This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the University of Texas’s diversity admission policy. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court held that carefully crafted admissions policies that consider racial diversity as one factor in creating a well-rounded student body is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
This is a major victory for universities, social justice, and our nation. In communicating about the case, our messaging should promote the importance of diversity policies to the nation and praise the Court’s recognition of their importance. After reviewing the Justices’ decisions, it may also be appropriate to critique the dissenting opinion as short-sighted interpretations that would have held our increasingly diverse nation back at a critical time.
Topline Message:
Today’s decision is good news for all Americans. We are thrilled that four members of the Court ruled in favor of equal opportunity in higher education and recognized that, in this post-University of Missouri America, it is critical that schools remain able to encourage diverse and inclusive student bodies. As the leading opinions noted, the national interest demands that talented students from a variety of backgrounds get a close look and a fair chance at overcoming obstacles to higher education. Providing a diverse learning environment benefits students, our workforce, and the country as a whole. Indeed, the Court’s decision makes clear that more of America’s educational, business, and other institutions should be pursuing fair and thoughtful ways of fostering diverse participation.
More broadly, our communications about diversity policies and this decision should emphasize the following themes:
Expanding Opportunity: It’s in everyone’s interest to see that talented students from all backgrounds get a close look and a fair shot, and have the chance to overcome obstacles to educational opportunity.
The Benefits of Diversity: Learning with (and from) people from different backgrounds and perspectives benefits our students, our communities, our work force, our military and our country as a whole.
Preventing Racial Isolation: In a post-Ferguson, post-University of Missouri America, it is more important than ever that schools build student bodies that foster meaningful diversity that does not isolate any one group.
Our National Interest: Fostering educational diversity and greater opportunity is critical to our nation’s future in a global economy and an increasingly interconnected world.
Broad Support: Diversity policies, and the UT policy in particular, are supported by a broad cross-section of American society, including military leaders, major corporations, small business owners, educators, and students from all backgrounds.
Finally, while hailing the Fisher II decision, communicators should note that the Court’s affirmance of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Texas by an equally-divided court, while creating no precedent, will exact significant hardship on families, communities, the economy and our nation. Praise for Fisher II should not spill over into praise for the Court in general, given today’s mixed outcomes.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on President Obama’s executive actions on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA+) on April 18. This case is of extreme importance to millions of immigrants and their families, to communities across the country, and to our national identity.
Here are a few tips on talking about the case and the oral argument:
Lead with values.
Family: At its core, DAPA is about keeping families together. Eighty-nine percent of those eligible for the program are parents of American citizens.
Justice: These programs are about justice for millions of workers, parents, students, and neighbors who just want to contribute to and participate in this country, like anyone else.
Our National Identity: This case is about who we are as a country―one who welcomes or one who excludes. We can’t allow the rhetoric of fear and hate win out over common sense and inclusion. The extremists who brought this case to the court are blocking real solutions that affect real people and families, and they’re doing it to make a political point.
Stress that DAPA and DACA+ are commonsense solutions and well within the law.
It is the president’s lawful right to take executive action to set priorities on immigration enforcement. President Obama is enforcing existing laws passed by Congress, using discretion granted to him by Congress. President Obama’s deferred action initiatives are practical, legal, and in line with actions taken by other presidents from both parties.
Every president since Eisenhower has taken executive action to shape immigration priorities over the last 50 years, including presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Most Americans would agree that a father or mother of a U.S. citizen or a young person who came to this country as a child are not priorities for deportation, which is what DAPA and expanded DACA establish.
This case is about all of us.
Ensuring full economic participation and contribution of millions of American families will create jobs and add billions to our tax coffers.
A ruling against DAPA and expanded DACA won’t just impact immigrant families―it will impact everyone. Our communities don’t want to experience the chaos of tearing families apart or making it harder for some folks to work and support a family. Inclusion and participation make our communities strong. Targeting parents of American citizens for deportation only weakens them.
Based on recommendations from the DAPA/DACA+ Communications Workgroup Messaging Guide.
Background on United States v. Texas
On November 20, 2014, President Obama issued a series of executive actions that clarified immigration priorities. These executive actions expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and initiated the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA). These initiatives allowed qualified individuals to come forward and request a grant of deferred action on deportation, de-prioritizing their deportations. These programs also granted recipients with temporary work authorization.
Shortly after Obama’s announcement of these executive actions, Texas and several other states challenged the actions. The judge in the Texas lawsuit, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Texas and the other plaintiffs. Judge Hanen held that Texas had standing because DAPA and the expanded DACA would require Texas to issue more state driver’s licenses, and thus presented a sufficient legal injury on the state of Texas. The court also held that the federal government did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Because of the preliminary injunction, millions of qualified immigrants are currently unable to seek relief under the expanded DACA and DAPA programs.
The United States government challenged the ruling and requested that the preliminary injunction be lifted pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, the Fifth Circuit upheld Judge Hanen’s holding, and the programs are still inactive pursuant to the preliminary injunction.1
The Supreme Court is now reviewing the challenge to the President’s executive actions. The outcome of this case will impact millions of immigrants. This case will also likely impact the discourse around immigration and may be an opportunity for political candidates to further articulate their positions on immigration.
1. Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d. 733 (5th Cir. 2015).
The U.S.-‐Mexico border and the communities surrounding it represent many things: billions of dollars in trade, shared histories and cultures between the countries, and home to millions of people. But these communities are also a pawn in political discourse and misguided calls to “secure the border,” all while avoiding a meaningful dialogue on reforming immigration policies and policing practices. The resulting buildup in border enforcement and policing has a profound effect on the individuals and families in the region, including those living up to 100 miles away from the actual border, and beyond. While this buildup disproportionately affects communities on our southern border with Mexico, many of Border Patrol’s misguided policies and tactics also affect the quality life for communities across our northern border with Canada. In fact, roughly two-‐thirds of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of an international border.
This memo includes guidance for telling a story about policing in border communities that will bolster public opinion for positive policies that grow and sustain communities rather than policies that disrupt and divide them.
Current Public Opinion
Although policymakers most often connect border policy to conversations about immigration, it’s important to recognize that, for the millions of residents who call border communities home, holding U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) accountable to policing best practices is also a matter of promoting public safety and community trust. With roughly 44,000 armed officers, including Border Patrol, CBP is our nation’s largest law enforcement agency.
Support for increased enforcement in border communities is based on how politicians and the media portray those communities. The story that generates people’s concerns and bolsters support for enforcement is one of a chaotic border with little order, dangerous people, and drug and gang activities. That is not, however, the border region that most people living there would recognize. In fact, we know that most border residents feel safe in their communities, and that those communities are, in fact, among the safest in the country. 1 2
Misperceptions of border communities—and connecting their issues only to the larger debate about immigration—serve to fuel a dominant narrative that we must “secure the border.” As a result, we see a lack of support for commonsense policies at the border as current public opinion reflects concerns about the state of the border and translates to support for increased enforcement and policing.
We need to change the underlying story about border communities and policing in order to influence public opinion and change policy. Immigration advocates and others talking about border policies must move away from “border security first” messaging. We have to replace this failed messaging with an emphasis on economic opportunity, public safety, human rights, and community trust. Doing so will build opportunity for both immigration policy reform and policing reforms in border communities that put an end to military-‐style and discriminatory policing that offends American values of equality and justice. Below are three tips to consider when telling a new story.
1. Control the Context: Community vs. Chaos, People vs. Political Rhetoric
Telling stories about particular Border Patrol abuses and human rights violations is not sufficient to change the overarching story about the border region. As storytellers, it’s key to shape the entire narrative, centering it on stories about communities and people. That way, audiences have a picture in their heads of a community similar to their own, with similar concerns, challenges, and opportunities. It’s through this lens that they can better understand why excessive policing is a problem and why a militarized force is undesirable.
Sample Language
The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse. It’s home to millions of people, from San Diego to Brownsville, who want to be able to enjoy life in their communities the same as any of us. Families whose roots here go back centuries share the region with newcomers from around the country and around the world. It’s an economic cornerstone and international trade hub, and 1 in 24 jobs across the country depend on it. It is a region where responsible investment can be prosperous for the entire nation.
The border is more than a line. Millions of people live in border communities and many more know someone who does. Border communities have much to offer the nation economically and culturally, but these contributions have been stunted or overshadowed by an irresponsible buildup of border enforcement.
Focus on Goals, Values, and People
Research completed by a coalition of immigrant rights and border region groups in 2013 recommends relying on two main themes while telling this story: goals and people. Our goals should be to maintain the safety of our communities while upholding our values. And we should consistently insert people into the story to remind audiences that we are talking about communities, not barren desert or battle zones, as some of the rhetoric would suggest.
Goals: Values + Safety
We want immigration laws and law enforcement to uphold the American values of justice and fairness for all, while ensuring public safety. The current system is ineffective and it violates our values—it is unfair and inhumane.
People: Families, Workers, Children, Community Members
People sacrifice so much coming to America to make a better life, sometimes to escape desperate poverty and violence. Many are families with children. They work hard, pay taxes, and volunteer in their communities. They love America and want to contribute to our country.3
Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands. When Border Patrol agents racially profile and detain community residents who are commuting to work and school at checkpoints located up to 100 miles away from the international border, their biased policing offends American values of equality and justice and hurts public safety by creating mistrust.
Additional Sample Language
Throughout the Southwest border region, there are urban and rural communities with deep roots and a long history of diversity, economic vibrancy, and cooperation. Border communities, like communities throughout the country, are entitled to human rights, due process, and policies that recognize their dignity, humanity, and the constitutional protections that this nation values.
Unfortunately, policymakers have far too often thrown border communities under the bus by pursuing policies that are ineffective and wasteful for security. These injustices, which go against equality, fairness, and law and order, are frustrating to Americans and completely avoidable. We can and should make commonsense policy changes to uphold human rights and due process in all of our communities.
We live in a democracy, and Americans strongly believe that we should all have a say in decisions that affect us. But when it comes to policies that affect border communities, policy makers often ignore community voices and needs. For example, over protests from the community, the border has grown increasingly more militarized as we dump money into drones, checkpoints, and guns. Instead, let’s look at policies that bolster trade and protect human rights at the border through investment in critical infrastructure projects and greater accountability for border agents.
2. Frame the Problem: A Threat to Values
Law enforcement abuses, excessive policing, and militaristic strategies on American soil are central issues in border communities, but they are only part of the problem. The core problem to focus on in telling a new story about border communities and policing is how these tactics threaten the values we hold dear as a country, including protecting due process and human rights, respecting the integrity of communities, and spending our resources wisely.
