Public Perceptions and Attitudes Relevant to The Racial Wealth Gap

Introduction

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.

Talking About Immigrants and the Criminal Justice System

Tips

  • 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.

Action: We need to fix our flawed justice system.

5 Tips for Talking About Border Communities Without Talking about a Wall

When drafting responses to the President’s announcement today, please keep in mind the particular needs of border communities, whose voices are often ignored and rights trampled in attempts to “secure the border.” You can help your border allies by considering the following five tips. This advice was developed with input from the ACLU of New Mexico, Alliance San Diego, American Friends Service Committee US/Mexico Border Program, Border Network for Human Rights, Colibri Center for Human Rights, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.

Core Message: President Obama’s announcement provides much-needed relief to millions of people and is a real victory for the country. However, there are still concerns. For one thing, today’s announcement continues and reinforces some misguided policies that affect communities in the border region. 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.

1. Humanize the discussion. Consider terms like “border communities,” “border region,” and “borderlands.”

The border is more than a line, and referring simply to “the border” suggests we’re only talking about a fence and how to protect it.

  • Focus on the people, culture, and history of border communities and stress that those communities suffer when misguided policies cause human rights abuses and drain resources better spent on more productive uses.
  • Naming specific communities – San Diego, El Paso, Tucson – can help people visualize the communities affected by irresponsible border policies and can help to counter the people-less desert scenery sometimes conjured up by “border.”
  • Sample language: The border region is economically vibrant and culturally diverse – home to millions of people from San Diego to Brownsville. 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.
  • Sample language: Millions of people live in the border region or many people 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 build up of border enforcement

2. Stress that communities need to have a say in decisions that affect them.

Border communities’ voices have been drowned out or ignored in political debates around immigration. Underscore that any policy must be responsive to the expressed needs of border residents.

  • Sample language: 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 the border region, 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 at the border and invest in critical infrastructure projects.
  • Sample language: Border communities want safe, efficient, and effective border policies that respect the culture and community of the borderlands.

3. Talk about how current border policies and spending result in violations of our values.

We are a country that believes in community, fairness, and human rights. But misguided policies that allocate spending towards drones, weapons and family detention facilities do not uphold these values.

  • In describing the all-too-frequent tragedies that occur, balance those stories with specific policy solutions that will help to prevent them.
  • Stress that Border Patrol must be held accountable. We need policies that ensure oversight, training and equipment like body-worn cameras that will help ensure the protection of human rights.
  • Sample language: For decades, failed border enforcement policies have exacerbated migrant deaths, destabilized local economies, and debilitate protections to civil liberties.
  • Sample Language: 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 hold agents accountable and charge them with protecting human rights.

4. Repeating myths isn’t helpful, even when attempting to discredit them.

There have been many outrageous and false stories about the border in the media, many promoted by members of Congress and others in power. It’s important to promote truthful stories about border communities instead of providing further publicity to false reports about terrorists, drug cartels and the like.

5. Don’t rely on “border security” as an attempt to bridge partisan divides.

Suggesting that helping 11 million people should come at the expense of border communities in an attempt to garner more conservative support is not helpful to the movement, and actively harmful to the millions of people who live in border communities. We can advocate for a pathway to citizenship without reinforcing the myth that the border is not secure.

Telling an Affirmative Story

 We’re all faced with misleading, inaccurate, and untruthful statements about our issues. And we certainly can’t allow misinformation to go unchallenged. But the best way to counter false information is to tell our affirmative story in ways that overcome the other side’s falsehoods. By contrast, we should avoid myth busting, or restating the false argument and then explaining why it’s wrong.

Research and experience show that this only results in deepening the myth in our audiences’ minds. The repetition of misinformation can cause us to better remember it, but we won’t necessarily remember that it was wrong information. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true. “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.”

Alternatives to Myth Busting

It’s obviously important to get the truth into public discourse, particularly when lies and myths are dominating. But knowing that restating, or even referring to, the myth may only strengthen it, what can we do?

First, center on the truth, stating it up front. If you can ignore the myth entirely, without even referring to it, do so.

Instead of: There’s a myth that affirmative action results in unqualified students being admitted to schools they’re not prepared for, but let me explain why that’s just a myth.

Try: Affirmative action helps to maintain visibly open pathways to opportunity for well-qualified students from a range of backgrounds. We know it works, because of the improved success of all students who’ve benefited from diverse classrooms and campuses.

Instead of: Myth: Immigrants don’t pay taxes. Fact: All immigrants pay taxes, whether income, property, sales, or other.

Try: Immigrants are significant contributors to our economy, both as consumers and taxpayers, through sales, property, income, and other taxes.

If the lie is dominating headlines, refer to the story, but not the myth. “Immigration and stories about people coming to this country to work have been in the headlines lately. I want to tell you a few things we know about the mothers, fathers, workers, and so on who make up this group of people.”

Examine the intention behind the myth being spread. Is it merely ignorance of the truth? Is it designed to make headlines and bring attention to the myth spreader? Is it based on an untrue but long-standing historic narrative that must be first addressed? Examining why the myth is out there in the first place will help you think through your goals around countering it. In some cases, you might just need to inject some truth into the conversation. In other cases, engaging in the topic at all may only bring more headlines and attention to the myth spreader.

Remember that an affirmative position is more powerful than a defensive position. Once you’ve made the decision to engage a messaging opponent on their terms, within a conversation that they started, within their metaphors, you are facing an uphill trek. They have stated something as truth and you are stuck saying “no, it’s not.” That’s not as persuasive as starting with your own truth and your own argument, and then pointing out why other arguments are misguided or incorrect.

More Research and Resources to Avoid Myth Busting

The Opportunity Survey

Understanding the Roots of Attitudes on Inequality Research

Opportunity is a deeply held value at the core of the American ethos. The belief that our nation can and should be a place where everyone has a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential is widely shared. But many believe the ideal of opportunity is in jeopardy and are willing to take steps to defend it.

In 2014, The Opportunity Agenda commissioned a groundbreaking nationwide survey to examine what the U.S. public thinks about opportunity in America and to measure public support for policies that expand opportunity across a range of issues, including jobs, education, criminal justice reform, immigration, and housing. Additionally, the research sought to gain a deeper understanding of the multiple factors that influence attitudes on inequality, contribute to an individual’s worldview, and predict people’s willingness to take action on issues they care about. Together, the survey’s findings offer critical insights for social justice leaders and organizations seeking to move hearts, minds, and policy.

Download Report

Why Fair Housing, Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity

The meltdown of the home mortgage market, the scourge of foreclosures, and the decimation of family and community assets that have ravaged the U.S. economy affect virtually every American and our nation as a whole. At the same time, communities of color have been especially hard hit by the crisis, in uniquely damaging ways that are potentially long lasting. This fact sheet documents the role that discrimination and unequal opportunity have played in the home opportunity crisis, as well as some of the harm that those practices have caused to our nation.

Key findings include:

  • A longstanding pattern by lenders and brokers of targeting communities of color for risky, high-cost loans, controlling for other factors such as credit history—with higher income families of color receiving the most unequal treatment.
  • Racial discrimination in the terms and conditions of loans by some of the nation’s largest banks.
  • Unequal maintenance of foreclosed properties, with banks and others disproportionately neglecting properties in communities of color.
  • Failure of governmental bodies, including the Departments of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to adopt or adequately enforce fair housing and lending protections.

Homeownership has long been an important steppingstone to the middle class for African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos, and the crisis struck at a time when access to homeownership had only recently opened up to these families on a significant scale. As politicians removed banking and consumer protections and neglected fair housing and lending enforcement, unscrupulous lenders and brokers targeted communities of color for risky subprime loans with high rates, exorbitant fees, and frequently deceptive terms. The racial targeting was made easier by America’s legacy of residential segregation, and by the relative lack of traditional banks in many communities of color. Millions of black and Latino homeowners—many of whom qualified for standard 30-year fixed mortgages—were marketed subprime loans that were destined to fail. Indeed, higher income African Americans were especially likely to receive risky loans, as compared with similarly qualified white homeowners.

Not surprisingly, then, families and communities of color have been especially hard hit by the fallout of the home opportunity crisis, in terms of lost homes and dislocation, diminished assets and credit, and neighborhoods dotted with foreclosed and shuttered properties. Some experts have predicted that the economic crisis will represent the greatest loss of wealth to the black community since the end of Reconstruction.

Conversely, effective and inclusive solutions to the crisis are especially important to the progress and equal opportunity of communities of color, as well as to the nation as a whole. This requires both general approaches that prevent foreclosures and restore communities across the board, as well as equal opportunity and civil rights approaches that target the particular harm that discriminatory practices and violations of fair housing and lending laws continue to cause in communities of color.

Housing, consumer protection, economic, and civil rights experts have assembled the most promising of those solutions in a Compact for Home Opportunity. The Compact is part of the Home for Good campaign, which calls for adopting the concrete, effective, and inclusive remedies that are needed to promote greater and more equal home opportunity for all.

What follow are the specifics of the impact of the home opportunity crisis on people of color.

Targeting of Communities of Color for Risky, High-Cost Loans

Housing discrimination, residential segregation, and unfair lending practices against people of color were long a feature of the U.S. home opportunity landscape. Civil rights laws like the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act have helped to reduce those practices, but have not eliminated them. These discriminatory patterns served as the foundation for unequal home opportunity in the current era.

