Learn about what ‘bias’ actually means and the effects that it has.
Edited by Kayla Luga
“Yet it is common knowledge a feeling can be so dormant and subjected to one’s sub-consciousness, that one is wholly ignorant of its existence”. This is a description that Lena Olive Smith, a respected black female civil rights lawyer in her time, gave in a state court prosecution in 1928 where a black man was being tried for raping a white woman before an all-white jury. Although written almost a century ago, the description still embodies the potency and subtlety of implicit bias. As Miss Smith stated, implicit bias is the idea that someone can consciously reject racist ideas, but subliminally retain negative associations with race. It is the unconscious ability for someone to use race to come to conclusions about another person or affect their actions/judgments regarding the person. Essentially, it is when you unknowingly stereotype a person. Someone may actively reject racist ideas or institutions, but is oblivious to the fact that they have some degree of prejudice against a person. Historically, this can be seen in the macro (society) and micro (day to day interactions) of the world: black people represent 9% of Los Angeles but get stopped by police 28% of the time, according to a 2018 investigation; the classic example of when someone turns away to find a different route to take when they are about to go down the same street as a darker-skinned person. Implicit bias, although not intentional, can make minorities feel hopeless. It is another example of how a system destroys the soul of a group. Jennifer Eberhardt, a renowned psychologist and professor at Stanford University, in an interview with Time Magazine, discussed a study she did to test implicit bias. The first part of the study was an experiment done to test how quickly people came to the conclusion that a blurry object was crime-related. Before showing the object, the people were either exposed to a black face or a white face. The study revealed that “being exposed to black faces for milliseconds leads people to pick out guns and knives sooner.” (Time). When taking a step back and really thinking about these results, it is disheartening. People have created a link between black people and crime. When looking at this from a broad point of view, it explains the statistic above that we have seen too many times with police in which they stop black people a disproportionate amount of the time. In their minds, they are more likely than any other person to commit a crime. When looking at it in our day to day lives, it is this preconceived idea that explains why someone would walk away when a dark-skinned person is nearby: the macro and micro. The other part of the study that Eberhardt did had the same format to this one: you are shown either a black or white person’s face before a set of blurry images. This time, the blurry images were of different animals. Again, the study confirmed a dehumanizing attribute: when exposed to the black person’s face, people were quicker to detect the blurry image was that of an ape. Keep in mind, no one in this study was aware of the fact that they had these stereotypes. It is already ingrained in their minds through what people read, see, experiences and, largely, what they have been taught. Questions emerge from studies like this: Has society encouraged the stereotyping of a group to the point that it is so normalized that people are unaware of it? Is it something that people learn from within their families? Could it only be at the individual level? Eberhardt came to the conclusion that regarding the particular case of crooked and racist cops, there was no way it could be on an “officer-by-officer” basis. When talking about police chases and what they do in that situation, she said, “You have to act quickly and you’re afraid. Those are the conditions under which bias is most likely to affect decision-making” (Time). She is suggesting the fact that bias is a learned trait and therefore is most likely systemic thinking. It is something that can be controlled. This idea is confirmed by the fact that biases are even found at the court level. In a Yale study, a random set of judges from eight randomly selected states were all found to have some degree of implicit bias that skewed their verdict. They were more lenient among people of their own race and less so against people of other races; impact at the macro-level of implicit bias. Therefore, it is encouraged that if people want to try to limit the amount their implicit bias affects their decision making, they must slow down in their daily lives and think about what they are doing. It only affects a person when they do not make themselves aware of their biases. Becoming conscious of the actions that you are doing removes the automatic nature of implicit bias: the micro-level. Bonus: Notice throughout this article most of the examples that were used involved black versus white comparisons. Most research done on this topic mainly focuses around this subject matter, but I am also a black man. Would I have been more keen to find different examples for this article if I were Hispanic? Asian? Indigenous? Although I tried to be thorough in my research, maybe I unconsciously tried to read more regarding what affects me. Perhaps my own implicit bias swayed me to look for examples particular to my own race. I say this to say that it is important to question the motive behind what you do. Check yourself in situations where race is a prominent issue and challenge your own thoughts. Even in the simplest of situations regarding race, as Lena Olive Smith said, “prejudice [can be], blinding him to all justice and fairness.” Sources:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-implicit-racial-bias-in-sentencing https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/living/implicit-bias-tests-feat/index.html https://time.com/5558181/jennifer-eberhardt-overcoming-implicit-bias/ https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/stop-data https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/implicit-bias-and-social-justice
Comments