society, and many of us are uneasy with seeing women in a powerful role.

Penn State psychology professor Terri Vescio explains the gender bias that operates in the political sphere as a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation, in which “the more female politicians are seen as striving for power, the less they’re trusted and the more moral outrage gets directed at them…[because] if you’re perceived as competent, you’re not perceived as warm. But if you’re liked and trusted, you’re not seen as competent” (Bush, 2016). This catch-22 for women in politics (and in business) undermines their support among both men and women, and because much of it is implicit bias, it is often unrecognized. For example, even within the Obama administration female staffers often had to struggle to make their voices heard until they struck upon a strategy of “amplification” whereby they mutually drew attention to each other’s significant contributions in order ensure that the proper party received credit for the idea (Eilperin, 2016). I point this out in order to be clear that sexism is an issue that transcends political party affiliation, and therefore we all stand to lose out if valuable contributions from women are silenced by oppression either blatant or subtle.

Hostile sexism is easier to recognize for what it is, but there is another side to sexism that is more insidious: benevolent sexism. For example, I would describe myself as a feminist, but when I took the “Are You Sexist” quiz offered by PBS.org, my results indicated that I hold a fair degree of subtle gender prejudice:

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-4-06-57-pmI encourage you to click the link above and see your own results – you might be surprised at what you learn about yourself. Anyone familiar with the Harvard implicit bias tests will recall that we don’t have to hold explicitly negative beliefs about others to be influenced by bias. Our implicit beliefs can lead us to behave in a manner which is discriminatory while we simultaneously think of ourselves as fair and considerate.

When you combine elements of hostile and benevolent sexism you get ambivalent sexism. We can see the interplay of these elements in Donald Trump’s statements about women, both positive and negative. Recently, professor Peter Glick, who along with Susan Fiske proposed the tripartite understanding of sexism stated, “Trump’s views are consistent with conventional ideologies that view women as wonderful…but with a catch” (Glick, 2016).

“Heterosexual men’s intimate interdependence on women (as objects of desire, wives, and mothers), fosters a ‘benevolent’ side to sexism. Benevolent sexism encompasses genuine warmth toward women, but only when they support rather than challenge men’s status, power, and privileges” (Glick, 2016).

Regardless of which candidate we choose to vote for in the upcoming election, I hope that we will all pay closer attention to our own assumptions about gender and competence. Often we hold women to different standards than men without realizing that we are doing so. In light of what I’ve learned in in this course (particularly Swim and Hyer’s (1991) research regarding women’s responses to sexist comments), I will not only strive to resist social pressure to silence myself, but will also do more to support other women as they work to make their voices heard. If enough men and women do the same, perhaps we can arrive at a point sometime in the future when saying that a female political candidate doesn’t look “presidential” will fail to cause some of us to nod in agreement.

Resources:

Allen, J. (2016, July 21). Anti-Hillary Clinton rhetoric has become dangerous and violent. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from American, http://www.rushhourdaily.com/anti-hillary-clinton-rhetoric-become-dangerous-violent/

Bush, D. The hidden sexism that could sway the election. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/

Eilperin, J. (2016, September 13). White house women want to be in the room where it happens. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/13/white-house-women-are-now-in-the-room-where-it-happens/

Estepa, J. (2015, September 10). Donald Trump on Carly Fiorina: “Look at that face!” . Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/09/10/trump-fiorina-look-face/71992454/

Glick, P. (2016). Benevolent sexism and the art of the deal. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-enquiry/201609/benevolent-sexism-and-the-art-the-deal

Parker, A. (2016, September 7). Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton Doesn’t have “a presidential look.” Politics. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/politics/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-doesnt-have-a-presidential-look.html

Santhanam, L. (2016, August 10). Are you sexist? Take this quiz. . Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/are-you-sexist-take-this-quiz/

 

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
05
Oct 14

Workplace Conflict between Departments

Stereotyping in the work place isn’t always about the individual features such as gender or race but sometimes it is as simple as the department you work for within the company. In almost any work environment there is a hierarchy of management and under that, departments. Is one department really that much better than the other, I would think not since all departments are necessary to keep the company running. This idea does seem to escape some upper management views when handling conflicts in the workplace and discrimination can happen.

conflict

This may seem overly exaggerated but it really can be true and the discrimination of either favoring one department or disliking another can take its toll on the employees involved. It is stated that “prejudice is an attitude toward others based solely on group membership” and it’s fairly sad how it can be that easy to judge or worse treat someone based on their group affiliation (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012). In corporations there seems to be disconnect between sales type employees and service type employees not just between themselves but also how management can treat them as well. This negative stereotype between departments can lead to conflict which can cause employee dissatisfaction, decreased productivity and turnover which can cost a company in many ways.

There’s no affirmative action or laws to help support you because you work in service versus sales, as it’s an internal conflict between departments that happens in companies every day and no one sees the need to fix it. Some may be even blind to the idea that this discrimination is actually going on because it’s never been pointed out and those who feel it are often afraid to speak up.

blindfold

The theory of relative deprivation can help shed some light on this issue. The theory implies “that a person may feel deprived of some desirable thing” and this conflict can be based when a person has compared themselves against this standard and then assumed to be deprived based on their own perception (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts 2012). This could be the feeling of an inferior department in feeling but maybe not actually as in importance. A perceived idea or feeling is just as real so it can be just as damaging to the morale of personnel.