During the 1990s, the rise of subprime lending and mortgage securitization created the tools and incentives that led subprime specialists to target communities previously denied access to conventional credit—especially African-American and Latino communities and families. Unscrupulous lenders sold these high-cost loans, which were originally intended as a temporary credit accommodation, to people who qualified for prime loans, and also to borrowers with weak credit who could not afford the loans.1 Lenders intensified these unethical practices in response to increasing demand from financial firms that bundled subprime mortgages into securities products.2

Over time, a “dual mortgage market” developed, in which different racial and ethnic communities were offered “a different mix of products and by different types of lenders,” and subprime lenders “disproportionately target[ed] minority, especially African American, borrowers and communities, resulting in a noticeable lack of prime loans among even the highest-income minority borrowers.”3 A large body of research documents these policies. For example:

  • In a 2006 report using federal data, The Opportunity Agenda, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council warned that— even controlling for income—African-American and Latino borrowers were significantly more likely to be sold high-cost, subprime loans than whites, despite the fact that as many as 50% of those borrowers qualified for prime loans. Racial inequity in lending actually increased with borrower income levels, and with the degree of neighborhood segregation. Loans in these communities were more costly, and were frequently predatory, carrying hidden fees and conditions or marketed through deceptive practices. Some, for example, were designed with built-in rate adjustment features making them unsustainable over the loan’s lifespan.4
  • One study found that, within the subprime market, “borrowers of color . . . were more than 30 percent more likely to receive a higher-rate loan than white borrowers, even after accounting for differences in risk.”5
  • Another study found that African Americans and Latinos were much more likely to receive subprime loans, and that “the disparities were especially pronounced for borrowers with higher credit scores.” (emphasis added)6
  • Researchers at Princeton University studied the links between neighborhood racial composition, subprime lending, and foreclosure rates, and found “strong empirical support for the hypothesis that residential segregation constitutes an important contributing cause of the current foreclosure crisis, that segregation’s effect is independent of other economic causes of the crisis, and that segregation’s explanatory power exceeds that of other factors hitherto identified as key causes (e.g., overbuilding, excessive subprime lending, housing price inflation, and lenders’ failure to adequately evaluate borrowers’ creditworthiness). Simply put, the greater the degree of Hispanic and especially black segregation a metropolitan area exhibits, the higher the number and rate of foreclosures it experiences.”7

Racial Discrimination in Terms and Conditions of Loans

In addition to targeting minority communities for risky subprime loans, many big and small institutions within the lending industry also discriminated against communities of color in the terms, conditions, and cost of the loans they did offer.

  • U.S. Department of Justice discrimination settlement with Wells Fargo Bank. In July 2012, the Department of Justice filed the second largest fair lending settlement in the its history to resolve allegations that Wells Fargo Bank, the largest residential home mortgage originator in the United States, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in its mortgage lending from 2004 through 2009. The settlement provides $125 million in compensation for wholesale borrowers who were steered into subprime mortgages or who paid higher fees and rates than white borrowers because of their race or national origin. The Justice Department’s complaint contends that Wells Fargo discriminated by steering approximately 4,000 African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers, as well as additional retail borrowers, into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. All the borrowers who were allegedly discriminated against qualified for Wells Fargo mortgage loans according to Well Fargo’s own underwriting criteria. The Justice Department further claimed that, between 2004 and 2009, Wells Fargo discriminated by charging approximately 30,000 African-American and Hispanic wholesale borrowers higher fees and rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers because of their race or national origin rather than the borrowers’ credit worthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk.8
  • U.S. Department of Justice $335 billion discrimination settlement with Countrywide Financial. In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reached the largest fair lending settlement in its history with Countrywide Financial. The settlement resulted from a lawsuit in which DOJ alleged that Countrywide had discriminated on the basis of race and national origin against qualified African American and Hispanic borrowers between 2004 and 2008. The lawsuit alleged that Countrywide charged more than 200,000 African- American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers, and steered borrowers of color into subprime loans. The data indicated that these disparities were not due to borrowers’ creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk.9
  • U.S. Department of Justice settlement with AIG subsidiaries. In March 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice settled a case against AIG Federal Savings Bank (FSB) and Wilmington Finance Inc. (WFI), two subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc., in which the Justice Department said the banks engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African-American borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. DOJ alleged that the defendants charged higher fees to thousands of African-American borrowers nationwide between 2003 and 2006, and failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees. The settlement terms required the defendants to pay $6.1 million to African-American customers who were charged higher broker fees than non-Hispanic white customers; required the defendants to invest at least $1 million in consumer financial education efforts; and prohibited the defendants from discriminating on the basis of race or color in any aspect of wholesale home mortgage lending.10
  • U.S. Department of Justice settlement with PrimeLending. In January 2011, the Justice Department announced a settlement resolving allegations that PrimeLending discriminated against African-American borrowers nationwide between 2006 and 2009 by charging African-American borrowers higher annual interest rates than it charged similarly situated white borrowers, including in loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs. The terms of the settlement required PrimeLending to pay $2 million to borrowers identified as victims of discrimination, as well as to engage in loan pricing policies, monitoring and employee training designed to prevent future discrimination.11
  • U.S. Department of Justice settlement with C&F Mortgage Corporation. In September 2011, the Justice Department reached a settlement with C&F Mortgage Corporation, resolving allegations that the C&F had violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by charging higher interest rates (in the form of “overages”) and giving lesser discounts on mortgage loans to African-American and Hispanic borrowers. The consent decree required C&F to develop uniform policies for all aspects of its loan pricing and to phase out overages, as well as to pay $140,000 to black and Hispanic victims of discrimination, monitor loans for disparities based on race or national origin, and provide antidiscrimination training for employees.12
  • U.S. Department of Justice settlement with Midwest BankCentre. In June 2011, the Justice Department reached a settlement with Midwest BankCentre, which it said provided unequal home mortgage lending services to residents of majority African American neighborhoods, as compared to residents of predominantly white neighborhoods (in other words, that it was “redlining” the minority neighborhoods). These allegations focused on the Bank’s practices in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Midwest BankCentre agreed to open a full-service branch in an African-American neighborhood, and to invest in the formerly redlined majority areas through a special financing program extending credit to those areas, as well as spending $300,000 for consumer education and credit repair programs, and $250,000 for outreach to potential customers.13
  • U.S. Department of Justice settlement with Citizens Republic Bancorp. In June 2011, the Justice Department entered into a settlement with Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc., which it alleged had violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by failing to provide mortgage lending services to the residents of majority African-American neighborhoods, as compared to residents of predominantly white neighborhoods (“redlining”). The allegations examined Citizens Republic’s lending services in the Detroit metropolitan area. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the defendants were required to open and operate a lending office in an African-American neighborhood, and to invest in the formerly redlined areas of Wayne County through a $1.5 million financing program designed to increase the credit the bank extends in those areas. The bank also agreed to partner with the City of Detroit to provide $1.625 million in matching grants for existing homeowners to make exterior improvements, and to spend $500,000 for targeted outreach and consumer education.14
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Housing Authority of Baltimore City settlement with public housing residents. In a long-running legal battle over fair housing options in Baltimore, in August 2012, HUD and the city of Baltimore’s housing department filed a proposed settlement agreement of a class action in Thompson vs. HUD,15 brought by African-American residents of public housing in Baltimore. In 2005, a federal judge held that HUD violated the Fair Housing Act by concentrating public housing in the most impoverished, segregated areas of Baltimore. The conditions of the agreement included the continuation of the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program, which voluntarily places public housing tenants throughout the city or in the suburbs. Started in 2003, the program has assisted more than 1,800 families move to new areas. In November 2012, a U.S. District Court judge approved the proposed settlement agreement. Key elements of the approved settlement include, among other things, continuing the mobility program, which provides Housing Choice vouchers and counseling, for up to 2,600 additional families through 2018; and requiring HUD, for a period of at least three years, to conduct civil rights reviews of specific plans and other proposals submitted to HUD for approval, involving certain federally funded housing and community development programs in the Baltimore region.16
  • Pending litigation in Beverly Adkins et al. v. Morgan Stanley. On October 15, 2012, the ACLU, the National Consumer Law Center, and a San Francisco-based law firm brought a lawsuit on behalf of African-American homeowners in the Detroit area and Michigan Legal Services against the investment bank (as opposed to the subprime lender) for adopting mortgage securitization policies that caused predatory lending targeted at black homeowners. This is the first lawsuit that seeks to connect racial discrimination to the securitization of mortgage-backed securities.17
  • Pending litigation in National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) v. Bank of America. On October 23, 2012, NFHA filed a federal housing discrimination complaint with HUD against Bank of America resulting from an undercover investigation that found that the bank maintains and markets foreclosed homes in white neighborhoods in a much better manner than in African-American and Latino neighborhoods in Chicago, Milwaukee and Indianapolis.18

Unequal Maintenance of Foreclosed Properties

Discriminatory treatment continues even after foreclosure. A detailed undercover investigation by the National Fair Housing Alliance and several regional partners found not only that banks too frequently fail to maintain foreclosed properties that they own, but that they tend to neglect their properties in communities of color at a much higher rate, with devastating consequences. A large number of the neglected, bank-owned properties have broken or missing doors and windows, inviting vandalism and trespassers. And many have safety hazards that endanger the public. Those and other defects are significantly more prevalent in bank-owned properties located in communities of color. Another finding is that, on average, the banks are not marketing houses located in communities of color as aggressively to individual homebuyers as they do properties in white neighborhoods. The properties in white neighborhoods are, for example, more likely to have clear and professional “for sale” signs. When banks both poorly maintain and market foreclosed houses, the properties tend to stay vacant longer and to eventually be sold to speculators, rather than to people who would make the houses their home.19

Governmental Failure to Adopt or Enforce Fair Housing and Lending Protections

The lack of adequate fair housing and lending rules and enforcement was a significant contributor to the foreclosure crisis and its unequal impact. This neglect was particularly egregious during the Bush Administration, but some troubling patterns continue today.

