Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People | A Review

Even though the notion that the US is “post-racial” has been pretty thoroughly Blindspot approved.inddtrounced, we still hear people claim to be colorblind and that they treat everyone the same. The purpose of Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People is to expose the large set of biases all of us have hidden in our brains and to show how those “bits of knowledge about groups of people” (their skin color, age, education or religion) can influence behavior.

Karen Ziech organizes and trains in the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago where she has been a member of the Anti-racism Commission since 2008.   As a member of Chicago Regional Organizing for Antiracism (C-ROAR) she is working to build a network of antiracist allies in the Chicago area. She moved into instructional design and training in the telecom industry where she worked for nearly fifteen years. As a career consultant in the outplacement industry.  Karen loves spending time with her four children and their kids (eleven grandchildren and counting), practicing yoga, reading and walking.

Karen Ziech organizes and trains in the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago where she has been a member of the Anti-racism Commission since 2008. As a member of Chicago Regional Organizing for Antiracism (C-ROAR) she is working to build a network of antiracist allies in the Chicago area. She moved into instructional design and training in the telecom industry where she worked for nearly fifteen years. As a career consultant in the outplacement industry. Karen loves spending time with her four children and their kids (eleven grandchildren and counting), practicing yoga, reading and walking.

You may have heard of the Harvard Implicit Association Tests (IATs). Available online for almost 20 years, they were created by Blindspot’s authors to prove that it is “unconscious cognition,” rather than conscious thought that drives human judgment and behavior. The 10 minute exercises test the taker’s attitudes, one’s positive and negative associations, about groups of people. The data from over 14 million IATs show the disconnect between what “good people” believe about themselves and the reality of their implicit attitudes.  Among the many attitudes studied, results reveal that in this country the preference for White people is pervasive, that we favor young over old (this is one of the strongest biases in our culture), and that we prefer straight people over gay people.

Blindspot, like Crossroads’ Critical Cultural Competency workshop, shows how constant input from our culture shapes our attitudes and gives examples of how, when we’re unaware of them, we can engage in behavior that is damaging to others. The authors point to studies in which people with higher levels of preference for Whites judged White job applicants to be better qualified than Black applicants and where ER physicians recommended optimal treatment more often to White patients than to Blacks. While both these studies refer to the preference for White people over Black, the authors cite numerous examples of unequal treatment to Hispanics, Asians, Muslims and American Indians.

In the discussion of stereotypes, which we all form and use, the authors state that the more one can be described by the default attributes of one’s society, those that Crossroads calls normative, the less one will be subject to stereotyping. And conversely, the fewer dominant culture characteristics one possesses, the more likely one is to be stereotyped, by others, and also by oneself. As just two examples of the negative effects of internalized stereotyping, the authors point to elders who unconsciously influence their declining health and women who underperform in STEM professions. (A recent preventative medicine study, which uses results from the Race IAT, measures the role of internalized stereotypes in the aging process. Study: In Black Men, Internalized Racism Speeds Up Aging)

While it can be discouraging to be confronted with our own hidden biases and to understand how unconsciously we behave towards others, the good news is that just being aware of the problem is the beginning of fixing it.  The authors devote an entire chapter to ways in which we can spot behaviors that result in damage to people in stereotyped groups and what we can do to outsmart our implicit associations. It’s impossible to be truly color blind, but this book can help us to be intentional about treating everyone with the dignity and respect we all want.

Blindspot is a thorough and compelling argument for getting in touch with one’s individual biases. It’s pretty clear, though, that the authors view this connection as just a first step. In the body of the book, they cover a short history of the study of racism in the US. And, in addition to the race IAT, which first established the widespread preference for White people over People of Color, the authors discuss the consistent implicit associations with Americans as White People, topics that would logically lead to a discussion of racism. It’s in the 40 page appendix that the book shows its true goal—to open up that discussion. Here the authors cover the history of racism in the 20th century and its current levels in the US; causes and examples of racial and ethnic disadvantage (in criminal justice, education, health care and housing, to name just a few); and continued racial segregation. Because they are social scientists, they come at racism from the perspective of scientific studies. One hopes, one yearns, for a next book, which could cover studies about research that shows positive outcomes in dismantling racism.


Let Us Not Stand Silent

Jessica Vazquez Torres, Core Organizer Trainer

A native of Puerto Rico, Jessica Vazquez Torres identifies as a “1.5 generation Queer ESL Latina of Puerto Rican descent.” She works as a consultant and core/organizer trainer for Crossroads. Jessica holds a BA in Criminal Justice and Masters degrees in Theological Studies and Divinity. She lives in GA with her spouse and two Shih-Tzu’s.