Rights Violations
Research shows that when talking about these issues, more people are persuaded by conversations that begin by examining what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of values we want to uphold, than by those starting with a focus on the rights of certain groups or individuals, or on specific rights violations—like illegal searches and seizures.
Community Disruption
Paint a picture of checkpoints and daily routines disrupted because of misguided enforcement. Show how racial profiling affects community members, and how law enforcement’s shameful treatment of U.S. citizens and immigrants in border communities does not reflect the kind of country we want to live in.
Sample Language: Op-Ed Excerpt
Unchecked abuse and corruption within Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must be part of any discussion regarding the US southern border and the time has come to talk about reforming the agency. The Obama administration has the means to move us forward and should do so immediately.
Earlier this summer, the administration released a report calling for significant reforms to CBP to prevent widespread corruption and expand much-‐needed oversight. CBP has come under increased scrutiny as a nationwide debate continues around law enforcement’s relationship to communities, especially communities of color.
For years, CBP has failed to hold its officers accountable when they use excessive force and kill unarmed civilians. The agency fails to document and report racial inequities in who its officers stop and search, and fails to detect and deter counterproductive racial profiling that undermines values of fairness and equality. These excesses infringe daily on the rights and dignity of border communities and their residents, who go about their daily lives up to 100 miles away from the physical border yet experience CBP permanent checkpoints and patrols in their neighborhoods. For example, a recent report based on more than 50 complaints in New Mexico and Texas discovered abuses such as racial profiling, unjustified searches and detentions, physical and verbal abuse, intimidation, and interfering with emergency medical treatment. Ninety percent of people reporting these abuses were U.S citizens and 81 percent were Latino.
These incidents are not isolated. An investigation by Politico Magazine found that “between 2005 and 2012, nearly one CBP officer was arrested for misconduct every single day;” that CBP rapidly recruited agents without proper vetting or supervision, making systemic misconduct highly likely; and that, by 2014, the number one criminal priority of the FBI’s McAllen, Texas office was investigating Border Patrol agents.
A review of over 800 complaints provided by CBP’s Office of Internal Affairs reveals that CBP failed to hold officers accountable in 97 percent of the cases in which Internal Affairs completed an investigation. Almost 80 percent of the total complaints are based on physical abuse or excessive force. The rest are based on abuses including misconduct, mistreatment, racial profiling, improper searches, inappropriate touching during strip searches, or sexual abuse. In May, the former Chief of Internal Affairs, James Tomsheck, came forth as a whistleblower, saying that he witnessed a “spike” of more than 35 sexual misconduct cases between 2012 and 2014 and an agency culture that ignored and swept away corruption. A lawsuit brought by mothers and children seeking asylum last summer alleged that CBP officers applied coercion to dissuade them from getting an attorney and asserting their legal rights, in violation of domestic and international law.
Unacceptable Tactics: Racial Profiling
Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to Americans who are wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.
To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.
Define the term racial profiling and fully explain that it is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and is a rights violation, and counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.
Too often, law enforcement, including Border Patrol, use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent, instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety. Border Patrol—part of our nation’s largest police force—should stop claiming to play by different rules than those expected of local police and hold its agents accountable to end this ineffective, harmful practice.
Offer multiple real-‐life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide multiple examples that include “unexpected” people of color—e.g., business people, faith leaders, honor students—who’ve been wrongly stopped.
Wrong Priorities: Misguided Spending
Current border policies and spending violate our values. We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending toward drones, weapons, and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.
Sample language
For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitated protections to civil liberties.
Instead of pouring more money into unnecessary and excessive drones and police forces, we need investments in the ports-‐of-‐entry and infrastructure. Instead of giving Border Patrol free reign and tacitly accepting human rights violations, we need to hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.
3. Redirect: Talk Choices and Alternative Solutions
Remind audiences of the goals for any policing policy: what does any community want and need from law enforcement? Safety, respect, transparency, and accountability.
When people are detained or profiled, we want to make sure they are treated fairly and that law enforcement respects rights like due process, equality before the law, and access to courts and lawyers—bedrock American legal values.
Keep Solutions Front and Center
Audiences need ideas about what does work and they don’t respond well to attacks on bad policies alone. The public does not respond well if they believe a speaker is only suggesting that existing laws not be enforced and conversations without positive solutions can quickly turn to support for enforcement measures.
Instead, focus on and give context to everyday border residents—college students, mothers and fathers, or business owners—who feel the effects of biased and military-‐ style policing by Border Patrol and are relatable to your audience. Americans understand that policing based on evidence versus bias is not only more effective, but also upholds our values of fairness and equality. Many communities nationwide also relate to concerns of military-‐style policing that emphasize using force over prioritizing de-escalation and protecting the paramount value of human life. When we contextualize Border Patrol abuses as offending our values and hurting everyday border residents, we help our audience broaden their lens and understand more fully who is affected by irresponsible policing practices.
Clearly State Who Should Do What
We need to assign responsibility when talking solutions, making sure we are clear about what we are asking of different entities.
Sample Language
The White House should direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prohibit the use of racial profiling. CBP should document racial and other inequities in who officers stop, question, and search and publicly share that data. It should also train its officers on Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, on prohibitions against racial profiling, and on implicit bias.
CBP should scale back military-‐type tactics and equip its officers who interact with the public with body-‐worn cameras paired with privacy protections. CBP should also reduce its zone of operations from 100 to 25 miles from the actual border, and determine in which areas an even shorter distance is reasonable.
DHS should establish an independent Border Oversight Task Force that includes border communities and has subpoena power over government officials so it can investigate and hold accountable abusive officers. It should also mandate greater oversight in order to end inhumane detention conditions; physical, sexual, or verbal abuse; and inadequate access to medical care. These are just the first steps of many that should be taken.
1. Border Network for Human Rights, Polling Report
A central goal of any community is the safety and security of its members. Police can play an important role in achieving this goal. But, like many aspects of our current criminal justice system, the role of law enforcement has been overemphasized, overfunded, and outsized to proportions that no longer serve the goal of community safety and security. We need to take a close look at the factors that really cause communities to feel safe and identify what’s working and what’s not. This means examining the role of police closely and talking to target audiences about what needs to change so that we can get closer to the goal of safety and security for everyone.
In a democracy, we have a special relationship and agreement with those people who police our communities. Communities need police to be accountable in the ways they serve and protect, to listen to community needs and recommendations, to hold officers accountable for wrongdoing and brutality, and to make the right judgment calls when events get heated or dangerous. In return, police need communities to invest in them and in their safety.
This agreement between communities and the police relies on a number of things to work: trust, respect, and a shared desire that people are treated fairly and equally, to begin with. But it also relies on thorough training, an understanding and respect of rights, policies that guide the people who comprise law enforcement toward the goals communities want policing to fulfill, and timely and meaningful consequences for officers and departments that don’t advance those goals. When any of these pieces are missing, we can see a breakdown in relations between communities and police. And too many groups—people of color, young people, LGBTQ individuals, low income people, sex workers, and other communities in marginalized situations–bear the burden of this breakdown, finding their communities over-‐ or abusively-‐policed and disrupted because of outdated and misguided policing strategies.
This memo offers ideas about starting the conversation about the role of police in our communities and how to direct decision makers toward the solutions that realize true safety and security for all communities.
Lead with a Positive Vision and Shared Values
Audiences connect with messages that reflect their values and articulate a better world. Outline a transformative vision of what safety really means to communities, and what we need to do to ensure all communities feel safe. Then work from there to describe what effective, accountable, and transparent policing looks like.
Start by reminding audiences what communities really need, beyond the enforcement of laws, to be safe. There are a number of important factors necessary to meeting this goal, ranging from community cohesiveness and economic stability to laws that protect people’s rights and property. Police are part of the equation, but their role is often overemphasized at the expense of other equally or more important factors.
This vision can include what police should be doing more of but also what other public struc-‐ tures should take off their plate. For instance, while police should be thoroughly trained in mental health issues and how to work with people who are experiencing problems that impact public safety, police should not be, by default, the first interaction a person has with the mental health system. Other public structures, such as mental health, substance abuse, and homeless services, should be brought to scale so that the police are not expected or relied upon to play a role they are not qualified to play.
Some values to engage audiences in conversations about policing include:
Equal Justice – the assurance that what you look like, the accent you have or how much money you make should not affect the treatment you receive in our justice system. Current disparities in the application of laws violate this value.
Our Founding Principles/The Constitution – the Bill of Rights outlines important rights and ideals that we should strive to uphold. While we have often fallen short of these ideals, they should still guide how we treat people.
Basic Rights/Human Rights – the guarantee of dignity and fairness we all deserve by virtue of our humanity.
Voice – the idea that we should all have a say in the decisions that affect us and our communities.
Community – the notion that we share responsibility for each other, and that opportunity is not only about personal success but about our success as a people.
Safety and Security – we all want to live in communities where our family and property are safe. We should work toward communities where individuals also feel safe from the police and police feel safe while doing their jobs.
Describe the Problem: The role of police, as with many aspects of our criminal justice system, has been over-‐emphasized and outsized, putting too many responsibilities on police and underemphasizing other factors that increase community safety. As a result, many policing approaches do not align with the values and goals of the communities police are meant to serve.
We need to examine the entire criminal justice system to identify where outdated approaches and laws lead to the overcriminalization of too many behaviors, rights violations, and decreased community safety and security. We then need to decide how police best fit into an improved system.
Much of the current culture and many of the practices of law enforcement agencies are out of step with the communities they serve. What we see today is a severe breakdown of trust and legitimacy between the police and low-‐income communities of color.
Instead of viewing the police as there to protect and serve, members of these communities often experience the police as there to harass, intimidate, and cause harm. Such a breakdown poses a threat to communication and public safety.
The underlying strategy of aggressively deploying police to address every level of community disturbance or problem, including relatively minor, noncriminal infractions, produces policies that then translate into practices that are destructive of both trust and public safety.
Police are expected to fulfill too many roles and address too many community issues including homelessness, substance abuse, school discipline, and issues related to mental health conditions.
Present Solutions: Updated police approaches that align with community needs and values.
Assign police the right responsibilities and limit negative contact. Public safety is a broad charge, and police should be involved with and work on a wide range of issues. But they do not need to be the leaders and certainly shouldn’t be the main representa-‐ tives to the public on all problems. The root causes of crime are complex and varied, and there are many approaches that we can and should take to address them before funnel-‐ ing people into the criminal justice system. Underscore that police departments are not, and should not be considered, the solution for many of the problems facing our com-‐ munities. We have the know-‐how to address the real issues without funneling people needlessly into a system that is not living up to our values.