  • Almost 50 years after the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Treasury Department is one of the only governmental entities that have not adopted regulations to enforce the Act.
  • While the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development finalized in February 2013 important regulations relating to “disparate impact” discrimination (i.e., policies that are unnecessarily discriminatory in their effect, though not their intent),20 the agency still has not issued regulations implementing its duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
  • In 2008, the bi-partisan National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity found, among other things:21
    • “[T]hat despite strong legislation, past and ongoing discriminatory practices in the nation’s housing and lending markets continue to produce levels of residential segregation that result in significant disparities between minority and nonminority households, in access to good jobs, quality education, homeownership attainment and asset accumulation.”
    • “More than four million instances of housing discrimination occur annually in the United States and yet fewer than 30,000 complaints are filed every year. In 2007, the 10 HUD offices processed 2,440 complaints, the 105 [Fair Housing Assistance Program] agencies processed 7,700 inquiries, and the 81 private fair housing agencies processed 18,000 complaints. Literally millions of acts of rental, sales, lending, and insurance discrimination, racial and sexual harassment discrimination, and zoning and land use discrimination go virtually unchecked.”
    • Delays in the administrative processing of cases [by HUD] have been so severe that they have served as the basis for dismissal of cases by courts and administrative law judges.
    • “[The Government Accounting Office] found that only 16 percent of complainants who were identified as having potential cases were assisted with filing complaints. Even worse, 30 percent of callers who attempted to file a complaint could not get through on their first try, and some callers did not receive a call back even after three tries. Finally, when complaints were filed, only half were filed within 20 days from the initial date of contact with the agency. This kind of delay results in lost housing opportunities, missed opportunities to conduct testing, and loss of credibility about the agency’s functions.

The Result: Disproportionate Foreclosures and Loss of Assets

The combination of misconduct by banks and brokers, inadequate rules and enforcement, and record long-term unemployment have devastated the home opportunity and assets of millions of Americans, with communities of color shouldering a disproportionate and devastating burden.

  • Homeowners and communities of color have been especially hard hit by foreclosures. For mortgages originated between 2004 and 2008, 5.1% of non-Hispanic white borrowers lost their homes to foreclosure, compared to 9.8% of Blacks/African Americans and 11.9% of Hispanics/Latinos, and 6.6 percent of Asian Americans. (During the same period, while low- and moderate-income Asian-American borrowers had a lower foreclosure rate than lower-income non-Hispanic whites, the pattern is reversed among middle- and higher-income Asian Americans.)22
  • In a 2011 study of the loss in home equity among Asian American–Pacific Islanders, between 2007 and 2009, the median property value of Asian-American homeowners decreased by $42,900 while the property value loss for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (NHPI) was $47,000, compared to the national equity loss of $9,100 during the same period. The study attributed much of the large differential in equity loss to the fact that Asian Americans and NHPIs were highly concentrated in geographic areas where the housing downturn was more severe than in the rest of the country, e.g., Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.23
  • One illustrative study looked at Prince George’s County, Maryland, the wealthiest African- American county in the nation, finding that the national foreclosure crisis has had a profound effect on it. Analyzing the likelihood of foreclosure in Prince George’s County, the study found that the borrowers in Black/African American neighborhoods with high-income were 42% more likely and Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods with high-income were 159% more likely than the borrowers in non-Hispanic white neighborhoods to go into foreclosure, controlling for key demographic, socioeconomic, and financial variables.24
  • The Center for Responsible Lending predicts that “the spillover wealth lost to African- American and Latino communities between 2009 and 2012 as a result of depreciated property values alone will be $194 billion and $177 billion, respectively.” [“spillover” costs refers to financial and nonfinancial consequences for homeowners who live near foreclosed properties].25 In an October 2012 white paper published by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition which reviewed the literature on the long-term social impacts and financial costs of foreclosure on communities of color, the authors cited U.S. Census Bureau figures that as of the fourth quarter of 2011, the non-Hispanic White, Black/African- American, and Hispanic/Latino homeownership rates were at 73.7, 45.1 and 46.6 percent, respectively. These rates compared to those reported for the fourth quarter of 2007, when the recession officially began, reflecting homeownership rates at 74.9, 47.7, and 48.5 percent, respectively.26
  • The Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)—the agency that controls Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—found that the FHFA does not adequately oversee these enterprises’ compliance with consumer and civil rights protections in their dealings with entities (“counterparties”) that sell loans to or service them for the enterprises. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for FHFA declared “FHFA does not examine how the Enterprises monitor compliance with consumer protection laws, and, indeed, OIG determined that the Enterprises do not ensure that their counterparties’ business practices follow all federal and state laws and regulations designed to protect consumers from unlawful activities such as discrimination.”27

Solutions: The Compact for Home Opportunity

Concrete, pragmatic solutions exist that can address these discriminatory patterns and their aftermath while expanding opportunity and economic prosperity for all Americans and rebuilding our economy. In coalition with housing, consumer protection, economic, and civil rights experts, The Opportunity Agenda has assembled a Compact for Home Opportunity, containing over a dozen strategies designed to promote successful homeownership, fair housing and lending, and the restoration of community and family assets.


  1. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of the Treasury, Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending (2000); Ira Goldstein with Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg, The Reinvestment Fund, Subprime Lending, Mortgage Foreclosures and Race: How Far Have We Come And How Far Have We To Go? (2008).
  2. See, e.g., KATHLEEN C. ENGEL AND PATRICIA A. MCCOY, The Subprime Virus: Reckless Credit, Regulatory Failure, and Next Steps 56-58 (2011).
  3. William C. Apgar, Jr. and Allegra Calder, The Dual Mortgage Market: The Persistence of Discrimination in Mortgage Lending, in THE GEOGRAPHY OF OPPORTUNITY: RACE AND HOUSING CHOICE IN METROPOLITAN AMERICA 102 (Xavier De Souza Briggs, ed., 2005). See also William C. Apgar, Jr., Christopher E. Herbert and Priti Mathur, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Risk or Race: An Assessment of Subprime Lending Patterns In Nine Metropolitan Areas (Aug. 2009).
  4. The report is available at opportunityagenda.org.
  5. Debbie Gruenstein Bocian, Keith S. Ernst and Wei Li, Center for Responsible Lending, Unfair Lending: the Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime Mortgages 3 (May 31, 2006).
  6. Debbie Gruenstein Bocian, Wei Li, Carolina Reid, and Roberto G. Quercia, Center for Responsible Lending, Lost Ground, 2011: Disparities In Mortgage Lending and Foreclosures 5 (2011).
  7. Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey, Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis, 75 AM. SOC. REV. 629, 644 (2010).
  8. The consent decree, complaint, and Justice Department press release are available at justice.gov.
  9. The DOJ press release is available at justice.gov.
  10. The consent order is available at justice.gov.
  11. The complaint is available at justice.gov.
  12. The settlement agreement and complaint are available at justice.gov.
  13. The settlement agreement and complaint are available at justice.gov.
  14. The settlement agreement is available at justice.gov. The complaint is available at Settlement Agreement, Thompson v. HUD, No. MJG 95-309 (D. Md. filed August 24, 2012).
  15. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Court Approves Final Settlement Thompson v. HUD,” press release, November 20, 2012.
  16. The ACLU press release and complaint are available at ACLU website.
  17. The NFHA press release is available at National Fair Housing website.
  18. National Fair Housing Alliance, The Banks Are Back – Our Neighborhoods Are Not: Discrimination in the Maintenance and Marketing of REO Properties, April 3, 2012.
  19. 78 Fed.Reg. 11460 (Feb. 15, 2013) and GPO website.
  20. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “HUD Issues Rule Formalizing Standard on Discriminatory Effects in Housing,” press release, February 8, 2013.
  21. Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Future of Fair Housing (2008).
  22. Debbie Gruenstein Bocian, Wei Li, Carolina Reid, and Roberto G. Quercia, Center for Responsible Lending, Lost Ground, 2011: Disparities in Mortgage Lending and Foreclosures (2011).
  23. “AAPIs Experience Significant Loss of Home Equity,” AsianWeek.com, January 29, 2011.
  24. Katrin B. Anacker, James H. Carr, and Archana Pradhan, Analyzing Foreclosures Among High-Income Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino Borrowers in Prince George’s County, Maryland,  39 HOUSING AND SOCIETY Issue 1, 1–28 (2012).
  25. Debbie Gruenstein Bocian, Wei Li, and Keith S. Ernst, Center for Responsible Lending, Foreclosures by Race and Ethnicity: The Demographics of a Crisis 11 (June 18, 2010). See also James H. Carr, Katrin B. Anacker and Michelle L. Mulcahy, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, The Foreclosure Crisis and its Impact on Communities of Color: Research and Solutions 31 (Sept. 2011) (discussing the racial wealth gap).
  26. James H. Carr and Katrin B. Anacker, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Long Term Social Impacts and Financial Costs of Foreclosure on Families and Communities of Color: A Review of the Literature 3 (Oct. 2012).
  27. Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of Inspector General, FHFA Should Develop and Implement a Risk- Based Plan to Monitor the Enterprises’ Oversight of Their Counterparties’ Compliance with Contractual Requirements Including Consumer Protection Laws 2, March 26, 2013.

Vision, Values, Voice

 

To be effective in moving hearts, minds and policy over the long term, we need integrated messaging and narrative strategies that both mobilize our base and expand our constituencies by bringing those in the middle toward our cause.

Vision, Values, and Voice: A Communications Toolkit provides guidance for developing values-based messages that engage core audiences, disrupt dominant narratives, and help shape the public dialogue. In addition to big picture thinking about communications strategy, you will also find tips and examples of a range of tactics, and concrete messaging guidance in the form of “opportunity flashcards” which provide short and easy-to-find advice and sample language on a range of social justice issues.

This resource is for those working to influence public thinking about social justice issues over the long-term while also crafting effective short-term campaigns.

Media Representations and Impact on the Lives of Black Men and Boys: A Social Science Literature Review

Introduction

This social science review centers on the topic of how communications in the broadest sense impacts black male achievement. It is no exaggeration to say that tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pages have been written on the topic over the course of several generations. This review is intended to offer communicators on related issues, who come to the review with a wide range of different backgrounds and depth of knowledge on the topic, a digestible overview. What have social scientists studied and learned, particularly in the last decade, about how communications have impacted achievement of black males, and could impact it for the better? A range of longer reviews, including book-length studies, are available and have informed this piece — but The Opportunity Agenda would like to offer its colleagues and the field a user-friendly summary that captures the essence of what is known, and what is not known, in a very usable format.

