Unconscious Bias and the 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 presidential campaign and election will be historic. It marks the first time a Black person (Barack Obama) and a woman (Hillary Clinton) have a real chance at winning the Presidency. Their viability as candidates symbolizes significant progress in overcoming racial and gender stereotypes in America. But closer analysis of the campaigns reveals that race and gender have placed enormous constraints on how these two Senators can run their candidacy. This is not surprising in light of the history of race and gender in voting and politics in America. But what is perhaps more surprising is how the campaigns have had to struggle not only with overt sexism and racism, but with unconscious, or implicit, biases in their campaigns. Recent research from social psychologists indicates that unconscious race and gender biases are widespread and influence judgment. Because existing anti-discrimination law is designed to combat overt, or explicit, biases, it does not address unconscious biases well. If even Senators Clinton and Obama, with an array of consultants and advisors behind them, find unconscious racism and sexism to be a stumbling block in what is nothing more than the most elaborate, grandest job interview of them all, then what must it be to the average Black person or woman seeking a job or promotion

Implicit Bias, Election \u2708, and the Myth of a Post-Racial America

The election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States signals that the traditional modes of thinking about race in America are outdated. Commentators and pundits have begun to suggest that the election of a black man to the nation\u27s highest office means that the United States has entered a post-racial era in which civil rights laws are becoming unnecessary. Although President Obama\u27s election means that explicit, open anti-black racism has largely faded, an analysis of the campaign\u27s rhetoric and themes suggests that unconscious racism is alive and well. Rather than suggest a retreat from traditional civil rights protections, the 2008 election calls for enhancing and maintaining efforts to ensure that civil rights laws address less virulent, but persistent, forms of racism that persist in America today

Unconscious Bias and the 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 presidential campaign and election will be historic. It marks the first time a Black person (Barack Obama) and a woman (Hillary Clinton) have a real chance at winning the Presidency. Their viability as candidates symbolizes significant progress in overcoming racial and gender stereotypes in America. But closer analysis of the campaigns reveals that race and gender have placed enormous constraints on how these two Senators can run their candidacy. This is not surprising in light of the history of race and gender in voting and politics in America. But what is perhaps more surprising is how the campaigns have had to struggle not only with overt sexism and racism, but with unconscious, or implicit, biases in their campaigns. Recent research from social psychologists indicates that unconscious race and gender biases are widespread and influence judgment. Because existing anti-discrimination law is designed to combat overt, or explicit, biases, it does not address unconscious biases well. If even Senators Clinton and Obama, with an array of consultants and advisors behind them, find unconscious racism and sexism to be a stumbling block in what is nothing more than the most elaborate, grandest job interview of them all, then what must it be to the average Black person or woman seeking a job or promotion

Barack Obama, Implicit Bias, and the 2008 Election

The election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth president of the United States suggests that the United States has made great strides with regard to race. The blogs and the pundits may laud Obama’s win as evidence that we now live in a “post-racial America.” But is it accurate to suggest that race no longer significantly influences how Americans evaluate each other? Does Obama’s victory suggest that affirmative action and antidiscrimination protections are no longer necessary? We think not. Ironically, rather than marking the dawn of a post-racial America, Obama’s candidacy reveals how deeply race affects judgment

Barack Obama, Implicit Bias, and the 2008 Election

The election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth president of the United States suggests that the United States has made great strides with regard to race. The blogs and the pundits may laud Obama’s win as evidence that we now live in a “post-racial America.” But is it accurate to suggest that race no longer significantly influences how Americans evaluate each other? Does Obama’s victory suggest that affirmative action and antidiscrimination protections are no longer necessary? We think not. Ironically, rather than marking the dawn of a post-racial America, Obama’s candidacy reveals how deeply race affects judgment

Implicit Bias, Election \u2708, and the Myth of a Post-Racial America

The election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States signals that the traditional modes of thinking about race in America are outdated. Commentators and pundits have begun to suggest that the election of a black man to the nation\u27s highest office means that the United States has entered a post-racial era in which civil rights laws are becoming unnecessary. Although President Obama\u27s election means that explicit, open anti-black racism has largely faded, an analysis of the campaign\u27s rhetoric and themes suggests that unconscious racism is alive and well. Rather than suggest a retreat from traditional civil rights protections, the 2008 election calls for enhancing and maintaining efforts to ensure that civil rights laws address less virulent, but persistent, forms of racism that persist in America today

Debate, Implicit Race Bias and the 2008 Presidential Election: Much Ado About Nothing?

The election of Barack Obama marks a significant milestone for race relations in our nation—on this much our debaters agree. The meaning of this milestone for the future of race-based policies, such as affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws, is where they disagree. Dr. Gregory Parks and Professor Jeffrey Rachlinski argue that any announcement of the arrival of a “post-racial America” is premature, as the presidential campaign actually revealed an implicit racial bias present in “most white adult brains.” The stereotypical criticisms of Obama, explicit racial references by supporters of opposing candidates, and “deeply racially stratified voting” were, in fact, “reflection[s] of how contemporary racism works.” Modern racism, they maintain, “operates not as an absolute barrier, but as a kind of tax on members of racial minorities.” Accordingly, race-based policies “can hardly be said to be unnecessary in a world in which the enormous resources Obama had available are necessary to combat bias.” Professor Richard Epstein believes that in the face one of “America’s great racial achievements,” it’s “almost incredible” that Parks and Rachlinski focus on “a list of the worst racial episodes” of the campaign. In doing so, he argues, they ignore the widespread praise that Obama garnered from “people of all races”; neglect the “vicious treatment” of his opponents; and fail to “place the question of implicit racial bias in its larger social context”—ignoring implicit sexism and the explicit biases exhibited in the fights over gay marriage and immigration reform. Ultimately, in regards to race-based policies, Epstein believes that the debate is a “sideshow,” as “any private individual or firm can hire a person for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.” Rather than utilizing public force to end such practices, it is better that “they should just die on the vine because people have consciously decided not to do business with them.