Bearing the weight of truth that challenges human assumptions is something Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did well.  If the photos and grainy videos show the whole story, he was a man who could stand in the face of great and difficult problems with aplomb, and speak with passionate certainty about grim reality and hope.

In the United States we have done Dr. King a great disservice by imprisoning him to one speech, a marvelous and uplifting speech about a dream, but nonetheless one that obfuscates his evolution as a nonviolent resister and thinker.

Exactly one year before his assassination, April 4, 1967, from the pulpit of Riverside Church in New York, Dr. King spoke at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam calling for an end to the war and articulating the implications of failing to take such a bold step. He titled his remarks, A Time to Break Silence.”

Dr. King’s journey to this powerful speech was a difficult one.  The movement he was leading appeared to be unraveling. There was tension and dissent among the ranks over whether or not the struggle for African-American civil and economic rights should be connected to the struggle to end U.S. military operations in Vietnam.

Close allies like Whitney Young were concerned that to take on Vietnam was to jeopardize all the work they had done on behalf of African-Americans.  Younger movement leaders like Stokely Carmichael were also challenging the core principles of the civil rights movement as articulated by King.  In their frustration at the slow pace of change, significant members of the younger generation of civil right organizers and revolutionaries were abandoning the idea that non-violence could bring change.  While chanting “Black Power,” Carmichael and other emerging civil rights leaders were calling for armed confrontation of racist Whites, the use of violence when necessary, and Black separatism.

Those concerned with preserving the focus of the civil rights movement of issues of race primarily and class secondarily, pleaded with Dr. King to remain silent.  Those concerned with the disproportionate drafting and loss of African-American men in the war and the U.S. efforts to disrupt the movement for self-determination in Vietnam pleaded with Dr. King to speak.

In between these two pulls Dr. King struggled until the harrowing images from Vietnam, the piled bodies of U.S. soldiers and Vietnamese women and children, and the obvious links between war, poverty, and racism could not be avoided anymore. Early in his speech at Riverside Church King offers this confession, “Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart.”[1] He then follows this acknowledgment with a powerful and urgent plea for the soul of his nation.

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.  Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message — of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.”[2]

No longer able to ignore the links between war, poverty and racism nor the movement of the Spirit of the God in whom he believed, King begins to push the civil rights movement in a radically different direction.  Resting in his conviction that the Creator desired a reordering of society, King challenged his nation and those gathered at Riverside Church to find the moral courage to make a choice: These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.”[3]

Dr. King knew that when he linked the struggle for civil rights with the struggles against poverty and war, he would bring discomfort into his life.  He knew that when he began to name the unholy trinity of U.S. materialism, militarism, and systemic racism people would resist.  But he also knew there was no alternative.  He knew that for freedom to ring in every mountain, valley, and corner of his beloved nation, he had to link these social sins.  And so must we.

The dream of Dr. King we love to cite will remain an elusive fantasy until we too link systemic racism with corporate greed, militarism, and the rampant materialism of our times.  In the last month alone our congress has acted not to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans while also ensuring corporations can continue to profit as the poor and vulnerable struggle.  Homeless shelters are filled with women, children, and men.  Those seeking jobs have stopped searching, resigning themselves to permanent unemployed status which means they are of no account.  Our public school systems are failing to educate the poorest and criminalizing those who fail to conform to our common core curriculums.  Our prisons are filled to the brim with non-violent offenders who are not being rehabilitated while the companies that own the prisons revive de-facto forms of Jim Crow.   And all along the stock market thrives.

Bringing about, working toward, honoring the dream of Dr. King demands that we see the connections linking systemic forms of oppression.  It demands that we speak out when it is unpopular; that we take stands not just on matters of racial discrimination but against xenophobic and homophobic legislation as well as the military and prison industrial complexes that destroy life.

Do we have it in us to speak? Do we have it in us to protest? Do we have it in us to raise our collective voice to speak out against systemic forms of oppressions like racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism, just to name a few, especially when part of speaking out is naming our complicity in this social ills and oppressions?

Dr. King said toward the beginning of this powerful speech, “the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony[4] because “the human spirit [moves with] great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty.”[5]

Let us not be mesmerized by the conundrums we face.  At stake is the soul of this nation. Let us not stand silent.

[1] Martin Luther King and James Melvin Washington, I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World ([San Francisco]: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), page 136.

[2] Ibid, page 151.

[3] Ibid, page 153.

[4] Ibid, page 136.

[5] Ibid, page 136.