What is known is often discouraging, as a wide range of studies, analyses, and bodies of evidence point to persistent and destructive biases regarding the public image of black males, and ongoing forces that perpetuate the creation of these images. Equally frustrating is the fact that these patterns, while often very familiar to insiders, are more or less invisible to the general public, and seem implausible or exaggerated to them even when pointed out (an observation based on the authors’ own research experience on related topics). Other problems widely known to insiders but mostly “invisible” to the public at large include the well-documented and nearly universal tendency of Americans to have unconscious patterns of bias against African Americans in general and black males in particular, as well as the psychological and sociological costs that these patterns exact on black males. In short, it seems very important that the nature of these patterns of images, their causes, their effects, and their potential antidotes, should in some sense be available “out there.”

The review focuses on the core problem as social scientists have described it — including aspects that are more robustly or more thinly addressed in the literature — as well as a discussion of the some of the more troubling dilemmas and dynamics that confront communicators.

Where possible, this review also points out the “good news” in the literature, including psychology experiments that look at tasks and contexts that can reduce bias. Despite the lack of “silver bullets,” the literature does offer some useful lessons that can guide communicators’ efforts going forward.

Please note that the social science literature review is just one piece of a larger effort. It is intended to provide communicators with an overview of what is known (or not known) about the topic via the social sciences, and to inform future stages of the project; it is those later stages that will focus more on action steps going forward.

Methodology

A literature review is an overview of the published scholarship on a particular topic. In this case the topic is what social scientists know about how and why discourse (especially public and media discourse) shapes perceptions of black men and boys – and the consequences of these perceptions. The review has also sought out findings that offer evidence about how to talk about black men and boys and achievement in ways that can promote engagement, understanding, and progress in this area.

The authors of the review relied on four complementary approaches to identifying and selecting relevant and reliable source materials:

  • Recommendations from a variety of experts about important, influential works;
  • Citations and references in high-profile, popular works;
  • Citations in well-regarded, specialized scholarly works (that is, studies and analyses that are accepted and cited by other researchers in the  field);
  • Our own expertise as academic reviewers and  researchers.

The review focuses primarily on findings for which scholars have offered experimental or documentary evidence, or around which scholars in the field have reached a strong consensus. The selection of work is also based on its evident usability, and its potential to help a variety of stakeholders identify the most prevalent and malignant frames and adapt a set of best practices for reshaping them.

A select bibliography is offered for readers who may want to examine relevant research in more detail.

Even a relatively lengthy overview of such a vast field inevitably omits many studies, including important ones, from discussion. We hope, on the other hand, that the review does touch on the most important themes that shape current scholarly perspectives.

Acknowledgments

This research was authored by Topos Partnership with consultation from Janet Dewart Bell and Eleni Delimpaltadaki Janis of The Opportunity Agenda, who contributed to the design and analysis of the research and edited the report. Christopher Moore designed the report. Jill Bailin, Judi Lerman, and Loren Siegel also assisted in the editing of the report.

The Opportunity Agenda’s research on black men and boys is funded by the Open Society Foundations’ Campaign for Black Male Achievement. The statements made and views expressed are those of The Opportunity Agenda.

Our sincerest gratitude goes out to the advisory committee, who consulted on this research: Bryonn Bain,Robert Entman, Fanon Hill, Dori Maynard, Alexis McGill Johnson, Rashid Shabazz, Calvin Sims, Kamal Sinclair, Alvin Starks, Albert Sykes, Sharon Toomer, Rhonda Tsoi-A-Fatt Bryant, Cheo Tyehimba Taylor, and Hank Willis Thomas. Special thanks to Steve DuBois, who coordinated the committee.

Executive Summary

This social science literature review focuses on the question of how media, and communications more broadly, affect outcomes for black men and boys in American society. The summary is intended to offer communicators — who come to the review with a wide range of backgrounds and depth of knowledge on the topic — a digestible overview of an extremely rich and varied body of research. It reviews a significant set of materials, representing many of the key approaches and themes that characterize the scholarship as a whole.

There are many, many forces — material, historical, cultural, and political — that shape and constrict   the life chances of black males in the U.S. Some of these are long-standing legacies that may take generations to shift. But in other ways, the social, economic, and symbolic place of African-American men and boys is re-created and reinforced every day. In particular, public perceptions and attitudes   toward black males not only help to create barriers to advancement within this society, but also make that position seem natural or inevitable. Among the most important mechanisms for maintaining (or changing) these perceptions are the mass media with their significant power to shape popular ideas and attitudes.

This study looks at the evidence scholars have gathered and the conclusions they have drawn about how media present a picture of black males and how this representation affects not only attitudes toward black men and boys but their actual life chances. It also explores whatever guidance the social science research offers for changing media practices and resulting black male outcomes for the better.

For the most part, we limit the discussion to “what is known” by social scientists looking at this field — based on experimental or other empirical evidence (as opposed to a cultural criticism approach, for instance), or on a consensus reached by scholars. At certain points throughout the review we offer perspectives based on our own empirical research into the framing of a wide range of social issues.

The core problem

The review focuses on the core problem as social scientists have described it — a troubling link between media portrayals and lowered life chances for black males. The review breaks this story down into several components.

Distorted patterns of portrayal

A robust body of research documents how the overall presentation of black males in the media is distorted in a variety of ways, relative to the real-world facts. While individual studies tend to focus on a single genre or medium — such as TV fiction shows, magazine advertising, or video games — the research taken as a whole reveals broad patterns, including:

  • Underrepresentation overall — for instance, as characters in video games; as “talking head” experts called in to offer perspectives and analysis in the news; as computer users in TV commercials; as users of luxury items in print ads; and as “relatable” characters with well- developed personal lives (e.g., fathers) in fiction shows and films.
  • Negative associations exaggerated — particularly criminality, unemployment, and poverty. The idle black male on the street corner is not the “true face” of poverty in America, but he is the dominant one in the world as depicted by media.
  • Positive associations limited — particularly, sports, physical achievement in general, virility, and musicality. While the media’s version of America is populated by some black males intended to inspire, they tend to represent a relatively limited range of qualities to the exclusion of a variety of other everyday virtues.
  • The “problem” frame — Due to both distortions and also accurate and sympathetic discussion, black males tend to be overly associated with intractable   problems.
  • Missing stories — Many important dimensions of black males’ lives, such as historical antecedents of black economic disadvantage and persistence of anti-black male bias, are largely ignored by the media.

Causal link between media and public attitudes

Naturally, the reason so much attention is devoted to media representations is that the collective image of blacks and black males has important effects. Many researchers discuss how distorted portrayals can be expected to create problematic understandings and attitudes among audiences, including:

  • General antagonism toward black males;
  • Exaggerated views of, expectations of, and tolerance for race-based socio-economic  disparities;
  • Exaggerated views related to criminality and violence;
  • Lack of identification with or sympathy for black  males;
  • Reduced attention to structural and other big-picture factors;
  • Public support for punitive approaches to problems.

Studies show that media images have the greatest impact on perceptions when viewers have less real- world experience with the topic; in other words, the “media world” can be mistaken for the real world, unless audiences have sufficient personal experience to counteract its effects.

Even audiences with real-world experience are not immune. Studies show, for instance, that stereotypic images depict black women as contributing to their domestic victimization by their black male partners. Considering these distorted images, it is not surprising that black television viewers, male and female, tend to lose more “social capital” through viewing TV programming — i.e., to trust the community and those around them less in ways that can lead to reduced prosperity and other outcomes.

Impacts on thinking of black males themselves

Black males obviously draw on far more experience than others to form images of themselves and their peers. However, they are also members of the public, and they are not immune to the influence of the media, which they consume just as other Americans do.

Specifically, scholars state that images in the media have a negative impact on black perceptions of  self, though there is no shared consensus on how exactly this plays out. Various mechanisms may be at play:

  • Negative media stereotypes (thugs, criminals, fools, and the disadvantaged) are demoralizing and reduce self-esteem and expectations. Dealing with negative expectations may also create stress and drain cognitive resources in some contexts — leading to the lowered performance associated with “stereotype  threat.”
  • The most common “role models” depicted in media (e.g., rap stars and NBA players) imply limited options.

Additionally, scholars have explored the ways in which black males can come to internalize biases and stereotypes and then, through their words and actions, reinforce or perpetuate those distortions.

Documentations of conscious and unconscious bias

Another robust area of study focuses on mapping current attitudes towards blacks and black males — which presumably have been and continue to be shaped by the media. Many of the most disturbing results come from cleverly designed psychology experiments, which limit people’s ability to disguise or hide biases that they know are not socially acceptable. For instance:

  • The amygdala, a brain region associated with experiencing fear, tends to be active when whites view an unfamiliar black male face (regardless of their conscious reports about racial attitudes).
  • After “seeing” unknown black faces flashed at subliminal speeds (too rapidly to consciously perceive), whites tend to show more hostility in various contexts — leading to a breakdown of social connection between different races.
  • Whites tend to more easily associate negative words (e.g., terrible, failure, horrible, evil, agony, war, nasty, and awful) with unknown black faces, as opposed to white faces.
  • Some studies indicate that many African Americans have an implicit bias against unknown faces of their own race, similar to biases shown by whites against blacks.

Explicitly measured attitudes towards African Americans or racial policies have not changed significantly since the election of Barack Obama.1

Practical consequences in lives of black males

Finally, of course, distortions in the media are ultimately significant because of the real-world effects they have on black males’ outcomes, which can be negatively affected any time a black male is in a position where his fate depends on how he is perceived by others, particularly whites, or on what kind of rapport he has with them.

The real-world effects alluded to in the literature include everything from less attention from doctors to harsher sentencing by judges, lower likelihood of being hired for a job or admitted to school, lower odds of getting loans, and a higher likelihood of being shot by police. For example, various experimental simulations have shown that whites are more likely to “shoot” an unarmed black male than an unarmed white male.

Why media patterns are distorted

In order to combat the destructive causal dynamics delineated so far, communicators must confront the question of why black males continue to be underrepresented, framed in negative ways, offered limited roles in both fictional and news contexts, and so forth. Scholars have offered a number of suggestions about the causal factors leading to the distortions and omissions.