Talk about the appropriate roles for police. Meeting quotas and performing an exces-‐ sive number of traffic stops for minor infractions that do not threaten public safety are a waste of police time. Instead, police should be available to respond to complaints and investigate crimes. Talk about why police are not the best instrument for crime preven-‐ tion and what works better.
Underscore the crucial role of data and transparency. It’s difficult to know how well or poorly police are performing without having access to data regarding demographic in-‐ formation about who they’ve stopped and why. Communities need to see that police are transparent about their treatment of its members.
Tell people what works. Put forward achievable shorter-‐term goals and solutions and show how they support the larger vision, including solutions beyond the police, who are far from the only protective factors of community safety.
Move beyond denouncing. Highlight positive solutions and alternatives that ensure equal justice and protect public safety. Use examples of positive policing strategies that communities have employed.
Audience Considerations
Many groups―people of color, immigrant communities, LGTBQ and progressive circles―already understand issues like systemic racism, unequal treatment, over-‐ reliance on force and arrest. Move them to action.
Other audiences want to believe recent stories of abuse and unequal treatment to be isolated incidents, and want to trust law enforcement (local police, border patrol, ICE, etc.) generally. Go above and beyond to connect the dots and show systemic barriers when talking with less engaged/affected groups.
Tips for Talking Racial Profiling
Lead with values: Equal justice, fair treatment, freedom from discrimination, public safety, and accountability.
Remember that 84% of the American public views racial profiling as a human rights violation.
Define the term and fully explain that racial profiling is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective police tool and is a rights violation, and counter those who believe racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.
Too often, police departments use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety.
Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to Americans who are wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.
To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.
Move beyond denouncing racial profiling alone and also highlight positive solutions and alternatives that ensure equal justice and protect public safety.
Racial profiling is an ineffective and harmful practice that undermines our basic values. Far too many immigration enforcement policies recklessly promote the practice. Any immigration policy reform needs to zero in on and eliminate this outdated and harmful practice.
Offer multiple real-‐life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide a wide range of examples of who has been wrongly stopped so that audiences can see the breadth of the problem.
Tips for Talking about Policing and LGBTQ Communities, Women, Sex Workers, and Homeless People
The goal of policing should be public safety, not harassment and intimidation. But harassment and discrimination continue to be a problem for many communities. Pointing out the special challenges these groups face when interacting with police can help audiences who are new to the issue understand how to improve policing so that equal treatment, respect, and rights are central to all police-‐community interactions.
Urge audiences to examine police culture and practices. Remind audiences that police are supposed to serve all members of a community and explain how current police culture often targets those who society already marginalizes. If police are meant to maintain “public order,” people who fall outside of the narrowest and most conservative views of an ostensibly “well-‐ordered” society can quickly become targets. Police culture should instead focus on respect, rights, and truly protecting everyone from harm.
Call for dramatic changes to police education around anti-‐LGBTQ violence so that officers respond appropriately. We also need to make sure that policies are in place that hold police accountable for their own behavior―both training them around working with LGBTQ communities and women, and enforcing zero tolerance policies on discrimination and sexual harassment.
Remind people that breakdowns in trust and communication are a threat to public safety. We all need to be able to trust that the police will protect us and when police have good relationships with the community, we’re all safer. Keep front and center the idea that law enforcement’s role should be more narrowly defined, and not sprawl out into encompass being first responders for substance abuse issues, mental health concerns, and other complex issues best addressed by those who are specifically trained to help people in crisis.
Talking about Violence against Police
Take a moment to acknowledge the loss and condemn violence. The loss of life is always a tragedy and we should speak consistently from our values on this fact.
We need to remember that we’re all connected to each other, even though we may deeply disagree on issues and solutions. One loss is everyone’s loss and we all need to take a moment to mourn each of them.
Give careful thought about weighing in on more specific issues after a police death. Is now the best time to talk about policies? What will audiences hear from and feel about your remarks? It may even be counterproductive to weigh in.
Remind audiences that we’re all looking for solutions that recognize our shared humanity, how we’re all in this together (or should be), and that the goal of bettering criminal justice policies, including police approaches, is to create a safer community. And ensuring the safety of police officers is a part of that work.
Usher’s new song and interactive video experience, “Chains,” are powerful statements on racial injustice and police violence. Together, they offer an important platform and news hook to build support and push for change. To maximize the impact of these compelling artistic works, this memo suggests ways of talking about the works’ themes, which can inspire supporters, persuade skeptical audiences, and counter opponents.
Click the image to watch “Chains” on Tidal
Sample Messages
We recommend framing messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action. For example:
“Usher’s new song and video are a powerful call for equal justice and police reform that echoes the hopes and aspirations of millions of people around the country. We need to work together to answer that call.”
Value:
“Our justice system is supposed to keep all communities safe and treat all people fairly—to give everyone equal justice.”
Problem:
“But there are too many cities and towns across the country where that’s just not the reality. In too many places, police officers are carrying dangerous stereotypes, violent tactics and, sometimes, tanks and military weapons. That’s bad for everyone, and for our nation.”
Solution:
“The good news is that there’s a lot our country can do to protect equal justice and safety for everyone. We have to challenge the stereotypes that we all carry with us, sometimes without even realizing it. This is especially true when police hold the power to determine the freedom, life, and death of so many black Americans.
“What’s making a difference when it comes to police bias and violence is better training, better information, real accountability for police abuse, and working to revitalize and support communities instead of just policing them. Young people, especially, have to be part of the conversation and part of the solution. Where that happens, it saves lives and builds stronger communities.”
Action:
“Contact your police department to make sure they are using proper training, accountability, and community policing.” OR “Sign the ColorofChange.org petition to create a federal database of police killings: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/policeforcedatabase/ ”
Additional Messages
The problem is widespread across our country. In too many places, police are more likely to stop, search, and detain people of color than white people in the exact same circumstances. They are more likely to use excessive force and to shoot and kill unnecessarily, yet they are far less likely to be held accountable for their actions.
We all need equal justice and freedom from police violence. That means both universal protections and addressing the particular types of discrimination and violence facing men and women of color, transgender people, immigrants, and other communities.
We know how to fix this. Experts and experience around the country point to concrete policies that can serve and protect all people and communities.
Racial profiling harms all Americans. It violates the American value of equal justice that we all depend on. It disrespects and discriminates against millions of young people and others around the country. It threatens public safety and can ruin people’s lives. It’s time to end racial profiling and focus law enforcement on evidence and public safety.
We need effective community policing that upholds equal justice and protects public safety. Police departments need training, rules, and oversight to avoid racial stereotyping. Congress must pass the End Racial Profiling Act to ensure fair and effective law enforcement that serves all Americans.
Sample Tweet: “New @Usher song #CHAINS a call to end police violence and discrimination. Take action by… http://chains.tidal.com/”
Sample Tweet: “Look in the eyes of victims of racial injustice and hear #CHAINS by @Usher @Nas @BibiBourelly_ #DontLookAway http://chains.tidal.com”
Suggested Answers to Frequent Questions about Usher’s Song “Chains”
Q: The song includes the refrain “light it on fire.” Isn’t that likely to incite violence of the kind we’ve seen in cities around the country?
A: “Light it on fire” is a call to shine a light on what’s happening and propel our leaders to take action. It’s the torch being passed to a new generation of young activists who are calling for peace and justice. The refrain “light it on fire” embraces all of those ideas.
Q: #BlackLivesMatter activists have criticized people like Martin O’Malley for using the phrase “All Lives Matter.” Do you think “All Lives Matter” is a racist term, or do you embrace it?
A: This is a human rights issue. Because everyone’s life is precious and because it’s black lives that are most at risk of police abuse and violence, we have to say loudly and proudly that Black Lives Matter.
Q: Some commentators have pointed out that far more black people are murdered every year by other black people than by police officers. Why don’t the song and video focus on that?
A: “Chains” talks about many types of violence and injustice. But when the police shoot and kill based on race and stereotypes, there’s an urgent need to address those actions directly.
Q: The song talks about shooting in church. Is that a reference to the Charleston church shooting?
A: Unfortunately, we’ve seen shootings in churches, in parks, on college campuses, and lots of other places. The shooting in Charleston was an especially terrible event, because it was motivated by racial hatred. The bottom line is that we have to make guns less available to people who want to hurt others. We have to get to know each other better across race, gender, and sexual identity, so that that violent impulse starts to fade.
Q: The song says “we’re still in chains” and “try to put me in chains.” Do you feel that black people are still enslaved in the United States? Have we made progress?
A: There has been progress since slavery and Jim Crow, but we still have a long way to go. Discrimination and stereotypes are still holding our country back. They deny people of color the opportunity for equal justice and access to quality education, housing, and well-paying jobs.
Selected Facts on Discrimination, Police Violence, and Equal Opportunity
The following facts and data can be used to support comments about the issues discussed in Chains:
African Americans killed by the police are twice as likely to be unarmed than are whites. The Guardian found “that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.”1
African Americans make up only 13% of the U.S. population and 14% of unlawful drug users, but are 37% of the people arrested for drug-related offenses in America.2
The job’s not done, but we’re seeing an important turnaround on discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices in New York City—as a result of protest, lawsuits, and action by the mayor and police commissioner. In 2013, police stopped New Yorkers 191,558 times. People of color bore the brunt of those stops: 56% were black, 29% were Latino, and 11% were white. So far this year, the stop-and-frisk numbers are way down (only 13,604 stops by the end of summer 2015), but black folks were still disproportionately stopped (56% of stops but just 25% of the NYC population.3; Alongside those changes, major crimes in New York City are near record lows.4;
The Los Angeles Police Department has made some important progress from the bad old days of the 1980s and ‘90s. There’s more to be done, but a positive example is a special LAPD unit that works with mentally ill folks in crisis to provide help and treatment instead of arrest or deadly force.5
The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that African Americans receive 10% longer sentences than white people through the federal system for the same crimes. Between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the Commission’s report, sentences of black men were 19.5% longer than those for similarly situated white men.6;
Communication Themes:
Lead with Values: Lift up the values and vision that motivate the song, video, and campaign – a society that keeps all communities safe and upholds equal justice and opportunity for all; commonsense approaches that respect the dignity and voice of all people and communities.