This type of discrimination leads to department conflict and the “lack of cooperation between work groups is a major problem in organizations” but how to help improve this conflict and move forward (Katcher, 2014). Katcher mentions some suggestions that might be worth bringing up in your place of business such as an employee satisfaction survey, rewarding cooperation between departments or even just recognizing the problem (2014). An idea I set forth in my business is having joint meetings with a representative from every department to voice all department’s concerns and trying to address the issues at hand as one unit instead of separately. Also when we make improvements to a process we take employees from all departments to get different points of view to help understand each other.

What it comes down to is it can be a really easy problem to solve and get rid of the department discrimination but calling attention to it in the first place may prove difficult. Those who feel deprived may not want to speak up and others may not want things to change. In my opinion for a company to really thrive this type of discrimination really has to be eliminated because without everyone’s cooperation it’s just pieces of a puzzle and no one can see the big picture. Most have the same goal but different ways we are asked to achieve it in a business but if we really could all be on the same team just think of the difference in our work place.

Team Of 8 Blue People Holding Up Connected Pieces To A Colorful

References:

Katcher, Bruce L., (2014). Improving the Workplace: The Difference between Heaven and Hell. Discovery Surveys, Inc. The Discovery Consulting Group, 2014. Retrieved October 5, 2014 from https://www.discoverysurveys.com/articles/itw-109.html

Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A., & Coutts, L.M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

 

Uncategorized — No Comments
19
Jun 14

Strong, Effective and Ethical Lessons

“You’ve got to be carefully taught” is Rodgers and Hammerstein song form their musical, South Pacific, that was on stage during the1950’s (Norris, 2014). The musical is about romance, but it integrates issues of race and discrimination (Norris, 2014), and the song is about how discrimination is taught carefully, in long term. That phrase came to my mind when I watched the video, A Class Divided, about education experiment to teach stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination (Frontline, 1985). These issues have been around for a long, long, time, and some people who realized that these are social problem have been working hard to eliminate them. But the world changes slowly, and we seem to make real changes only through children.

Back in 1962, immediately after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Jane Elliott experimented on teaching her third grade students about discrimination (Frontline, 1985). For two days, she  made each of them experience real discrimination through provoking stereotyping and prejudice with usage of social psychological phenomena like cognitive errors, self-perceptions and bystander effect. Elliott first created stereotyping situation among the children by separating them into two groups by easily recognized physical traits as blue eyes and brown eyes. She started to make negative statements about one group, and the children easily accepted these new values associated with each group. They developed prejudice against another blue eyes or brown eyes depending on who was on top for the day. They alternated their discriminated role for one day each. And in those two days bystander effect took place that no one seemed to rescue another, that friends just accepted and watched when a person was being abused verbally, being told that the cause for bad performance was of the color of their eyes (Frontline, 1985).

As  I watched the section I through 3 of the program, I thought how dedicated Ms. Elliott is in adhering to the value of equality and trying to teach her children in the most effective way. With skilled editing of the video, when we see the expression of these children and hear what they said, we hurt with them when they are discriminated and are so relieved when children seem to understand the lesson but are happy again after the lesson is over. But when the program was applied to adults, the learning was not so straightforward. Some of the adults seem to have difficulty in accepting their new found truth that they discriminate people. It was painful to watch the experiment on adults, and it reminded me of Stanley Milgram’s experiment on obedience that adults was traumatized because they felt powerless against authoritative figure and that they could not find the courage to stop doing what they felt was wrong (Elliot, Timothiy, Wilson & Akert, 2010). And with adults, it was likely that belief perseverance, ignoring the evidence and keeping one’s own belief, happened to many participants.

Neither Elliott nor Milgram kind of experiment will be permitted in today’s academic world, because of ethical reasons and rights of the participants. I am glad of that, because I think I will carry the hurt and scar from these kinds of experiences, no matter how valuable the lessons are. But how else do we teach each other these important things in life? Without evoking powerful emotion, the learning may not last. I would like to suggest that for the most effective and slow but sure way to have stereotyping, discrimination, and prejudice controlled society is to teach children through activities like Elliott’s experiment, but integrate the coaching aspects into it. Introducing a new office that they can go confidentially to ask for advice when they are upset a week or so before the lesson takes place.  At this office, children will receive advice on how to handle discrimination situation, such as getting together with other like minded children to refuse together to do what they felt was wrong. This maybe more of self defense lesson, but maybe teaching self defense to children is slow but fastest way to decrease prejudice, stereo typing and discrimination in the world.

Resoucre

Frontline. (1985). A Class Divided. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

Norris, Michelle. (2014). Six Words: You’ve Got To Be Taught’ Intolerance. NPR. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/308296815/six-words-youve-got-to-be-taught-intolerance

PSU WC. (2014). PSYCH424: Lesson 10, Education. Retrieved from; https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych424/001/content/11_lesson/01_page.html

Scheneider, Frank W., Gruman, Jamie A., Coutts, Larry M. (2012)  Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Second Edition.

Skip to toolbar