  • Producer bias — Most obviously, those responsible for media content may at times present  a distorted, inaccurate view because of their own conscious or unconscious biases and stereotypes.
  • Incorrect assumptions about audiences — Scholars suggest cases in which portrayals are incomplete or distorted because producers of media content carry faulty assumptions about   the composition of their audiences and their audiences’ preferences. For instance, video game producers, who tend not to be African-American males themselves, underestimate how many black males and others who would identify with black protagonists play the games.
  • Audience preferences — In some cases, content producers may be responding to accurate assessments of their audiences’ comfort zones with a certain range of presentations of black males — i.e., ones that confirm their own fears and prejudices or reassure them that black males are not achieving “undue” power and status.
  • Lack of input from black constituents — One of the factors seen as most significant by scholars is the paucity of African-American television station owners, producers, journalists and experts invited to contribute content, etc.
  • Political motivations to traffic in stereotypes — Portrayals are also distorted by some (often white and/or conservative) communicators’ interests in tapping into racial bias in order to promote or discredit various policies (e.g., more prisons, less welfare).

“Prescriptive” studies

The vast majority of social science literature on this topic focuses on mapping out the problems    relating to black males and the media, and is essentially descriptive — that is, it describes and analyzes existing patterns in the media, in thought and behavior. Prescriptive studies, explicitly setting out to identify proven courses of action, including empirically testing hypotheses about what might help improve matters, are relatively absent from the literature.

These would hypothetically include, for instance, studies about what happens when media representation of black males is fuller, more accurate and more sympathetic, or what kinds of media patterns help make people less biased, or lead to better outcomes. There are a few exceptional studies that offer this kind of evidence, such as political scientist Shanto Iyengar’s experimental finding that news stories about racial discrimination helped reduce the tendency to blame individuals for outcomes (Iyengar, 1991); and a study showing that a combination of explicit training about stereotypes plus exposure to a series of “counter-stereotypical” news stories can help reduce unconscious bias. (Ramasubramanian, 2007) By and large, however, the social science literature offers relatively little evidence about what “works” when it comes to media representations of black males, or about other critical questions of guidance on how to effectively bring about changes in media representations, or how to talk about critical issues such as structural bias.

Much of the “good news” in the research comes from laboratory studies of tasks or conditions that reduce implicit bias. For instance, various tasks that force subjects to think of African Americans as individuals end up reducing unconscious bias (e.g., asking subjects to practice distinguishing one black face from another, or asking them to speculate about which of a random set of vegetables an unknown black person might like).

More explicit types of training also have very promising effects. For instance, subjects who undergo 45 minutes of intensive practice at rejecting stereotypes — literally clicking “No” when viewing a black face paired with a stereotypical description — showed a resulting reduction in implicit bias. Researchers liken the training (which cannot be accomplished more quickly) to practicing a new physical skill. (Kawakami et al., 2000)

While studies like these do not look directly at media or public discourse, are often not targeted at thinking about black males per se, and do not offer concrete suggestions for advocates to act on, they at least offer interesting food for thought for communicators interested in reducing bias on a societal scale.

Dilemmas and deep challenges

As noted earlier, scholars have suggested a number of reasons why patterns of portrayal of black males may be distorted across a wide range of media. Unfortunately, dealing with the problem may be even more complex than that discussion suggests. Recruiting more African Americans into media content production, for instance, or correcting producers’ assumptions about the makeup of their audience, still may not address some of the fundamental obstacles to constructive thinking and dialogue on race- related issues, as pointed out by social scientists. Many of these are areas of active research and debate, so a firm consensus about their exact dynamics and significance are still being worked out.

  • The difficulties of structural thinking — For both cultural and cognitive reasons, it is difficult for Americans to focus on the idea that individuals are not fully in charge of their own fate. Regardless of racial attitudes, systemic and structural explanations for social outcomes are extremely challenging to convey.
  • Anxiety and “the other” — Anxieties tangential to race, e.g., about terrorism or loss of a job, tend to promote a more conservative outlook, including negative attitudes towards those perceived as “others.” In a time period in which anxiety is particularly prevalent, it is predictable that racial attitudes will deteriorate and policy preferences will shift in directions that do not favor “out-groups,” such as black males.
  • Fundamental/universal challenges to race relations — Some social science suggests that relations among people of different races must always overcome some fundamental obstacles. For instance, there is a consistent body of evidence showing that people have more trouble differentiating the faces of other-race individuals — not just whites looking at black faces, for instance, but also blacks looking at white faces. Given the importance of individuation as opposed to stereotyping, this face-recognition finding suggests a basic, though not insurmountable, challenge inherent in interracial relations.
  • Causation vs. correlation — Much of the available social science is able to point to correlations between, for instance, race and health outcomes, without being able to state the causes with strong confidence. The problem for communicators is that unless causation is clearly and persuasively presented, audiences will inevitably insert their own ideas about causation based on their preexisting understandings and biases.
  • Warts-and-all vs. idealization — There is considerable debate about the reality that some   black men, like all human beings, at times contribute to their own obstacles. While discussing this fact can trigger the default perception that they are always and entirely to blame for their circumstances, not discussing these choices evokes charges that communicators are not realistic or are not asking enough of black men.
  • Black masculinity as the problem — Hypersexuality, violence, misogyny, and elite athleticism are extreme versions of stereotypical male qualities, and each is used to caricature and stereotype black males in particular. Yet addressing the issue can mean confronting the idea that black males may embrace these stereotypes as a form of resistance to various external limitations on their achievement. There is no easy consensus about how best to handle these patterns — e.g., some scholars condemn black males’ embrace of these images while others focus on explaining and contextualizing it.
  • Appeal of a color-blind society — The idea of a colorblind society is appealing to many Americans for a variety of emotional and ethical reasons — i.e., it can seem both more fair and less stressful. However, those who advocate for a color-blind society are often responsible for suppressing discussions of race that are ultimately essential for addressing disparate obstacles.
  • Implicit prejudice as a political tool — Communicators must contend with a pattern of “codes” (e.g., words like “urban”) used for stoking or taking advantage of racial tensions in order to promote their desired outcomes, such as cuts to social services.
  • Communication vs. contact — Finally, some of the social science literature suggests that actual social contact between black males and others may be one of the most critical factors in changing perceptions and outcomes. If this is the case, then communications per se, no matter how well done, may ultimately have limited effects, except to the extent that they help break down the forms of isolation and segregation that marginalize black males.

Looking forward

While the social science literature does not offer a great deal of specific guidance about ways forward, it does suggest a number of ideas that communicators should keep in mind about how to proceed.

Most straightforwardly, communicators and advocates must continue to work to create fuller and more accurate portrayals of black males in the media — through education and external pressure targeted at media producers, through production of new images, and by working to embed more African Americans in all links in the media production chain.

Communicators must also wrestle with significant challenges regarding how to speak most effectively about the topic, in order to take the best advantage of communications opportunities — e.g., how to offer a clear and compelling picture of “invisible” systemic forces that stack the odds against black males in a range of areas. Our own research experience across a range of issues suggests that this is a very important challenge for communicators to tackle: Until people are helped to see the systemic forces that insiders are talking about (whether these have to do with economics, children’s well-being, the environment, or any other topic), even sympathetic audiences can draw the wrong conclusions about what is causing problems and how to address them.

Offering clear new pictures of large-scale causality is obviously very challenging, but may also be essential. It may help communicators get past vexing dilemmas, and help them address topics about which it is difficult to engage in constructive dialogues. For instance, discussion of gangs can easily promote fear of individual gang members, but an effective bigger-picture story might help focus attention on the lack of alternative opportunities for social and economic advancement in some communities.

Our research experience also suggests that hopeful stories and novel ideas can go a long way towards engaging new audiences and new support, whether in the context of fiction shows, news accounts, press releases, or informal anecdotes. For instance, communicators may make significant headway by focusing on interventions that have made demonstrably positive differences for black males (without obviously “taking away from” other groups). Such stories would be more positive and more novel than the very familiar claims and accusations in this area. Another example of potentially effective novelty would be an explanation of the phenomenon of implicit bias — surely unfamiliar to most Americans — and how widespread it is. But note that such discussions are more likely to be effective if they focus on objective description and explanation rather than moralizing (see below). Discussion of the factors known to reduce implicit bias might also be the basis for positive and hopeful stories about race.

The research strongly suggests that censure is an ineffective intervention in most communications contexts. It is likely to trigger resistance and more negative racial attitudes. (On the other hand, it may be an effective threat against public figures, for instance, who may act based on political calculation rather than feelings.) This finding challenges communicators to find ways of talking that rely on motives other than shame or guilt. It may be effective to point out the manipulative uses of race in the media and public discourse. While it is generally not very effective to simply argue that a particular perspective is wrong (i.e., “myth busting”), some of the social science evidence suggests that explicit inoculation against people trying to manipulate us can be very effective, and the strategy of opening people’s eyes to how they are being duped has been effective in other issues areas, such as cigarettes.

Communicators should also keep in mind that any of their efforts that can help promote greater  contact between African-American males and others may be among the most effective steps they can take.


1 For more discussion of explicit attitudes, see A Review of Public Opinion Research Related to Black Male Achievement, The Opportunity Agenda, October 2011.

Download Full Report

Media Portrayals and Black Male Outcomes

From the perspective of most scholars who focus on the topic, there is a clear causal story that links media representations of black men and boys to real-world outcomes. The story can be summarized as follows:

  • For various reasons, media of all types collectively offer a distorted representation of the lives and reality of black males.
  • In turn, media consumption negatively affects the public’s understandings and attitudes related to black males (sometimes including the understandings and attitudes of black males themselves)
  • Finally, these distorted understandings and attitudes towards black males lead to negative real-world consequences for them.

Taken as a whole, this is a rich area of study, which many scholars believe is central to understanding and addressing the stubborn challenges faced by black boys and men in American society. (Note that many studies refer to race without explicitly addressing gender, but many patterns, such as exaggerated associations with violence or sports, are clearly more relevant to males than to females.)