Talk about Problems with the System:Underline the systemic problems, not just individual injustices – a system infected with racial bias and stereotypes that turns to force and violence as a first resort instead of a last resort and, too often, lacks compassion or common sense.
Highlight Solutions: Point to the concrete solutions – policies as well as individual behavior change – described by the short film and by activists around the country. Training, monitoring, and accountability for police officers, for example, should go hand in hand with questioning our own biases and connecting across lines of difference.
Drive Audiences to Action: Always tell audiences what they can do to help solve the problem – joining an online campaign, contacting an elected official, donating money for change, or getting the word out through social media.
Additional Communication Resources
Additional communications tools, research, and examples include:
Our nation aspires to be a place where everyone enjoys full and equal opportunity. Unfortunately, there is a significant gulf between that goal and the daily reality for millions of Americans living in poverty. However, more Americans than at any other time in the past 50 years are ready to hear a new, more accurate story about poverty and to take action to address it. And most Americans—75 percent—think that unequal treatment of poor people is a problem.1
This is an amazing window of opportunity. Yet we need to proceed strategically in our messaging, as these positive attitudes also coexist with longstanding negative stereotypes about welfare dependency, government ineptitude, and irresponsible individual choices, as well as implicit and explicit racial, ethnic, and gender biases. We also face challenges in the form of growing economic inequality, corporate political power, and partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill. We should also be aware that as the economy gradually improves for some groups, empathy for people living in poverty may well diminish.
By combining a sophisticated communications strategy with ongoing research, advocacy, and other approaches, however, we can build public support for transformative change and tackle poverty in our country.
This memo shares what we’ve learned from our research on attitudes and opinions about poverty plus messaging advice for crafting compelling messages about poverty and economic inequality.
10 Tips for Talking about Poverty
Connect with shared values: Opportunity, Community (Interconnection), Mobility, Security.
Illustrate systemic causes, including the geography of opportunity.
Amply document unequal opportunity (not just unequal outcomes).
Use thematic storytelling with enlightened insiders, affected change agents, group stories.
Emphasize solutions— contemporary, historic, and visionary.
Describe the practical and moral societal benefits.
Be aware of implicit racial, ethnic, gender bias—avoid over-representation and stereotypes, explain current discrimination (including implicit bias).
Avoid “new poor”/“old poor” false dichotomy.
Tell a nuanced story regarding the role of government.
Offer a range of actions, from individual to societal.
Insight from Public Opinion Research
American attitudes toward poverty, poor people, and the role of government tend to be grounded in two competing—but not always mutually exclusive—sets of values: individualism and personal responsibility on the one hand and equal opportunity and interconnection on the other. In fact, people often hold conflicting opinions concurrently. For example, significant majorities of Americans simultaneously oppose cutbacks in aid to poor people and believe that poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs.
Additionally, our research shows a majority of Americans believe:
Living standards for the poorest Americans are an important national issue.
Poverty is mostly due to external circumstances, not lack of effort by poor people.
The government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor.
Government programs for poor people are a critical safety net that helps people get back on their feet in hard times, and should not be cut.
Income and wealth inequality hold back economic growth.
An increased minimum wage, improved education, and college access are important anti- poverty approaches that should be adopted.
Yet, a majority of Americans also:
Believe poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs.
Feel it is not the responsibility of government to reduce the differences in income between people with high and low incomes.
Believe poverty is an acceptable part of our economic system that does not need to be fixed.
Are unaware of most structural causes and solutions.
Hold negative racial stereotypes and beliefs relating to poverty.
Narrative, Messaging, and Storytelling Recommendations
Our research points to a need, as well as an opportunity, for anti-poverty leaders to communicate in new, more impactful ways. Our messaging recommendations include:
Craft a shared narrative and uplift each other’s voices and concerns. Anti-poverty voices are relatively prominent in the public discourse, but they are diffuse, lacking a coherent narrative that can persuade undecided audiences or counter the disciplined narrative of their most frequent opponents.
We recommend that while anti-poverty leaders and groups maintain their individual perspectives and priorities, they also craft a shared narrative in which they:
Emphasize the values of equal opportunity and community.
Highlight systemic causes.
Describe a path from poverty to economic participation.
Promote effective solutions and successes.
Invoke a positive role for government.
Shared messaging should build on public concerns about growing inequality, low wages, and long-term unemployment while educating audiences about less visible forces like racial and gender bias, globalization, and tax and labor policies.
Avoid the simplistic “new poor”/“old poor” dichotomy. The common storyline in news reporting on poverty is that the newly poor are victims of structural problems with the economy, and are generally viewed sympathetically, while those living in deep poverty (the “old poor”) are poor for other, largely unexplained, reasons. The framing of those stories also tends to reinforce inaccurate stereotypes about poor people, as well as race, and obscures systemic factors that affect both recently and persistently poor people. Communications should move beyond this illusory distinction. Consistent with that approach, stories about the challenges and progress of communities facing deep poverty are needed to ensure a full and accurate picture. Furthermore, the voices of people in deep and persistent poverty need to be heard.
Document and explain unequal obstacles. Researchers have amply documented the disparate obstacles that contribute to higher poverty rates among communities of color, women, immigrants, and other demographic groups. Yet there is still a dearth of reporting on those dynamics—and for that reason, among others, many audiences are skeptical that such obstacles still exist. Moreover, research and experience show unchallenged subconscious stereotypes will infect attitudes about poverty generally and erode support for positive solutions. Our communications need to both explore and explain this evidence, as well as tell the human stories behind it. A focus on unequal obstacles—not only unequal outcomes or disparities—is an important part of that formula.
Highlight systemic solutions for systemic problems. While news reports generally ascribe poverty to systemic causes, they do so through fleeting references to general trends such as plant closings, the scarcity of jobs, or the “weak economy.” Few stories explain root causes in any detail, and forces behind the disparate impact of poverty based on race, ethnicity, and gender receive practically no attention.
However, our research shows that a majority of Americans agree that “the primary cause of America’s problems is an economic system that results in continuing inequality and poverty,”2 so there is an opening for advocates to talk about the systemic underpinnings of poverty and system-wide changes needed to address it. Because Americans are not knowledgeable about effective solutions to poverty, anti-poverty policies and programs that have demonstrable positive results and (research pointing the way to positive outcomes) should be made more visible, as should the positive role that government plays in creating opportunity.
Build on policies with high levels of support. A number of anti-poverty strategies receive high levels of support from the public. Lifting up these popular solutions while explaining and promoting more complex or less popular ones can help to build broader and more lasting support. Solutions with the greatest support include:
Show the connections. The idea that we are interconnected and all in this together is crucial to the success of anti-poverty communications. Americans intuitively understand that increasing inequality and poverty hold back the economy and country as a whole and also create an environment in which serious social problems develop and worsen. But their thinking on poverty easily defaults to an extreme “personal responsibility” and “bad decisions” frame. Both showing and telling how we’re all affected and connected—through images, research, spokespeople, and storytelling, as well as specific messaging—is crucial.
Talking about Race and Poverty
Americans strongly believe that opportunity should not be hindered by race, gender, ethnicity, or other aspects of who we are. However, much of the public is skeptical of the existence of racial discrimination in particular, and negative racial stereotypes about poor people persist among many Americans. For example, in 2010, close to half of the American public (47 percent) agreed that “African Americans have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people because most African Americans just don’t have the motivation or willpower to pull themselves up out of poverty.”3 We need to acknowledge and confront these deep-seated stereotypes.
To do that, our messaging on poverty needs to take into account that race matters in at least four crucial ways:
Stereotypes and bias warp perceptions of poor people.
Stereotypes and bias can undermine support for solutions.
Views and beliefs about poverty differ significantly across demographic groups.
People’s conscious values on racial equity are generally more positive than their subconscious stereotypes.
Taken together, these trends call for talking about race explicitly and strategically, through the lens of shared values. Keep these guidelines in mind when talking about barriers that hamper opportunity for diverse populations and promoting solutions:
Show that it’s about all of us. Remind audiences that racial equity is not just about people of color; achieving racial equity upholds our values and benefits our entire society. For example, lax federal regulators allowed predatory subprime lenders to target communities of color, only to see that practice spread across communities, putting our entire economy at risk.
Over-document the barriers to equal opportunity—especially racial bias. Don’t lead with evidence of unequal outcomes alone, which can sometimes reinforce stereotypes and blame. Amply document how people of color frequently face stiff and unequal barriers to opportunity. For example:
DON’T begin by discussing the income gap between whites and African Americans
DO lead by talking about how studies have found that employment agencies frequently preferred less qualified white applicants to more qualified African Americans.
Acknowledge the progress we’ve made. This helps to persuade skeptical audiences to lower their defenses and have a reasoned discussion rooted in reality rather than rhetoric.
Present data on racial disparities through a contribution model instead of just a deficit model. When we present evidence of unequal outcomes, we should make every effort to show how closing those gaps will benefit society as a whole. The fact that the Latino college graduation rate is a fraction of the white rate also means that closing the ethnic graduation gap would result in many more college graduates each year to help America compete and prosper in a global economy—it’s the smart thing to do as well as the right thing to do.
Be thematic instead of episodic. Select stories that demonstrate institutional or systemic causes and solutions over stories that highlight largely focus on individual choices.
Use opportunity as a bridge, not a bypass. Opening conversations with the ideal of opportunity helps to emphasize society’s role in affording a fair chance to everyone. But starting conversations there does not mean avoiding discussions of race. We suggest bridging from the value of opportunity to the roles of racial equity and inclusion in fulfilling that value for all.
Engaging Strategic Audiences
Key to building the national will to address poverty is activating the base of existing supporters while persuading undecided groups over time. That, in turn, requires prioritizing strategic audiences by:
Activating the base. The most fertile ground for anti-poverty policy and activism lies with Progressives, African Americans, and Latinos. These groups should be prioritized for organizing and calls to action.
Persuading undecided audiences. Millennials, independent voters, women, and people of faith are disproportionately open and persuadable on poverty issues. White Evangelical Christians, for example, seem to be increasingly in play; 53 percent of them agree that “society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal.”4
Engaging those most affected. Public opinion research suggests that low-income Americans, while knowledgeable about the realities of living in poverty and interested in change, tend to lack information about structural causes and solutions, and are doubtful about their influence in society. Providing that information, and opportunities for leadership and civic engagement, should be priorities.
Create an Echo Chamber
Traditional and social media trends show a predictable pattern: national election events, the release of census numbers, budget debates, and anniversaries of anti-poverty and civil rights events reliably increase attention to poverty. Demonstrations, strikes, and major think-tank reports also frequently generate media interest.
We recommend that anti-poverty communicators:
Chart these “news hook” events well in advance.
Prepare a multi-platform media strategy that is proactive, builds upon the activity of high- profile voices, and lifts up the voices of those most affected.
Be more intentional and collaborative about sharing and jointly promoting new research and activities across the field.
These efforts should complement rapid-response communications when relevant, but unpredictable, events occur.
Every couple of generations, national values, demographic change, attitudes, and experiences converge to create the potential for transformative social change. We must leverage this moment of profound public openness to shift the discourse around poverty to change hearts, minds, and policy.
Build a Strategic Message
One formula for building an effective message is Value, Problem, Solution, Action. Using this structure, we lead with the shared values that are at stake, outline why the problem we’re spotlighting is a threat to those values, point toward a solution, and ask our audience to take a concrete action.
Lead with values. Most communicators agree: people don’t change their minds based on facts alone, but rather based on how those facts are framed to fit their emotions and values. Shared values help audiences “hear” messages more effectively than do dry facts or emotional rhetoric.
This country is built on the idea of opportunity for all, regardless of where you come from or what you look like.
Our economic policies should be propelled by the values of accountability, economic security, and opportunity for all, not greed, privilege, or the interests of a few.
Introduce the problem. Frame problems as a threat to your vision and values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience.
But that’s far from what we’re seeing today, with working Americans’ living standards declining and the richest 1% holding 40% of the nation’s wealth.
Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. Assign responsibility—who can enact this solution?
Reclaiming the promise of opportunity means demanding an economy that works for everyone, not just the richest members of society. Corporations need to pay their fair share, and banks need to invest in building up communities sustainably.
Assign an action. Try to give people something concrete they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages when possible.
Join us by[include a concrete action that your audience can take].
Say What You’re For, as Well as What You’re Against
Anti-poverty advocates may not share a single list of policy demands, but we can and should paint a positive picture of the society we’re trying to create. Most people already have a lot to worry about, and are in no mood for problems with no solutions in sight. We can cut through the clutter of stories about how bad things are by painting a picture of what our country would look like if it embraces and promotes:
Opportunity: for honest work that pays a decent, living wage.
Accountability: with fair rules, enforcement, and prosecution where appropriate of the corporations and individuals who lawlessly wrecked our economy.
Fairness: including a tax system in which the wealthiest companies, millionaires, and billionaires contribute their fair share to the nation that gives them so much.
Voice: a political system in which every American’s voice and vote are equal, and large sums of money are not allowed to corrupt the democratic process.
Economic Mobility: access to an affordable college education for everyone who has the ability and desire to attend, without the crippling burden of loan debt.
Economic Security: including a halt to unnecessary foreclosures, the restoration of devastated neighborhoods, and reductions in mortgage payments to fair, realistic levels.
Notes:
The Opportunity Agenda, Opportunity Survey: Understanding the Roots of Attitudes on Inequality, 2014.
Public Religion Research Institute, American Values Survey, September 2012.
Gallup/USA Today poll, June 2010.
Public Religion Research Institute, American Values Survey, September 2011.
Building public support to close the racial wealth gap requires a nuanced understanding of existing attitudes, as well as challenges and opportunities for change. This memo draws on the findings of the Opportunity Survey—a national study of public opinion commissioned by The Opportunity Agenda—to examine those attitudes, and to chart a path forward. It covers basic values, as well as views on discrimination, housing, the role of government, and other relevant issues.
Survey Methodology
Administered by Langer Research Associates, the Opportunity Survey was conducted between February 4 and March 10, 2014, among a random national sample of 2,055 respondents. The survey oversampled very low-income adults (those living below 50 percent of the federal poverty line), African American men, and Asian Americans—groups whose voices are frequently overlooked in opinion polling. And it includes a special analysis of the views of the rising American electorate—Millennials, people of color, and unmarried women—who have increasingly greater sway in elections. Respondents whose first language is Spanish had the option to take the survey in that language. The research also includes a cluster analysis that identifies the demographic characteristics, personal experience, values, and core beliefs that predict support for social justice policies and motivate people to action.
Major Findings
1. Americans Deeply Value Opportunity and Equality
The notion of opportunity is at the core of the American ethos. It evokes the belief that each person in our country can and should receive equal treatment, have a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential, enjoy economic security, and have a voice in the decisions that affect them.
In a broad endorsement of opportunity principles, an overwhelming 85 percent of Americans feel that society functions better when all groups have an equal chance in life, including 57 percent who feel this way strongly. Only 15 percent say it’s better to have “some groups on top and others on the bottom.” Likewise, just one in 10 calls it entirely acceptable for one group to have more opportunities in society than others, while slightly more than six in 10 call this unacceptable, including 23 percent who say it’s entirely unacceptable.
These numbers reveal that Americans are deeply concerned with inequality, and the feeling that it is incompatible with their vision of American society and damaging to broader well being. Diving even further, the Opportunity Survey finds that seeing group inequalities as unacceptable is one of the top predictors of perceiving discrimination against groups as serious, seeing more discrimination in housing, supporting measures to address poverty and a path to citizenship, and being willing to act on a range of social policy issues.
At the same time, most Americans recognize threats to the ideals of opportunity and equality as well, with just 37 percent saying that society currently offers equal opportunities to most or all groups, while as many, four in 10, say just some or only a few groups have an equal chance to succeed. (The rest, a quarter, take the middle position, saying “a good number” have equal opportunities.)
While audiences may be split on how much opportunity is available, perceptions of inequality are widespread: nine in 10 Americans in the Opportunity Survey see unfair treatment of at least one minority group as a serious problem. Leading the list by a wide margin, 75 percent of the public views unequal treatment of poor people as a serious problem, including 35 percent who see it as “very” serious. Fifty-‐two to 60 percent see a serious problem in unequal treatment of eight other groups tested, including people who have served a prison sentence, undocumented immigrants, black men, black women, Native Americans, gays and lesbians, women overall and Latinos.
Additionally, sixty percent of Americans report sometimes or often experiencing unfair treatment themselves because of their membership in one or more groups. Most prevalent, four in 10 say they’ve been treated unfairly because of their economic class. Three in 10 report the same based on their gender (32 percent) or their race or ethnicity (31 percent).
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap messaging: Leverage Americans’ veneration for equality of opportunity by portraying economic gaps as a threat to that value. Emphasize how it should matter to all of us when we allow such gaps to persist. Show and tell how we’re all in it together when it comes to economic opportunity, security, and mobility.
2.Perceptions of Equal Opportunity and Discrimination Vary by Group
Personal experience of unfair treatment because of one’s group memberships has a profound impact on a person’s attitudes about discrimination overall. Those reporting unfair treatment themselves are more likely than others to perceive unjust treatment of groups in general as a serious problem, to recognize discrimination in housing, and to say they’d take a variety of specific actions on behalf of issues and groups that are important to them.
Yet, simply having experiences with unfair treatment does not automatically translate to concern for other groups’ experiences with it. Group members are substantially more likely than others to regard unequal treatment of their own group as a serious concern.
Eighty-‐three percent of black women and 79 percent of black men see discrimination against their groups as serious; just 54 and 56 percent of non-‐black women and men share those views. Asian Americans, LGBT Americans, Latinos, and women generally all are more likely than non-‐group members – by double-‐digit margins – to view disadvantageous treatment of their groups as a serious problem.
But the survey does reveal four important predictors of seeing discrimination against groups – not just one’s own -‐ as a serious problem:
The extent to which people see group-‐based inequality as unacceptable,
Belief in “linked fate” (i.e., the notion that the prosperity of one is linked to the prosperity of all),
Personal experiences with unfair treatment, and
The importance of group membership in one’s self-‐identity.
Concern about inequality thus relies in part on feelings that it’s incompatible with American society and damaging to broader well being.
Other predictors also are informative. Perceived seriousness of unequal treatment is less strong among those with a greater preference for tradition in general, and traditional morality in particular; among people who perceive basic systems of American society as fair; and among those who prioritize loyalty, respect for authority and behaving honorably. Increased concern among these audiences may then rest on the notion that discrimination and inequality violate traditional values of liberty, fairness and equal opportunity.
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap Messaging:
Underscore the values that are associated with caring about discrimination and unequal treatment: the importance of protecting and upholding equal opportunity, and the notion that we’re all in this together.
Frame unequal opportunity as a challenge facing all of us, with some communities facing particular—and particularly steep—obstacles.
Segment audiences strategically: Most Americans have felt that they’ve been treated unequally, but fewer recognize unfair treatment of groups outside of their own. Consider the “base” for racial wealth gap messages as people of color. But then work with the Cluster Analysis (below) to think through who other allies might be in telling the story of racial gaps in economic power.
Remind people when unfair treatment is a serious concern for their own group, and for our society as a whole.
3.There Exists Some Understanding of Structural Causes of Inequality
Most Americans, 70 percent or more, understand that group-‐based inequality is at least partially due to social conditions, rather than solely reflecting group members’ own behavior. However, there is wide variability in this view depending on the group in question. At one end of the spectrum, most adults blame the unfair treatment of women and Native Americans mainly or entirely on social conditions; just 13 percent, in both cases, blame those groups’ own behavior. That shifts dramatically when it comes to people who have served a prison sentence – 49 percent blame those individuals’ behavior – or those who are undocumented immigrants, blamed by 36 percent.
These views make a difference. Those who tend to attribute inequality more to formerly incarcerated people’s own behavior, for example, are significantly less apt than others to support policies focused on rehabilitation and re-‐employment. Similarly, support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants declines among those who see this group as largely to blame for the inequality its members’ experience. In another example, while comparatively few people view poor people as responsible for their own plight, those who do are less likely to support anti-‐poverty programs.
While many recognize the role that society plays in protecting equal opportunity, most Americans still look to individual behavior to explain people’s level of prosperity, with two-‐thirds believing that individuals are responsible for their own prosperity. Forty-‐two percent feel that way strongly. Far fewer, 32 percent, perceive linked fate – the notion that the prosperity of one is linked to the prosperity of all. Those who are more inclined to believe that individuals are responsible for their own outcomes also are more apt to emphasize group behavior as the main cause of inequality.