For advocates and other communicators concerned with issues related to black male achievement, it is important to be sharply aware of this story, and the findings that support it, so that they can address the problem in an informed way.

Note that other important components of the black male dilemma do not fall within the scope of this paper. Historical legacies of slavery and Jim Crow, the material and economic disparities related to that and other forms of historical racism, the role of the criminal justice system in controlling black males, the flow of resources toward and away from black males, and so on, are all important issues for understanding the current situation for black males in America. They will not be addressed here, however, except insofar as the distorted images in media make it easier for many Americans to tolerate, perpetuate, ignore or discount the many real disadvantages that black males face.

This paper breaks the story down into five “links in the chain” (some of which have been studied and discussed more than others):

  • Distorted portrayal of black (male) lives/experience
  • Why media patterns are distorted
  • Causal link between media and public attitudes
  • Documentations of the public’s bias — both conscious and unconscious — against black males
  • Practical consequences for the lives of black males

Distorted Patterns of Portrayal

In a wide range of ways, the overall presentation of black males in the media is distorted, exaggerating some dimensions while omitting others. Many scholars have contributed to a robust body of research documenting these distortions, which have several aspects.

Underrepresentation in media portrayals

A number of researchers have essentially conducted “censuses” (of representations overall, of fictional characters, of characters in ads, and so forth) and compared these findings to the numbers of black men and boys that would be expected if racial bias were not at work. As this research has progressed, analysts have grown more sophisticated in the distinctions that they draw about where black males do and do not appear in the media. A pattern reported again and again is that African Americans are underrepresented in various facets of the media’s portrayal of the world.

For example, although characters of color in video games have been increasing over time, blacks in general tend to be underrepresented especially as active, playable characters in video games. They are more likely to be stock characters in the story.

…outside of sports games, the representation of African Americans [in popular video games] drops precipitously, with many of the remaining featured as gangsters and street people … (Williams et al., 2009)

Black males also tend to be underrepresented as experts called in to offer commentary and analysis in the news. News programs frequently include “talking heads” invited to help clarify a given topic, but these tend not to be black males. In a 1997 sample of network news clips, black speakers accounted for less than 3 percent of the statements made by experts commenting on various issues. (Entman & Rojecki, 2000, p. 69)

Black males are underrepresented in the roles of computer users or technical experts in television commercials, instead tending to appear in roles that put less emphasis on intellectuality (see below). (Kinnick & White, 2001) African Americans are also underrepresented as users of luxury items in commercials, instead being featured using more pedestrian consumer products. (Henderson & Baldasty, 2003)

In short, the studies paint a picture of an American media landscape that includes fewer black     males overall, few associated with technical and other intellectual pursuits, and few who fit Tucker’s description of “competent, capable, and successful members of businesses and families who have attained some degree of material wealth.” (Tucker, 2007, p. 69)

More subtly, as Entman and Rojecki (2000) point out, even in the cases when blacks appear in the  media as sympathetic and competent figures, they tend not to be “relatable” figures with whom the audience is asked to truly identify. They may not have names (black crime victims are often unnamed, as opposed to their white counterparts who are named); they may lack visible family lives (there are many fewer competent and successful black male fiction characters, compared with white characters); and so forth.

In the world as portrayed by the media, life is lived primarily by white (or other non-black) people, with black males, more or less sympathetic, in the background. (See also Bogle, 2003.)

Negative associations exaggerated

While many aspects of black males’ real lived experience tend to be missing from the collective media portrayal, some aspects are very much present, and are, in fact, exaggerated.

Perhaps the most-discussed pattern is the association between black males and criminality, particularly  in television news — where they are not only likely to appear as criminals, but likely to be shown in ways that make them seem particularly threatening (compared with white criminals, for instance).

Blacks are overrepresented as perpetrators of violent crime when news coverage is compared with arrest rates [but are underrepresented in the more sympathetic roles of victim, law enforcer]. (Entman & Gross, 2008, p. 98, citing Travis L. Dixon & Daniel Linz, 2000)

…[in a small sample of local Chicago TV news from 1993-1994] stories about Blacks were four times more likely to include mug shots [than stories about Whites accused of crimes]. (Entman & Rojecki, 2000, p. 82)

African Americans are disproportionately represented in news stories about poverty, and these stories tend to paint a picture that is particularly likely to reinforce stereotypes and make it hard to identify with black males. For example, low-income blacks in news stories are more likely to live in slums or urban areas, as opposed to rural areas, than real-world averages would suggest; more likely be entirely unemployed and “idle” (as opposed to working); and so forth. The idle black male on the street corner is not the “true face” of poverty in America, but he is the dominant one in media portrayal. (Clawson & Trice, 2000, updated and confirmed in Clawson et al., 2007)

In the entertainment media as well, these and other associations continue to be systematically perpetuated. Analysts have gone into great detail about the way in which negative images of black males continue to be used for entertainment purposes, whether through traditional imagery of black inferiority (Bogle, 2003) or by using black male characters disproportionately to represent both the victims and perpetrators of violence. For example, one study examined music video violence statistically, for its impacts on adolescents:

Compared with United States demographics, blacks were overrepresented as aggressors and victims, whereas whites were underrepresented. White females were most frequently victims. Music videos may be reinforcing false stereotypes of aggressive black males and victimized white females. These observations raise concern for the effect of music videos on adolescents’ normative expectations about conflict resolution, race, and male-female relationships. (Rich et al., 1998)

Positive associations limited

As discussed, even when black males are presented sympathetically, they tend to be absent from some important types of roles, e.g., as fathers in parenting situations that audiences can relate to. On the     other hand, black males are highly visible in other types of roles that can be considered positive. In the world as depicted by the media, blacks frequently excel in sports, and more generally, are associated  with physicality and physical achievement — as well as the aggressiveness that usually goes along with this type of success.

In films, their characters tend to have “macho” qualities that are valued by Americans; however, these film representations can also exclude or obscure other everyday virtues.

… men of color are faced with achieving masculinity [in media representations] through their corporal selves as physical threats (i.e., as athlete or gang member) as opposed to their intellectual contributions. … To be viewed as assertive and aggressive is valued in the culture but comes at the expense of other highly valued qualities … (Messineo, 2008, p. 755)

Black men [in mainstream print ads], with rare exceptions, are represented as workers, athletes, laborers, entertainers, criminals, or some combination thereof. (Tucker, 2007, p. 70)2

In short, the media world is populated by some black males we admire, but these tend to be associated with a relatively limited range of qualities, such as physical ability and/or entertainment skills.

The “problem” frame

A consumer of most of American media can hardly help thinking of black males in terms of problems. This is not only because of distortions in the collective media presentation of black males (discussed previously), but also due to patterns that characterize sympathetic and accurate portrayals. For valid and important reasons, mass media, advocacy, and policy-making discourses tend to focus on (real) problems of black males — relating to educational and economic outcomes, family life, or the criminal justice system, for instance.

What are the implications when Americans as a whole strongly associate black males with intractable problems? The challenge, discussed in greater detail in later sections, is that frequent repetition of the problems of black males can obscure other, more positive dimensions of their reality, and worse, can end up reinforcing prejudicial stereotypes. The literature suggests — and the authors’ own research experience on a wide range of issues confirms — that an emphasis on negative outcomes often ends up triggering default (false) assumptions about how those problems arose, particularly due to faulty personal choices.

Even if the proportion of Black victims and criminals were to reflect defensibly “accurate” readings of actual crime patterns, in the absence of contextual explanations, the heavy prominence of a racial minority in these stories of violence may worsen negative stereotyping. (Entman & Rojecki, 2000, p. 81)

Negative stereotyping of minorities is often (if inadvertently) reinforced in newspaper reporting that addresses race-based health disparities. For example, [an article on high HIV rates among black males] reinforces negative stereotypes of Black men as threats not only to their own women and children, but to society at large . . . Because the article does not offer any underlying, structural reasons for the disparities mentioned . . . it ends up reinforcing negative racial stereotypes about Black criminality, drug use, destructive sexuality, and inadequate fatherhood. (Aubrun  et  al., 2007)

Advocates need to carefully consider the costs of such narratives, if they predominate to the exclusion  of more positive narratives and images. (See discussion of “Dilemmas and Deep  Challenges.”)

Missing stories

The media are principally in the business of storytelling, whether through journalism, fictional narrative and entertainment, reality TV, and even advertising, video games and music videos. Some analysts have tried to look not only at the kinds of characters that black males do or do not play, but also the kinds of stories that are told about them, or not told about them. Although we do not find much in the way of systematic or statistical censuses in the sociological literature, there are a couple of observations that seem clear.

Just as important as the patterns of distortion and exaggeration discussed so far is the fact that many important dimensions of black males’ stories are largely untold in the media — in particular how the lives of black men and boys are affected by larger contexts, such as historical antecedents of black economic disadvantage, persistence of anti-black male bias, and relative disconnection from the social networks that help create wealth and opportunity.

The media contribute to the denial component of racial sentiments mostly by what they usually omit. Examples include: the pervasiveness of present-day discrimination and, given the importance of capital accumulation, the enormous financial harm still imposed today by discrimination against past generations; the role that poverty and joblessness play in raising crime rates and lowering marriage rates among YMC [young men of color]; and the part played by larger structural changes in the global economy. (Entman, 2006, p. 13)

In short, according to the world as it is presented by the media, the suffering black males can easily be presumed to be solely responsible for their own fates. Without knowing these larger stories, the average person is left to assume that black males are innately or culturally inclined towards low achievement, criminality, and broken families.