Just like behavioral versus societal explanations for inequality, views on linked fate predict policy preferences and the intention to take action on inequality, as well as attitudes about discrimination more generally. Those who are more inclined to see prosperity as linked are more likely to view unequal treatment of groups as a serious problem, to support the opportunity-‐expanding solutions tested, and to express greater willingness to take action on opportunity issues. Elevating an understanding of linked fate, therefore, may move more people towards support for social justice issues and action. Additionally, emphasizing societal explanations for inequality, rather than perceived “deservingness,” will likely help combat the belief that some groups in society deserve to be treated better (or worse) and afforded more opportunities than others.
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap Messaging:
Emphasize the ways in which individual success and broader societal opportunities are linked, showing the underlying and historic causes of the wealth gap.
Highlight the (often invisible) systemic causes of economic and racial inequality. Don’t rely on stories that focus solely on individuals to tell the story. Doing so can reinforce the individual-‐focused mindset that can lead audiences to block out systemic causes in favor of blaming or celebrating individual people. When telling human stories, choose ones that are inherently systemic and change-‐oriented, connecting multiple people, systems, and institutions.
Consider starting with issues that may be easier for audiences to understand. For instance, discriminatory lending practices have been a barrier to home ownership among African American families. And because home ownership is an important pathway to building and maintaining economic stability, African American families have faced steeper obstacles to building wealth than white Americans.
Attitudes about Specific Issues and Solutions
Government Role and Efficacy in Protecting Economic Security
While perceptions of inequality are substantial, public discontent with public institutions is rife. Eight in 10 adults say the U.S. political system needs major improvements, including three in 10 who feel it ought to be redesigned entirely. Views of the economic, educational and criminal justice systems are almost as negative, with seven in 10 to three-‐quarters saying each needs major change. Fewer than 5 percent feel that any one of these is “as good as it can be.”
People who are more likely to see these systems as needing improvement also are more likely to see unequal treatment of groups as a serious problem, to see housing discrimination as prevalent, and to support measures to address poverty and related issues.
Assessments of the success of the government’s attempts to reduce discrimination are tepid at best. Four in 10 Americans think government programs to reduce discrimination are working well overall, including just 4 percent who think they’re working very well. Six in 10 see such programs as largely ineffective, including 16 percent who call them completely unsuccessful.
These perceptions are another important element of support for opportunity policies. In statistical modeling, seeing government programs as effective independently predicts support for a range of initiatives, including anti-‐poverty efforts and criminal justice and immigration reforms.
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap Messaging
Show concrete examples of how policy interventions have worked to address racial wealth gap issues.
When critiquing policies, make sure not to fall into criticizing government generally. Be specific about what needs to change, and who needs to change it.
Anti-poverty Programs and Policies
In terms of funding, the survey finds a division between preferences to maintain or to increase spending on four poverty-related government programs, with little constituency for cuts – albeit with sizable program-specific and group-based differences.
Spending on college loan and student lunch programs wins the most support: Forty-seven percent of Americans think funding for college loan programs should be increased and 43 percent think it should be held steady; it’s a similar 44 and 48 percent for school lunch programs. Just 10 and 8 percent, respectively, advocate cutbacks.
There’s slightly more support for cutting back on the two other items tested, “food stamps” (SNAP) and unemployment benefits, but it’s still only about 20 percent. Forty-seven and 53 percent, respectively, favor keeping spending levels on these the same; three in 10 would spend more.
Political partisanship sharply divides these views. Averaged across the four items, Democrats are 32 percentage points more likely than Republicans to support increased spending. There also are double-digit differences between racial and ethnic groups, with African Americans and Latinos more apt than whites and Asian Americans to favor higher spending on these programs.
When it comes to Americans’ priorities for various social policies intended to reduce poverty, improving public education leads the way; more than three-quarters say it should be a high priority for public policy, including 45 percent who think it should be a “very” high priority. That’s followed by some bread-and-butter items: Avoiding cutbacks to Social Security, cited as a priority by 65 percent; holding down interest rates on student loans, 62 percent; and raising the minimum wage, 52 percent.
Americans give three other areas somewhat lower priority: Forty-five, 44 and 43 percent say high priority should be given to expanding government funded job-training programs, increasing spending on infrastructure, and cutting business taxes to encourage job creation, respectively.
Again there’s substantial political partisanship on these issues, especially views of the minimum wage, job training and infrastructure spending. Democrats are more apt to favor each of the policies tested, save one – cutting business taxes to encourage job growth.
Key predictors of prioritizing anti-poverty programs – and increasing their funding – have implications for framing these issues. The most important predictor, by far, is seeing unequal treatment of poor people as a serious problem. That’s followed by the importance of group identification, seeing group inequalities as unacceptable, frequency of personal contact with diverse group members, attributing inequality to societal factors rather than to group members’ own behavior, and seeing government programs to reduce discrimination as effective.
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap Messaging
Be sure to show how the wealth gap persists even when different racial groups have the same level of education. Give the history of why this continues to happen.
Build on support for educational programs, but connect the dots to how those programs are not enough to address economic inequalities and must work with other policies.
Housing Discrimination
Housing discrimination provides a specific example of more general views on opportunity and economic inequality: the vast majority of Americans, 83 percent, believe that one or more groups face substantial bias when trying to buy or rent a home or apartment.
Such perceptions depend on the group in question. Seven in 10 adults feel that people who have served a prison sentence experience discrimination when they try to buy or rent a home, and 64 percent say the same of undocumented immigrants. Across the spectrum, just 15 and 16 percent, respectively, say the same about Asian Americans and women.
Other groups fall in the middle. Housing bias against Muslims is seen by 47 percent, against gay and lesbian Americans by 40 percent, against African Americans by 38 percent, against people with disabilities by 36 percent and against Latinos by a third. Roughly a quarter see discrimination in housing against Native Americans and single parents.
Perceptions of housing discrimination against one’s own group are highest among African American respondents, especially women, and lowest among whites and Asian Americans. For example, 69 percent of black women perceive either a great deal or substantial amount of housing discrimination against blacks, whereas just 15 percent of Asian Americans think Asian Americans experience discrimination when trying to obtain housing.
Given the overall level of concern, support for existing laws designed to prevent housing bias is broad. Just one in 10 says such laws are too strong; six in 10 think they’re about right, and three in 10 say they’re too weak. Among blacks, moreover, six in 10 say such laws are too weak.
As with other spending, the survey finds a division on whether programs intended to boost home-‐ownership and construction of affordable housing should be expanded or maintained as they are now, but very little support for reducing them. Forty-six and 44 percent, respectively, support maintaining current policies on the tax deductibility of mortgage interest payments and tax enticements to encourage development of affordable housing. Forty-three and 42 percent, respectively, say they should be expanded. Only about one in 10 favors cutting these back.
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap Messaging
Build on key audiences’ understanding of housing discrimination to point out the link between home ownership and wealth accumulation. Use this understanding to make connections to how other forms of discrimination, historic trends, and specific policies have caused the racial wealth gap to persist.
Leverage support for fair housing programs to explain how other policies work similarly to ensure fair treatment and to encourage and support economic equality.
Cross-issue Support
The Opportunity Survey reveals a great deal of cross-issue congruence. A key takeaway of this survey is the finding that views on issues are highly correlated, as is willingness to take action (detailed next) on those issues. These orientations derive from deep-seated values and experiences and often results in individuals showing similar support, or opposition, across a variety of social issues.
To examine these relationships, variables were created based on respondents’ support for each issue tested. For example, the number of individual anti-poverty policies and programs each respondent supported was tabulated, with the public then divided into groups reflecting low, moderate and high levels of support for anti-poverty initiatives overall. A similar strategy was used to group individuals by their support levels for each of the other issue categories.1
There is a strong relationship between support for anti-poverty measures and support for each of the other social issues examined, with those Americans who support the highest number of anti-poverty initiatives between 28 and 36 points more likely than those who back the fewest anti-poverty policies to support a pathway to citizenship, view housing discrimination as a problem for many groups, and support reforms to the criminal justice system. This pattern of cross-issue support is robust regardless of the issues compared, and reflects a general orientation of support or opposition across the social policies tested.
Implications for Racial Wealth Gap Messaging:
Use the audience section (below) to identify groups who are most likely to support a broad array of social justice issues, as well as those who are likely to be persuadable or skeptical on those issues.
Audience Considerations and Strategy
The Opportunity Survey findings paint a rich picture of shared core values, beliefs, and attitudes that contribute to a social justice orientation, and reveal that a significant number of groups—including the “New American Majority” of Millennials, People of Color, and Unmarried Women—can be motivated to support more equitable policies. In addition, several stand-alone findings from this research indicate that the American public is now primed to tackle a number of social justice issues in the United States and positioned to drive lasting change.
By identifying how attributes and experiences correspond with support for social justice policies and willingness to take action, the survey profiles key audiences—totaling 60 percent of the American public—that can be moved to help advance greater and more equal opportunity.
Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis allows us to identify unique subsets of the population that are more or less apt to back social issues and be willing to take action. Using key attitudes and behaviors relating to social policy on opportunity issues, we identified six distinct population segments (Figure 2). These groups differ substantially in their values and concepts of equality, fairness, and tradition – and, in turn, in their policy preferences and openness to action.
Source: The Opportunity Survey, 2014
Core Catalysts largely represent the engaged base of the opportunity movement, while Potential Advocates, and Ambivalents represent persuadable target audiences. Taken together, these three groups represent over half of the U.S. population, and are presented in more detail below. Among the remaining groups, the Disengaged are simply less interested (14%), Skeptics lean against these issues (17%) and Resistants are more firmly opposed (10%).
Core Catalysts (19%) are the most committed to advancing equal opportunity. Including disproportionate numbers of racial and ethnic minorities and political liberals, and slightly more women than average – especially unmarried women – members of this group are the most likely to have experienced unfair treatment personally, to think it’s a serious problem and to be willing to act to address it. They have strong in-group identities, eschew tradition, reject notions of inherent superiority and are more apt than others to see people’s prosperity as linked rather than as individual outcomes. They’re also more confident they can bring about change, a precursor to taking action. Core catalysts are the only group in which equal treatment ranks first, followed by compassion and acting honorably.
Potential Advocates (18%) are less apt than core catalysts to have experienced unequal treatment but are highly attuned to it nonetheless. Including many white liberals, they broadly support an active social policy agenda, rank “equal treatment” prominently as a value and are more likely than average to attribute inequality to social conditions rather than to group behaviors. Yet they’re among the least apt to have strong in-group identities of their own and much less inclined than core catalysts to believe they personally, or groups generally, can bring about change.
Ambivalents (22%) are conflicted. Many perceive inequality of opportunity, support policies intended to address it and think it’s better when everyone has an equal chance. But they also hold some core values – including traditionalism, individualism and a stress on acting honorably – that militate against activism. They’re the oldest of the six groups on average, with numerically the highest share of women.
Demographic Groups Most Open to Racial Wealth Gap Solutions:
A number of individual characteristics are highly predictive of either support or opposition to social justice issues and policies, even when beliefs, values and experiences are held constant.
The most supportive audiences for anti-‐poverty solutions and activism are Democrats, African Americans and Latinos.
Millennials, independent voters, and unmarried women are disproportionately open to anti-‐poverty solutions.
Low-‐income Americans understand the realities of living in poverty and are interested in change, have higher levels of personal and group efficacy, and more experience of unfair treatment – all of which predict higher likelihood of being willing to take action.
In addition:
Older Americans are more likely to:
See unequal treatment as a serious problem,
View housing discrimination as widespread,
Favor greater efforts to address poverty,
Be willing to act to improve opportunities for groups, and
Say they would take specific actions on behalf of a social cause.
African Americans and Latinos are more likely to:
See unfair treatment of groups as problematic, and
Be willing to take action on behalf of groups and issues.
Support anti-‐poverty programs.
Taking Action
Americans express a willingness to take a variety of actions on behalf of greater opportunity. A majority of Americans (67%) say they are likely to talk with people they know about their views (including 8 percent who say they already do) and 62 percent say they’d sign a petition (or have done so). Those compare with 52 percent who express a willingness to boycott products or vendors in pursuit of social change, and 46 to 50 percent for contacting an elected official, volunteering with a community or political organization or donating money.2 Many fewer, just more than a third, say they’d be likely to write or post something online or in print to persuade or motivate others on behalf of a cause (36 percent), or to participate in a creative or artistic project that brings attention to the issue (34 percent). And 27 percent say it’s likely they’d take part in a protest, march or demonstration.
Notably, for each of the actions tested, far fewer indicate they’re “very” likely to participate, and, as noted, only a handful say they’ve actually done so – highlighting the gap between willingness to act and actually taking action. Understanding the top predictors of expressed willingness to get involved might help bridging that gap. Most important is frequency of personal contact with members of different groups, suggesting that personal interactions with people from different backgrounds are particularly critical in motivating action on equality issues. Those who indicate a willingness to take action in support of one issue are generally more likely to act on other issues as well.
The finding that simply being willing to talk with others about one’s views is so strongly tied to willingness to take other, more committed action suggests that convincing people to take even small steps ultimately can have a major impact. While 62 percent of the population stated willingness to sign a petition, those who expressed interest in talking to others about their views are nearly 20 percent more likely to say so. Similar differences arise relating to willingness to boycott products or vendors (52 percent vs. 68 percent), and every other type of action measured in this study. As decades of psychological research has shown, getting a person to commit to one small action makes it far easier to convince them to commit to bigger ones.
Recommendations
Segment audiences using the cluster analysis. Strategically, we do not have to speak to or convince everyone, which is good news given that we all have limited resources. Instead, we can consider where we can find and reach the Core Catalysts, Potential Advocates and Ambivalents, what kinds of messages and spokespeople motivate them, and how to move them to action.
Build messages that underscore the values that matter to target audiences, namely equal opportunity and opportunity for all. We know that people who prioritize these values are more likely to support our issues, so it’s important to keep these groups highly motivated. But it’s also important to raise the profile of these values in general so that they are consistently part of national conversations, expanding the groups of people who prioritize them.
Remind people of their own experiences of discrimination when explaining types of bias that they are less familiar with, or skeptical of. But then quickly pivot to the kinds of solutions that can protect groups from discrimination. Remember that audiences are generally worried about the efficacy of government programs and will likely need a few concrete examples of success to motivate support.
Balance audiences’ tendencies to rely on personal responsibility as a solution to social problems with reminders of our linked fates. Show the interconnected nature of our economic and cultural lives and emphasize the shared responsibility we have for each other.
Make sure to have a call to action. Even if you’re just asking people to start a conversation about racial and economic inequality, getting them to act in some way is the first step in motivating them around more in-‐depth involvement in the issue.
Structure messaging with a Value, Problem, Solution, Action approach:
Lead with values. Starting with shared values helps audiences to “hear” our messages more effectively than do dry facts or emotional rhetoric.
Introduce the problem. Frame problems as a threat to values. Include stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience. Where possible, include the cause of the problem, as well as who is responsible for fixing it.
Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. Assign responsibility—who can enact this solution?
Provide a clear “ask” to your audiences that is aligned with your overarching goals.
Value: Access to an affordable home under fair terms is central to the American promise of opportunity, and to our nation’s economic security.
Problem: But misconduct by the lending industry and inadequate rules and enforcement helped to wreck our economy and deny that promise to millions of Americans.
Solution: Fortunately, solutions exist that can prevent further foreclosures and restore the American Dream. They include steps like mandatory mediation, reducing loan principal to fair market rates, and ensuring that reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac keep homeownership available to working Americans.
Action: Tell your member of Congress to work with the Administration to implement these solutions today.
Notes:
1. See Appendix D for details of these indices; the same items are used here, but as counts, rather than the average scores used in the regression analysis.
2. These items were asked of those who said, in general, that they were very or somewhat likely to take action, or already were taking action, on behalf of a group or issue. Those who did not indicate a willingness to take action in general (252 of the 2,055 respondents) are grouped in this analysis with those who indicated an unwillingness to take a particular action. Therefore, the percentages reported here reflect how many people in the population overall are willing to take each action.
Talk about the values that should guide our criminal justice system. We want to make sure that people receive equal treatment, that policies keep our communities safe, and that our laws follow common sense while also upholding our values.
Outline how current policies are failing us. Be specific in pointing out which policies need to change and who needs to change them. Vague criticisms of the “system” can make the problems with it seem insurmountable.
Avoid myth busting. Repeating untruths, even in order to refute them, only serves to bolster their staying power in audiences’ minds. Instead, focus on the truth.
Put forward an affirmative solution. Don’t just say what we shouldn’t be doing, give audiences ideas about what will prevent future tragedies.
Acknowledge the need for people to be held accountable when they have made mistakes. While many people are caught up unfairly in the criminal justice system, we need to acknowledge that there still has to be a fair and reasonable plan for those who have made mistakes, or even committed serious crimes, to move forward.
Sample Language
Value: We all make mistakes. But most Americans believe that people deserve a second chance, and that most mistakes shouldn’t be allowed to ruin our lives, and the lives of everyone around us.
Problem: But our criminal justice system does ruin the lives of many immigrants who come into contact it. Even if you’ve lived here for years, you can be deported if you’ve been accused of a low-level offense like shoplifting. Many immigrants in the system don’t get access to lawyers, and thousands are detained for indefinite amounts of time with no hearing. There’s no question that we all should be held accountable for our actions, but removal from the country or indefinite detention is a clear example of the punishment simply not fitting the crime.
Solution: We need to re-examine how our justice system treats everyone here, and align that with the values we hold dear. We need a fair system that makes sure we don’t punish people without a hearing or access to lawyers. Those rights are central to our values.
Action: We need to fix our flawed criminal justice system.
Talking about Immigrants Convicted of Serious Offenses
Value: Our policies should reflect our core values: equality, fairness, and accountability. Aligning our policies to those values is crucial if they are to survive and prosper.
Problem: But our criminal justice policies currently don’t reflect those values. Our laws treat immigrants who have been convicted of any crime very differently than others here, with an entirely different set of laws and a wholly different level of respect for rights. That distorts our notions of fairness and equal treatment. People certainly need to be held accountable for their actions, there’s no question about that. But having two sets of laws creates confusion, breeds unfairness, and isn’t in line with our values.
Solution: We need to re-examine our laws and how we treat immigrants in our justice system, and align them with the values we hold dear.
Adopted in 1868 and part of the “Reconstruction Amendments,” section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuni- ties of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Several debates—including discussions at the time of the clause’s writing and adoption, and the subsequent 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case—have ended with the U.S. upholding citizenship rights of U.S.-born children of unlawfully present immigrants. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes U.S.-born children of diplomats of foreign countries and children of hostile invaders.
Public Opinion
In 2010, polling revealed that the public was split on ending or preserving citizenship based on birth in the U.S. for children of undocumented immigrants, but generally opposed to amending the Constitution to eliminate that practice.
Few Americans are familiar with the text or history of the 14th Amendment.
Ideas for Talking About the 14th Amendment: Key Values and Themes
This is about all of us and protecting our rights. We all value the guarantee that our U.S.-born children will unquestionably be citizens.
These proposals are unworkable and divisive. They would place huge burdens on American citizens and create a giant new bureaucracy.
The real solution is commonsense change to our immigration policies, something the vast majority of Americans support.
Note: The phrase “American citizenship clause” is likely more persuadable than the term “birthright citizenship,” which may put off some persuadable audiences because it could connote an immediate demand for rights by people who they perceive to be lawbreakers. Our recommendation is to describe the constitutional provision as the “American citizen- ship clause,” which “guarantees that kids who are born in America are American citizens” rather than repeating the phrase “birthright citizenship.”
Additional Principles
Lead with values. This is a debate about what our country stands for and what it means to be an American. Facts are important, but they should be communicated within a values frame. Here, the relevant values relate to our constitutional freedoms and protections and to the moral and practical instability that eroding them would cause.
Remind audiences that this is about all of us. Frame the debate in terms of the 14th Amendment’s importance to all of us and our nation as a whole, not just in terms of immi- grants specifically. We all value the guarantee that our U.S.-born children will unquestionably be citizens of the United States of America.
Use the pro-immigrant “Core Narrative” themes developed and used by leaders and groups around the country: a commonsense approach, upholding our nation’s values, and moving forward together. “Commonsense approach” appeals to Americans’ desire for pragmatic and effective approaches, and their recognition that rash anti-immigrant proposals are unrealistic. “Upholding our nation’s values” reconnects the immigration discussion to the kind of country we aspire to be. And “moving forward together” highlights the ways in which immigrants are already a part of us as a nation and add value to our economy and culture.
Understand the gender dynamics of this conversation. Immigrant women are often invisible in public discourse about immigration policy. Discussions of the 14th Amendment are inherently about women and their decisions, but do not center on women as whole people. In the same way that the term “anchor babies” is deeply problematic in its suggestion that the natural process of creating a family is being used as a legal scheme to gain citizenship, the erasure of women from the conversation is problematic as they become merely vessels in this scheme, and not fully-formed humans. To counter this problem, highlight how, and provide examples of, women are leaders and contributors in a range of contexts and environments: family, work, community, business. It’s important to populate the discourse with these stories while also taking on conversations about the 14th Amendment.