In the authors’ own analysis of the stories that mass media tell about race,3 we found that:

The descriptions in the coverage tend to create and reinforce concrete images of people and families who are doing poorly and people who are “behaving badly.” While the focus on tangible, day-to-day problems such as sickness and poverty may help give readers a more vivid picture of disparities, this vividness actually works against bigger-picture understanding which would include more about causes, contexts, and solutions. (Aubrun et al., 2005)

Of course, stories addressing big-picture causality are not entirely absent from the media. For instance, they are a regular topic in the social network site BlackPlanet.com.4 They also appear sometimes in mainstream media discussions; enough, in fact, to be decried by racial conservatives such as African-American radio host Larry Elder:

The mostly well-intentioned but condescending members of the mainsrream media go the extra mile to avoid having charges of “racist” directed at themselves, so they seldom challenge “black leaders” when these race-baiters confuse equal rights with equal results. Thus, lower black college enrollment becomes “underrepresentation” in higher education; the fact that white net worth exceeds black net worth becomes “disproportionate”; data showing banks decline black loans more readily than loans to whites becomes “discrimination”; blah, blah, blah. (Elder, 2008, p. xv)

But the social science literature makes the overall pattern clear: Consumers of mainstream media receive overwhelmingly more “information” about individual African-American males than about the broader forces that shape their experience.

If advocates are working to help foster a different media environment, and the benefits that would  follow, they cannot ignore these missing dimensions of the black male story — even if telling the stories is difficult and often triggers resistance.

Causal Link Between Media and Public Attitudes

Why study media portrayals? Of course, the reason that so much attention is devoted to media representations (in the broadest sense) is that the collective image of blacks and black males has important effects. Researchers state — sometimes with rigorous evidence, other times through common sense inference — that representations in the media affect viewers’ perceptions and, specifically, that distorted portrayals lead to distorted and/or negative perceptions. (Note that some of the evidence comes from studies of other ethnic groups.)

For instance:

  • Patterns in portrayals of black men and boys can be expected to promote antagonism towards them.
    • [We] can predict what watching local news might do to us. If subliminal flashes of black male faces can raise our frustration, as shown by the Computer Crash study [in which subjects responded with greater hostility to a crashed computer after being shown subliminal images of black faces], would it be surprising that consciously received messages couched in violent visual context have impact, too? (Kang, 2005, p. 1551)
    • … White Americans tend to develop negative stereotypes towards Hispanic Americans when they depend on television to learn about them. This finding indicates that people are influenced by television images. The more negative images are shown on television, the more likely the viewers pick up the images and develop their stereotypes. (Dong & Murrillo,  2007)
  • Patterns in portrayals of black males can be expected to promote exaggerated views of, expectations of, and tolerance for race-based socioeconomic disparities.
    • [M]edia content — not just news but entertainment and “infotainment” — usually promotes White privilege and the idea that Whites occupy the top of a racial hierarchy wherein Blacks are largely and naturally relegated to the bottom. (Entman & Gross, 2008, p. 97)
  • Patterns in portrayals of black males can be expected to promote exaggerated views related to criminality and violence.
  • Patterns in portrayals of black males can be expected to work against identification with them.
    • See Entman and Rojecki’s discussion of how television ads are much less likely to place African Americans in positions the audience relates strongly to (for instance, in close-ups, addressing   the audience directly, first or last to appear on screen). (Entman & Rojecki, 2000, p. 168)
  • Patterns in portrayals of black males can be expected to reduce attention to structural and other big-picture factors.
    • Films that ameliorate White anxieties about Black men by turning them into comics or criminals to be laughed at and/or condemned further the state of racial denial that plagues the United States. … They ease White America’s discomfort and make it easy to sidestep its responsibility to acknowledge and to address persistent racial inequalities and conflicts. (Tucker, 2007, p. 102, drawing on Guerrero, 1993)
  • Patterns in portrayals of black males can be expected to promote public support for punitive approaches to problems.
    • For instance, presumably due to cumulative effects of viewing TV news that associates black males with crime, “heavy news viewers” in one study were more likely to support the death penalty after viewing crime news stories that did not even identify the race of the suspects. (Dixon & Azocar, 2007, p. 229)

An important research question has been whether media representations only reflect popular understandings that are already out there — or if they help create those understandings through repetition and exposure. A few studies help to directly establish this causal link.

It has been confirmed experimentally that exposure to stereotypical African-American characters and behaviors in entertainment programs has negative impacts on beliefs and attitudes about African Americans, as well as towards affirmative action policies. (Ramasubramanian, 2011)

If media consumption creates distorted understandings and attitudes, then more consumption should lead to more distortion. This is exactly the pattern observed in some studies, particularly when amount of consumption is balanced against amount of real-world experience with black males (or other ethnicities). Media images have the most impact on perceptions when viewers have less real-world experience with the topic.

[P]ersonal contact is critical to the development of a better understanding of other ethnicities. The more individuals interacted with other people who have different cultural backgrounds, the more likely these individuals could see the positive traits and characteristics of the other people. This finding suggests that human interaction and direct contact are keys to understanding between people and, in particular, among those who have different cultural backgrounds. (Dong & Murrillo, 2007)

[T]he more television White viewers consumed, the more their evaluations of Latinos reflected their [negative] TV characterization — markedly so when viewers’ real-world contact with Latinos was not close, resulting in a greater reliance on televised images in decision making. (Mastro et al., 2007, p. 362)5

Impacts on thinking of black males themselves

While black males obviously draw on far more experience than others to form images of themselves and their peers, they are not immune to the influence of the media portrayals, which they consume like other Americans. One of the most important general findings relevant to black males’ own thinking is that so-called “stereotype threat” is an important cause of black males’ relatively lower performance in certain contexts, such as standardized testing.

Research into stereotype threat usually involves giving people measurable tasks, while at the same time subtly reminding them of the stereotypes that might apply to them. A growing body of research led by Joshua Aronson, Claude Steele, and others shows that when a member of a group that suffers from stereotyping comes into a situation where that stereotype is highly relevant, they experience a number of effects that reduce performance. Increased anxiety, self-consciousness about performance, and efforts  to suppress negative thoughts and emotions all use up mental resources needed to perform well on cognitive and social tasks. (Schmader et al., 2008) The more intense the stereotype threat, the more pronounced the impacts on the individual. (Aronson & Steele, 2005) For example, an elderly person, when reminded of how people often associate age with memory loss, will struggle more with memory tests. (Rahhal et al., 2001) Asian-American schoolgirls did worse than usual on math tests in situations that emphasized their gender (the stereotypical idea is that girls are supposed to be worse at math), and better than usual in situations that emphasized their Asian heritage (Asian Americans are “supposed to be” better at math). (Ambady et al., 2004)

Of course, black males are aware of stereotypes that peg them as unintelligent or under-achieving, and they consistently suffer from the self-handicapping that results from stereotype threat in contexts such  as testing or job interviewing.

Interestingly, whites are also subject to a kind of stereotype threat. An experiment showed that when stereotypes about white racism were triggered, white males tended to place more physical and social distance between themselves and blacks, thereby acting in a manner that served to confirm the stereotype. (Goff et al., 2008)

Besides stereotype threat, researchers have also pointed to other damaging effects of media on the thinking of African Americans generally, and black males in particular. For instance, it has been shown that stereotypic images of black women increase their domestic victimization by their black male partners (Gillum, 2002), presumably by shaping males’ views of black female characters.

Another study focused on African Americans and “social capital.” There are a great many definitions of social capital in the literature, but most will agree that the term refers to people’s connections to each other in social networks (both virtual and actual), which provide financial, social, and other opportunities and important benefits. Telephone survey interviews conducted in St. Louis and Kansas City showed that African Americans are particularly vulnerable to diminishment of social capital as a result of media consumption (see Beaudoin & Thorson, 2006). Since blacks tend to watch more television overall, and tend to be especially attuned to representations of blacks (who are often framed negatively), their attitudes towards the people and community around them is negatively impacted, relative to white viewers. The survey showed that those who watched more television had less trust in and interaction with neighbors, lower likelihood of joining groups, and worse perceptions of the town they lived in. Together, these attitudes amount to a loss of social capital, making it less likely that blacks in these communities will be connected to others in ways that lead to improving life chances.

More generally, scholars find that images in the media have a negative impact on black people’s perceptions of self and of their communities, though there is no shared consensus on how exactly this plays out. Various mechanisms may be at play:

  • Negative stereotypes (thugs, criminals, fools, and other disadvantaged types) are demoralizing and reduce self-esteem and expectations.
  • The most common “role models” depicted in media (e.g., rap stars or NBA players) present limited, often unrealistic, options.
  • More positive or realistic role models tend to be  lacking.

When certain types of negative or limiting images are produced by “black sources,” the impact can be particularly strong.

When these images of sex object and aggressive male are presented as part of the dominant ideology, men and women of color can reject the imagery as imposed from outside. However, when this imagery is presented as from the ingroup, the risks of self-objectification are heightened. (Messineo, 2008, p. 755)

Researchers also have confirmed that the media creates rather than reflects negative understanding, finding, for example, that the higher the consumption of media, the lower the self-esteem among African Americans. (Tan & Tan, 1979)

Psychological and developmental studies have also begun to look at particular times of life (such  as childhood and adolescence) when black boys are most susceptible to media influences, and the psychological strengths or stresses that seem to affect how deeply these influences impact them. (Martin, 2008;  Banks  &  Grambs, 1972)

Documentations of Bias — Conscious and Unconscious — Against Black Males

Another robust and profoundly important area of study focuses on mapping current attitudes towards blacks and black males, whether conscious or unconscious. Most importantly, a rich set of studies, including cleverly designed psychology experiments (especially Implicit Association Tests), makes it clear that many if not most non-blacks have negative unconscious associations with black males, even if they have no consciously biased attitudes. And many African Americans share these negative associations toward their own group.

As Kang observes in an extensive review of “the remarkable findings of social cognition,” among other topics:

Not only do they provide a more precise, particularized, and empirically grounded picture of how race functions in our minds, and thus in our societies, they also rattle us out of a complacency enjoyed after the demise of de jure discrimination. (Kang, 2005, p. 1495)

In this section we review several examples of the findings from this type of literature as well as more traditional investigations of attitude. While the topic of bias per se is not part of the scope of this review, it is worth keeping in mind the overall force of these studies, since conscious and unconscious attitudes are certainly shaped at least in part by what people take in from the media.