Remember that most Americans are unfamiliar with the content or history of the 14th Amendment. We should not assume specific knowledge about the amendment on the part of our audience, but can help shape their understanding of the provision and its importance.
Don’t waste time “myth busting,” which research shows tends to reinforce the idea you’re trying to combat. For example, don’t get mired in the debate over whether immigrants come here to have children—state the facts, then pivot and return to your affirmative point.
Sample Talking Points
“It’s a core constitutional protection that if my kids are born here, they are Americans. Destroy- ing that principle would be a dangerous mistake that would threaten freedom for all of us.”
“The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was and is crucial to making us one nation, indivisi- ble. It’s an important part of our history, and vital to our future.”
“We can’t undermine who we are as a country and as a people for short-term political purposes. Instead of tampering with our Constitution, let’s move forward with commonsense immigration reform that’s languishing in Congress.”
“In addition to being wrong for America, this is not a realistic proposal. If passed, it would visit unimaginable difficulty on all 300 million of us who are American citizens. Today, when your kids are born here, you know, and everyone knows, that they are American citizens. But what if when your child was born you had to go through an application process, prove to federal, state, and local bureaucracy that you are a citizen, be entered in a database that is subject to error and delay? It would be expensive, burdensome, slow, inaccurate, and totally unacceptable to the American people.”
“If these political operatives have their way, your birth certificate will no longer be proof that you are an American. And your kids will have to prove their grandparents’ citizenship and your citizenship just to prove their own citizenship, all through some new bureaucracy that will have to be set up. That’s not the kind of country we are, and it’s not what Americans want.”
As communicators, we’re always looking for new ways to engage with audiences and consider what kind of messages break through and stick, and how to avoid empty rhetoric that leaves no impact.
Behavioral economics is an approach that encourages us to predict what people are likely to do in decision-making contexts instead of assuming that people make choices based only on logic and rational thinking. By understanding what influences real choices, we can design choice settings that guide people to choose in a certain way. This memo examines several behavioral economics principles and the implications they have on messaging around criminal justice reform issues. It is based on a full report that was written and researched for The Opportunity Agenda by Sabrina Hassan. For a full version of the report upon which this memo is based, please visit www.opportunityagenda.org.
Principles
Social Norms – We tend to follow the herd. We gravitate toward choices that other people make, especially people whom we perceive to be similar to us in some way. For example, if we hear that most citizens in our community vote, or that our neighbors are doing a good job of conserving energy, we are more likely to make these choices as well.
Loss Aversion – We favor avoiding losses over acquiring gains. The pain of loss exceeds the pleasure of gain. So simple framing about what we lose if we make one choice can be stronger than emphasizing what we gain with the same choice.
Limited Attention – When our attention is depleted, we don’t make good decisions. When given limited information or a focal point, we’re better able to concentrate on and consider our decisions about information. Messaging with less and more targeted information is more effective than using too much and getting too complicated.
Identity – We embrace ideas and actions that affirm our self-concept and reject those that threaten it. If we identify as Democrats or Catholics, for instance, we are more likely to make choices that we think Democrats or Catholics would choose, even if those choices may conflict with other beliefs or understandings.
1. Social Norms
People demonstrate a tendency to conform to perceived behavior of others in their groups. In other words, a person is likely to do what she thinks “everyone else” is doing. Research has shown people gravitate toward perceived social norms around:
Voting.
Whether to litter or engage in criminal acts.
Adjusting their levels of energy use.
Whether to react to an emergency.
How quickly to finish easy tasks.
Implications for Messaging
The practical application of social norms is straightforward: publicize evidence that the vast majority of a group to which a given audience belongs (women, seniors, communities of color) does something the audience should be doing.
Social Norms: “People like you do .”
For example, there are several ways in which public opinion supports the movement to reform drug policy. Advertising these popular opinions can increase their popularity via our tendency to follow the herd. It is important to tailor the norms advertised as specifically as possible to the composition of the target audience (e.g. Democrats, New Yorkers, young professionals), because people align their behaviors with groups with whom they identify. Some potentially useful norms:
84% of American voters support non-prison alternatives such as drug treatment, community service, or probation for drug and other “victimless” offenses.
Majorities of many American groups believe too many people are in prison—64% of Democrats, 59% of African Americans, and 58% of Latinos.
Majorities of American groups would prefer that more money and effort go toward better education and job training, attacking the social and economic problems that underlie crime, instead of toward deterring crime with more prisons, police and judges—78% of Democrats, 77% of those aged 18-29, and 72% of college post graduates.
The above are merely a few examples. Majority opinions of peer groups are contagious, so a current sound and reliable statistic that reflects a majority opinion worth spreading can be used as a tool.
2. Loss Aversion
People are loss averse, meaning they prefer avoiding losses to making gains. The psychological pain of losing X exceeds the pleasure of gaining Y. Take the following example for illustration:
Problem 1: Which do you choose?
Get $900 for sure OR 90% chance to get $1,000
Problem 2: Which do you choose?
Lose $900 for sure OR 90% chance to lose $1,000
Most people are risk averse in Problem 1, choosing the certain $900 over the very likely $1000 to avoid the 10% risk of getting nothing. But in Problem 2, the opposite is true. Although the amounts are identical, most people choose to gamble on the 90% probability that they will lose an additional $100; they risk losing the larger amount rather than admitting a loss of ten percent less.
The results above demonstrate loss aversion, our built-in distaste for losses. Loss aversion also explains why people buy insurance they don’t need and refuse to settle a lawsuit they will likely lose. We detest losses so much that we pay extra for a narrow possibility of escaping them.
Implications for Messaging
Loss aversion is a useful tool in designing choices because whether something is perceived as a loss depends on how it is framed. Just as a glass of water can be deemed half empty or half full, a policy can be described in terms of its costs or its benefits.
For example, a number of facts about laws pertaining to people who have been convicted of sex-related conduct can be framed to highlight the loss to society that dangerous laws cause.
The over-inclusion of people on the registry of sex-related conduct makes it difficult for law enforcement to determine which people warrant more careful monitoring.
The large volume of people who pose no threat, but who are required to register, demands hours of administrative police work and sometimes even requires paying for overtime to keep up with demand.
Residency restrictions push people away from the supervision, treatment, stability and supportive networks they may need to build and maintain successful, law-abiding lives.
Residency restriction laws cause police to lose track of people who move around or drop out of sight to avoid compliance with the law.
3. Limited Attention
Each person’s pool of mental energy is shared by cognitive, emotional, and physical efforts. Consider how hard it is to concentrate on work after receiving shocking news, or to perform complex mental math while walking. (If you’re like most people, you’ll stand still to finish computing.) When a person exerts self-control by thinking hard, exercising vigorously, or suppressing emotion, she will eventually experience a diminished capacity to regulate her thoughts, feelings and actions. Poor decisions ensue.
Implications for Messaging
In designing choice settings, we must make the effort to simplify complex or lengthy processes that lead to a desired result. Even better, we can “pad the path of least resistance” with default rules that transparently funnel people to one path unless they opt out. When we eliminate attention-sucking decision points with a default rule, such as automatic employee enrollment in a retirement plan, people are more likely to subscribe to a choice rather than avoid choosing at all.
These principles apply in messaging. By simplifying messages and eliminating decision points—on whether to turn a page, download a document, or do mental math—the messenger can increase the chance that an audience will remain attentive enough to absorb her message.
In a field as well documented as the failed “War on Drugs,” it can be tempting to share heaps of facts and figures with any attentive audience. But more information shared doesn’t necessarily translate into more information received. The way to capitalize on the attention we get is to maximize the impact, not the volume, of our messages.
Most Americans believe crime is increasing despite the reality that violent crime has been at historic lows for the past few years. We thus can’t assume that Americans perceive the gross increase in imprisonment as bad or illogical. We have to spell out the problem. Fortunately, an audience unfamiliar with or resistant to the glaring flaws in American drug policy needs to accept only a few simple facts to grasp the issue:
Right now, the United States imprisons an astronomical number of people compared to both our own historical rates and to those of other countries.
The increase in imprisonment for drug offenses results from harsher sentencing policy, not from an increase in convictions for drug offenses.
Treatment delivered in the community costs approximately $20,000 less than imprisonment per person per year.
Focusing the message on the key points makes these points easier to learn and remember.
4. Identity
We are very attached to our identities. I believe that I am X kind of person, and X kind of person believes and does Y. The attachment is so strong that it may account for my inaccurate beliefs and irrational behavior.
Implications for Messaging
Present accurate information in a graphic or visual, rather than textual, format. Presenting corrective information graphically is shown to be more effective than conveying the same information through words alone.
Leverage the power of self-affirmation—support perceptions of self-worth. Having a person engage in self-affirmation, as with recalling a time she felt good about herself, increases her willingness to admit a position that conflicts with her identity. Self-affirmation can reduce misperceptions even without corrective information.
Label an individual as a certain kind of person, such as “voter” or “consumer,” to encourage her to act accordingly. In a 2011 study, participants received surveys that referred to voting using either a self-relevant noun (e.g., “How important is it to you to be a voter in the upcoming election?”) or a verb (e.g., “How important is it to you to vote in the upcoming election?”). Those who completed the surveys identifying them as prospective “voters” (noun condition) expressed significantly greater interest in registering to vote and significantly increased voter turnout than those in the verb condition.
In the case of racial profiling, focusing on the values and identity of someone who believes in equality and who is against racism can help elevate the case against police behavior that violates those values. Equality is one of the core values on which our nation was founded. In theory at least, our tolerance of diversity sets the United States apart from other countries. So even though we all have biases beyond our control, most Americans at least aspire to not be perceived or labeled as “racists.” Yet racial bias, whether individual and overt or structural and subconscious, causes racial profiling. There thus exists a messaging opportunity to gently leverage audience aversion to racial bias and racism to promote a stance against racial profiling.
Help people to identify with their support for equality by explicitly naming it as part of their identity.
Are you a supporter of racial equality?
This petition seeks signatures from supporters of racial equality.
The shooting of another unarmed Black man is expected to draw criticism and protests from supporters of racial equality.
Supporters of racial equality will likely back the proposed legislation.
In sum, when delivering messages designed to garner opposition to racial profiling, offer a self-relevant noun against such profiling to which your audience can subscribe.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