Unconscious patterns

A variety of reported patterns made use of experimental measures that revealed associations and attitudes we may not even be consciously aware of. For instance:

Automatic responses

At the most fundamental level, there is evidence that the amygdala, a region of the brain that is associated with experiencing fear, tends to be more active when whites view an unfamiliar black male face than an unfamiliar white male face, regardless of their conscious reports about racial attitudes (see Phelps et al., 2000).

Hostility

The “Computer Crash” study mentioned previously suggests that whites, on average, have greater feelings of hostility after seeing the face of an unknown black person, flashed at subliminal speeds, than they do after seeing a white face.

Another experiment involved white participants playing a “Password”-type guessing game. Whenever one player on a two-person team was subliminally primed with a black face, both players on the team ended up exhibiting greater hostility as the frustrations of the difficult game mounted, thanks to a vicious circle in which overall social cohesion, cooperativeness, and benefit of the doubt were hindered.

General negative evaluation

Many studies have confirmed that whites tend to more easily associate positive words (e.g., laughter, peace, joy, friend, wonderful, love, happy, and pleasure) with unknown white faces and negative words (e.g., terrible, failure, horrible, evil, agony, war, nasty, and awful) with unknown black faces, such as in the study reported by Smith–McLallen et al. in 2006.

African Americans’ own implicit biases

Some studies have indicated that many blacks have an implicit bias against unknown faces of their own race, similar to the reactions of whites (e.g., see Livingston, 2002).

Conscious patterns

Whether surprisingly or not, research suggests that the election of Barack Obama does not reflect a sea change in attitudes towards African Americans or racial policies in the United States. For instance, Hutchings concludes that “there is no evidence that White support for racial preferences has changed [between 1988 and 2008].” He bases this conclusion on a comparison between responses in these two years to questions such as whether the Federal government should take more active steps to address unfair treatment of African Americans in the job market. In both years, roughly 90 percent of blacks supported that idea, while roughly 50 percent of whites did. Furthermore, “on matters of public policy dealing explicitly with race, there is little evidence that the racial divide is declining among younger cohorts.” (Hutchings, 2009, p. 929)

Despite the widely held idea that racism has become socially unacceptable, large percentages of the population harbor very traditional prejudiced views in which black males tend more than non-blacks toward violence, criminality, irresponsibility, hypersexuality, and so on.
Note that the companion piece to this social science literature review will assess key patterns in recent polls and surveys, including much more detail on explicit (as opposed to implicit or unconscious) racial attitudes.

Practical Consequences in Lives of Black Males

Usually implicit in the literature, but sometimes explicitly discussed, is the idea that attitudes and biases can lead to real, practical consequences for black men and boys. These attitudes and biases can affect a black male’s fate when it depends on how he is perceived by others, even including other blacks, and on what kind of rapport they have with him.

For instance, attitudes (shaped to some degree by media) can and do:

  • directly affect the likelihood of being hired or promoted;
  • directly affect the likelihood of school admission;
  • directly affect school grades;
  • directly affect treatment within the justice system;
  • directly affect chances of getting loans;
  • end up affecting health and life expectancy;
  • end up affecting self-realization and individual development;
  • end up affecting the state of social policy (e.g., punitive laws and police practices that impact communities).

Scholars have repeatedly documented the range of  implications:

We find that judges harbor the same kinds of implicit biases as others; that these biases can influence their judgment; but that given sufficient motivation, judges can compensate for the influence of these biases. (Rachlinski et al., 2009)

Biased interpretation can have substantial real-world consequences. Consider a teacher whose schema inclines her to set lower expectations for some students, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or a grade school teacher who must decide who started the fight during recess. Or a jury who must decide a similar question, including the reasonableness of force and self-defense. Or students who must evaluate an outgroup teacher, especially if she has been critical of their performance. (Kang, 2005, pp. 1518-1519)

[M]ediated images have many impacts on young men of color that work through their effects on White leaders and White citizens. These are people whose decisions on everything from hiring, to granting bank loans, to teaching or medically treating YMC [young men of color], to voting for officials who make public policies, are influenced by their conscious and unconscious racial views. In turn, those policies have important effects on the relationships, careers, and physical and psychological health of men of color during their youth and throughout their lives. There are well-known, self-reinforcing connections that link together under-funded schools in minority neighborhoods, the disappearance of jobs from the same communities due to global and domestic outsourcing, discrimination by employers who assume that YMC applicants are unreliable, higher rates of crime, lower rates of marital stability, and higher levels of medical problems (including premature death). … [M]edia images play an integral role in perpetuating these vicious circles … . (Entman, 2006, p. 21)

The most serious possible consequence of negative attitudes concerns the ultimate questions of life   and death. Besides the fact that black men are more likely to be sentenced to death than white men for the same crime, several suggestive experimental studies have shown that subjects in a video police simulation are more likely to “shoot” black men (holding objects that may or may not be guns) than white men under the same circumstances (e.g., see Greenwald, Oakes, &  Hoffman, 2003).

Why Media Patterns Are Distorted

Given the long list of negative effects for black males and for society at large, the question remains: “Why does the media perpetuate this destructive set of images and stereotypes?” Racism is often explicitly condemned in the media, yet black males continue to be underrepresented as positive forces in the mainstream, framed in negative ways, offered limited roles in both fiction and news contexts, and so forth. Why? If communicators are to make a positive difference, they must grapple with the roots of the problem.

The recent research on this question is relatively sparse compared to other topics covered in this review, but a number of scholars have offered suggestions about the causal factors that lead to the distortions. Understanding the causes behind these patterns is an important step towards altering them, or at least contending with them more effectively.

Bias among producers of media

The most obvious potential factor is that the people responsible for media content are deliberately presenting a distorted, biased view. This is certainly a historical fact, at least:

The media have not been kind to African American males. Throughout America’s history, black men, teenagers, and boys too often have been depicted as buffoons, criminals, or oversexed animal-like creatures who lust after white women. That followed a design in this country to maintain an inferior, second-class status for black people, dating from slavery on through the twentieth century. (Diuguid & Rivers, 2000)

Scholars have also pointed to a variety of reasons media representations might be biased and distorted, even in the absence of conscious bias or malicious intent on the part of media elites.

Audience preferences

In some cases, scholars assert that viewer preferences drive the distorted portrayals of black males in the media. Most directly, white audiences, according to one perspective, tend only to be comfortable with a certain range of presentations of black males — i.e., presentations that confirm their own fears and prejudices or reassure them that black males are not achieving “undue” power and status.

How does one create and market a product to an audience [i.e., the White majority film audience] willing to pay only to see counterfeit representations of African Americans? (Tucker, 2007, p. 103, drawing on Guerrero, 1993)

Less directly but perhaps equally damaging, the pressures to attract an audience lead to a focus on violence and other attention-grabbing topics, that “happen to be” associated with black males.

These findings [about patterns in news coverage] should not surprise us, given the strong financial incentives to focus on sensationalistic stories such as violent crimes. Financial success of broadcast stations requires high ratings, in order to sell more advertisements at higher rates. … Violent crime news stories frequently involve racial minorities, especially African Americans. (Kang, 2005, pp.  1550-1551)

Incorrect assumptions about what audiences want

If some media content producers are right about what their audiences are interested in, the scholarship suggests that in other cases portrayals of black men are incomplete and distorted because producers of media content have faulty assumptions about demand. For instance, video game developers tend to create game characters that mirror stereotypes of players as young white males, rather than the actual market demographics, which include a significant percent of black men and boys.

[T]he most likely cause for the representation patterns [in popular video games] is a combination of developer demographics [i.e., developers create characters more like themselves] and perceived ideas about game players [i.e., developers create characters that mirror their imagined audience]. (Williams et al., 2009, pp. 830-831)

Lack of input from African Americans

Another clear and compelling hypothesis about distorted media presentations concerns the lack of black input — in various forms — into the production of content. This dearth of representation includes, for instance, limited African-American TV station ownership, and an underrepresentative share of African-American producers, journalists, and experts invited to contribute content.

Perhaps the most important prerequisite to achieving the journalistic ideal of balance is    the requirement of having reliable, legitimate, and credible sources competing to advance alternative narratives … contending elite forces working to impose different frames on the coverage of an issue … . (Entman & Gross, 2008, p. 95)

A Knight Foundation report shows that women and people of color continue to be underrepresented in the positions of journalist and editor. Even as other organizations have succeeded in bringing diversity to the workplace, the news media has lagged. In a 2002 census, over 90 percent of journalists were white. (Lehrman, 2005)

Political motivations to traffic in stereotypes

Scholars point out that communicators can score political points, for example, when they promote resentment about social program spending by tapping into racial bias, a kind of generalized “Southern strategy.” For instance, Lucy Williams describes how stereotyped images and misinformation were intentionally inserted into the debate about welfare reform during the Clinton Administration, including:

the use of direct mail scare tactics, the use of the media through televangelists and talk shows… the rightist critique of media as “liberal,” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988), the pressuring of mainstream media through boycotts of advertisers’ products and letter-writing campaigns, (Hardisty, 1995) the encouraging of think tank staff and “scholars” to write op-ed pieces — all toward the goal of “stirring up hostilities” and “organizing discontent” (Smith, 1991). … Right spokespersons became regular media stars and newspaper columnists. (Williams, 1997)

Mistaken understandings

Finally, it is worth noting that people may traffic in these stereotypes simply because they have mistaken impressions of the facts. Without being conscious of biased attitudes, producers of media content of all kinds may, consciously or unconsciously, assume that people with low incomes tend to be black, or looking at this another way, that households with black males are likely to be dysfunctional, that discrimination against black males is limited to isolated acts of racial discrimination, and so on.


2 See also Eschholz et al., 2002.

3 The analysis was based on a review of “over one hundred articles collected by the Center for Media and Public Affairs during May and June of 2004 from newspapers in various parts of the country, from Miami to Seattle to San Antonio to Washington, DC.”

4 See Byrne, 2008.

5 Also see Hawkins and Pingree, 1990.

Download Full Report

close search

Hot Topics: