The social determinants of mental health (SDOMH)
are societal problems that disrupt mental health, increase risk of
mental illness among certain groups, and worsen outcomes for individuals
with mental illnesses. Much like the social determinants of health
(SDOH), SDOMH include the non-medical factors that play a role in the
likelihood and severity of health outcomes, such as income levels,
education attainment, access to housing, and social inclusion. Disparities in mental health outcomes
are a result of a multitude of factors and social determinants,
including fixed characteristics on an individual level – such as age,
gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation – and environmental
factors that stem from social and economic inequalities – such as
inadequate access to proper food, housing, and transportation, and
exposure to pollution.
Definitions
Mental health describes emotional, psychological, and social well-being.
The concept of social determinants stems from the life course
approach. It draws from theories that explain the social, economic,
environmental, and physical patterns that result in health disparities
and vary across different stages of life (e.g. prenatal, early years,
working age, and older ages).
Identifying the social and structural determinants of mental health, in
addition to individual determinants, enables policy makers to promote
mental health and reduce risk of illness by designing appropriate
interventions and taking action beyond the health sector.
Inequities in mental health
Globally,
in 2019, 1 in every 8 individuals (12.5% of the population) lived with a
mental disorder; however, in 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that number grew dramatically by around 27%.
While mental illnesses and disorders have become more prevalent,
studies have shown that mental health outcomes are worse for some
populations and communities than others. One such inequity is that of
gender: females are twice as likely to have a mental illness than males.
Fixed characteristics
Fixed
characteristics refers to those that are genetic and biological and/or
are not subjected to be influenced by the environment or social living
conditions of an individual.
Gender
The
second leading cause of global disability burden in 2020 was unipolar
depression, and research showed that depression was twice as likely to
be prevalent in women than in men. Gender-based mental health disparities suggest that gender is a factor that could be leading to unequal health outcomes.
Research studies included in Lancet Psychiatry Women's Mental Health Series focuses on understanding why some of these gendered disparities might exist. Kuehner in her article Why is depression more common among women than among men?
mentions several risk factors that contributes to these inequities,
including the role of a women's sex hormones and "blunted
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response to stress".
Other factors include a woman's increased likelihood to body shaming
and rumination and stressors on an interpersonal level, as well as
sexual abuse during childhood. Further, the prevalence of gender
inequality and discrimination in society against women may also be a
contributing factor. Li et al. finds that the monthly and lifespan
fluctuations of sex hormones oestradiol and progesterone in women may
also influence the gender gap, especially in the context of
trauma-related, stress-related, and anxiety disorders, such as through
increasing vulnerability to development of these disorders and
permitting the continued persistence of symptoms for these disorders.
Increased likelihood of gender-based violence for women compared
to men is also another risk factor that was studied by Oram et al.
Researchers found that women have a higher risk of being subjected to
domestic and sexual violence, thereby increasing their prevalence to
post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression. Also notable to consider
in the context of gender-based trauma are female genital mutilation,
forced and early marriage, human trafficking, and honor crimes.
While women are reported to experience higher rates of depressive
and anxiety related disorders, men are more likely to die by suicide
than women: in the United Kingdom, suicide is the biggest cause of death
for men 45 and younger, and in the likelihood of dying by suicide, men
are four times more likely in Russia and Argentina, three and a half
times more likely in the United States, and three times more likely in
Australia, than women, to name a few countries. Gender differences in suicide are commonly explained by pressure for gender roles and higher risk-taking behavior among men.
Sexual orientation
In
studies comparing mental health outcomes between members of the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (questioning), intersex,
asexual and agender (LGBTQIA+) community with heterosexuals, the former showed increased risks of poor mental health.
In fact, LGBTQIA+ individuals are twice as likely to have a mental
disorder compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and two and a half
times more likely to experience anxiety, depression, and substance
misuse.
Based on the minority stress
model, these mental health disparities among LGBTQIA+ people are due to
discrimination and stigma. In fact, LGBTQIA+ individuals have expressed
difficulty in accessing healthcare due to experienced discrimination
and stigma, which as a result, causes them to not seek healthcare at all
or rather delay it.
Further societal isolation and feelings of rejection may also
contribute to the prevalence of mental disorders among this community. In addition to the perceived and experienced stigma, LGBTQIA+ have an increased likelihood of being victims of violence.
These factors, alongside others, contribute significantly to
differences in mental health experiences for members of the LGBTQIA+
community in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts, thereby
result in mental health inequities by sexual orientation.
Race/ethnicity
Studies
in the conducted in the United States have indicated that minorities
have similar or smaller rates of prevalence for mental health disorders
as their majority counterparts. Blacks (24.6%) and Hispanics (19.6%) have lower depression rates than their White counterparts (34.7%) in the United States.
While racial/ethnic minority groups may have similar prevalence rates,
the consequences because of mental illness are more prolonged – which
may be partly explained due to the smaller access rates for mental
health treatments. In 2018, while 56.7% of the general US population
who had a mental illness didn't seek treatment, 69.4% and 67.1% Black
and Hispanics didn't access care. Further, in the instances of some mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia,
Blacks in the United States have been reported to have higher rates
compared to their White counterparts, however, research suggests that
this could be due to an overdiagnosis
among clinicians and underdiagnosis for other illnesses, such as mood
disorders, for which Blacks had lower reported prevalence rates for
major depression.
These instances of misdiagnosis may be due to "lack of cultural
understanding by health care providers,...language differences between
patient and provider, stigma of mental illness among minority groups, and cultural presentation of symptoms.
Environment
According
to Paul and Moser’s meta-analysis, countries with high income
inequality and poor unemployment protections have worse mental health
outcomes among the unemployed.
Environmental factors
In addition to fixed characteristics, environmental factors, such as
adequate access to food, housing, and health and exposure to pollution,
Social determinants of mental health include social, economic, and environmental factors
impacts
an individual’s likelihood and severity of mental health outcomes.
Although these factors can not directly change an individual's fixed
characteristics of the social determinants of mental health, they can
affect the degree to which an individual is influenced.
Inadequate access to proper food
Mental
illnesses are common among those that are food insecure due to
associated factors of stress and weaker community belonging. Food security
refers to the state of having access to sufficient and nutritious foods
in order to maintain a healthy and active life, and deviations from
this can lead to food insecurity.
While seen as an economic indicator, food insecurity can increase the
risk to mental illnesses through stress, making individuals more
vulnerable to worse mental health outcomes.
Another contributing factor that can explain this association
between food insecurity and mental illnesses is social isolation.
Research, for instance, shows that the majority of food insecure
individuals in Canada do not have access to community food programs or
food banks, suggesting that there is little to no access to social
resources for these people.
This factor can impact an individual's ability to feel supported or a
sense of belonging within their community, thereby increasing their
vulnerability to mental illnesses.
Housing
Studies have found a co-occurrence between homelessness and mental illnesses. The “housing first”
intervention in Canada – the At Home/Chez Soi study – which aimed to
provide permanent housing to individuals reported that for the study
cohort, suicidal ideation diminished over time.
Another study, one of the largest of its kind aimed to characterize the
health of Canada's homeless youth, reported that 85% of its
participants had high levels of psychological distress and 42% attempted
suicide at least once.
In addition to suffering from mental illnesses, homeless
individuals also have trouble accessing care: for example, 50% of
homeless men in a New York City shelter reported being overtly mental
ill, and nearly 20–35% of mentally ill homeless individuals were in need
of psychiatric services.
While homeless shelters were once viewed as transient facilities, they
have been burdened to take up the role of providing care for the large
number of mentally ill homeless people that occupy these shelters.
However, a United Kingdom survey found that only 27.1% of homeless
shelters believed that their mental health services were adequate to
meet the needs of the homeless youth population surveyed in the study.
Pollution
Despite
the vast literature on the effect of air pollution on physical health
outcomes, research on the mental health effects of air pollution are
limited. Data from the China Family Panel Studies found a positive relationship between air pollution and mental illnesses, where an 18.04 μg/m3 increase in average PM2.5
has a 6.67% increase in the probability of having a score corresponding
with a severe mental illness, approximating a cost of US$22.88 billion
in health expenditures associated with mental illness and treatment.
New evidence, although still non-conclusive, suggests the
association between various mental health disorders and major
environmental pollutants, including air pollutants, heavy metals, and
environmental catastrophes, and have found that these pathogens have a
direct and indirect role on the brain and in the generation of stress
levels. For instance, noise pollution
could affect wellbeing and quality of life as a result of disturbances
in circadian rhythms, noise annoyance, and noise sensitivity.
Climate
In
addition to the role of pathogen and pollutant exposure on mental
health, adverse environmental and climate changes can lead to
climate-related migration and displacement that burdens and causes a
mental health toll on impacted individuals. From the disruption of
social ties and support systems in their native communities to the
financial and emotional stress (often due to the stigma that make it
hard for climate migrants to integrate) that arises due to relocating, climate migrants experience negative mental health outcomes.
Forced migrants, compared to host populations, experience more common
mental health disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder,
anxiety, major depression, psychosis, and suicidality due to the
stressors that they experience.
Changes in climate can also impact food security in regions, food
prices, and household livelihoods, thereby impacting the mental health
of residents.
In an Australian sample, drought was reported to affect food
availability, resulting in individuals skipping meals; individuals
consuming below-average food levels expressed higher levels of distress
compared to those eating at above-average levels.
Social factors
The
social factors of the determinants of mental health looks at the role
of social influences, such as discrimination and stigma, that increase
the likelihood of mental health disorders among certain minority
communities.
Discrimination
Extensive literature has pointed to the strong association of discrimination
on mental health and worse psychological wellbeing of individuals –
with some studies even suggesting that the role of discrimination on
mental health is greater than on physical health outcomes.
In the scope of ‘physical health’, studies have found that
discrimination in health care delivery affects standard of care for
ethnic minority communities: for example, African Americans and Latinos
are less likely than their white counterparts to receive sufficient pain
medication for long bone fracture or kidney stones.
Focusing on mental health specifically though, community and
laboratory studies have found that discrimination, such as racial/ethnic
discrimination, is associated with worse mental health outcomes through
increased depression, anxiety, and psychological distress.
Occupational discrimination – discrimination in work organizations –
also points to this same trend, in which regardless of race, those who
acknowledge being discriminated against had worse poorer mental health
outcomes. The literature suggests that discrimination, despite the type, is harmful for mental health.
Researchers have also studied the role of multiple types of
discrimination on mental health risk and have pointed to two risk
models– first, the risk model in which groups that experience
discrimination have an increased risk for worse mental health and
second, the resilience model, in which these groups become more
resilient to various other forms of discrimination.
An extensive literature review on existing studies found that generally
the findings aligned with the risk model, as opposed to the resilience
model. Specifically, there were a higher risk for symptoms of depression
among groups that experienced various forms of discrimination –
including racism, heterosexism. The role of multiple forms of discrimination on other mental health problems, such as anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance use, are less, and the results are mixed.
Discrimination also exists in mental health care delivery among
marginalized communities. Provider discrimination can affect mental
health treatment among racial minorities, for example: in the United
States, minority groups have similar or lower prevalence rates of mental
disorders when compared to their white counterparts, however Blacks
were only half as likely as whites to receive treatment for diseases of
similar severity.
Stigma
Studies
have found that the stigma associated with mental health problems can
impact care seeking and participation. Reasons that decrease the
likelihood of care seeking include prejudice against people with mental
health illnesses as well as just the expectation of prejudice and
discrimination for those who seek treatment.
Further, lack of knowledge of mental illnesses and how to access
treatment can also impact care seeking behaviors; the associated stigma
surrounding mental health issues can contribute to this knowledge gap.
Corrigan et al. 2014 outlines three levels of stigma – public stigma
that results from label avoidance, self-stigma that results from
self-shame, and structural stigma.
Given these varying structures of stigma and a person's varying
interactions with them, the avoidance for care seeking and participation
behaviors may vary vastly. A global review on the stigma of mental
illnesses and discrimination found that “there is no known country,
society, or culture where people with mental illness (diagnosed or
recognized as such by the community) are considered to have the same
value or be as acceptable as persons who do not have mental illness”.
Economic factors can influence the frequency and severity of mental health outcomes in people of all ages.
Economic factors include proximal factors such as assets, debt,
financial strain, food security, income, relative deprivation and
unemployment, as well as distal factors such as economic inequality,
economic recessions, macroeconomic policy and subjective financial
strain. According to research, there is a complicated and bi-directional
relationship between economic factors such as unemployment, food
insecurity, poverty and increased prevalence of adult common mental
disorders in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. The relationship between economic factors and mental health is relevant throughout the lifecourse.
Other factors
Biological factors
Biological
factors can also affect the likelihood of certain mental illnesses
among individuals. When considering major depression, for example, the
HTR1A −1019C>G genotype was found to be significantly associated
among patients in Utah, United States. Further, the functional BDNF
Val66Met polymorphism has also been found to be a potential genetic
risk factor for depression because it impacts the volume of the
hippocampus, and stress-induced hippocampal atrophy has been associated
with the origination and development of affective disorders.
Extensive research and literature in the fields of neuroscience and
psychology – and their intersection – aim to identify these genetic and
anatomical risk factors.
Interventions
Research
has been conducted into examining mental health treatments and
interventions that consider these social determinants of mental health
and the roles they play in mental health outcomes. For example,
nutritional psychiatry is an emerging area of study which aims to
improve mental health of individuals through diet and food: Adan et al.
2019 highlights that intervention studies have found that diet and
lifestyle could potentially influence mental health treatment and
prevention.
There are vast differences in wealth across racial groups in the United States. The wealth gap
between Caucasian and African American families substantially increased
from $85,000 in 1984 to $236,500 in 2009. There are many causes that
relate to racial inequality such as: Years of home ownership, household
income, unemployment, education, and inheritance.
Under slavery, African Americans were treated as property. After the American Civil War, Black sharecroppers became trapped in debt. African Americans were rarely able to homestead. The Freedman's Savings Bank failed, losing many Black assets.
Exclusions from Social Security disproportionately affected African Americans. Savings were spent for retirement instead of handed down as inheritance. African Americans are less likely to receive inheritance and more likely to aid poor family members.
Criminal records lead to employment and income struggles. Inability to make bail and quality counsel are factors. Racial segregation and racial profiling lead to differences between races.
Definitions
In
social science, racial inequality is typically defined as "imbalances
in the distribution of power, economic resources, and opportunities."
Racial inequalities have manifested in American society in ways ranging
from racial disparities in wealth, poverty rates, bankruptcy, housing
patterns, educational opportunities, unemployment rates, and
incarceration rates.
Current racial inequalities in the U.S. have their roots in over 300
years of cultural, economic, physical, legal, and political
discrimination based on race.
Racial wealth gap
A study by the Brandeis University Institute on Assets and Social Policy which followed the same sets of families for 25 years found that there are vast differences in wealth across racial groups
in the United States. The wealth gap between Caucasian and
African-American families studied nearly tripled, from $85,000 in 1984
to $236,500 in 2009. The study concluded that factors contributing to
the inequality included years of home ownership (27%), household income
(20%), education (5%), and familial financial support and/or inheritance
(5%). In an analysis of the American Opportunity Accounts Act, a bill to introduce Baby Bonds, Morningstar reported that by 2019 white families had more than seven times the wealth of the average Black family, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances.
Median household income along ethnic lines in the United States
Wealth
can be defined as "the total value of things families own minus their
debts." In contrast, income can be defined as, "earnings from work,
interest and dividends, pensions, and transfer payments."
Wealth is an important factor in determining the quality of both
individual and family life chances because it can be used as a tool to
secure a desired quality of life or class status and enables individuals
who possess it to pass their class status to their children. Family
inheritance, which is passed down from generation to generation, helps
with wealth accumulation. Wealth can also serve as a safety net against fluctuations in income and poverty.
There is a large gap between the wealth of minority households
and white households within the United States. The Pew Research Center's
analysis of 2009 government data says the median wealth of white
households is 20 times that of Black households and 18 times that of
Hispanic households.
In 2009 the typical Black household had $5,677 in wealth, the typical
Hispanic had $6,325, and the typical white household had $113,149.
Furthermore, 35% of African American and 31% of Hispanic households had
zero or negative net worth in 2009 compared to 15% of white households.
While in 2005 median Asian household wealth was greater than white
households at $168,103, by 2009 that changed when their net worth fell
54% to $78,066, partially due to the arrival of new Asian immigrants
since 2004; not including newly arrived immigrants, Asian net wealth
only dropped 31%. As shown on "EURweb – Electronic Urban Report"
According to the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, of the 14
million Black households, only 5% have more than $350,000 in net worth
while nearly 30% of white families have more than this amount. Less than
1% of Black families have over a million in net assets. while nearly
10% of white households, totaling over 8 million families have more than
1.3 million in net worth. According to the Federal Reserve of Cleveland
the wealth gap between white and Black Americans has remained roughly
the same since 1962, when the average white family had seven times the
wealth of the average Black family.
Lusardi states that African Americans and Hispanics are more
likely to face means-tested programs that discourage asset possession
due to higher poverty rates.
One-fourth of African Americans and Hispanics approach retirement with
less than $1,000 net worth (without considering pensions and Social
Security). Lower financial literacy is correlated with poor savings and
adjustment behavior. Education is a strong predictor for wealth.
One-fourth of African Americans and Hispanics that have less than a
high school education have no wealth, but even with increased education,
large differences in wealth remain.
Conley believes that the cause of Black-White wealth inequality
may be related to economic circumstances and poverty because the
economic disadvantages of African Americans can be effective in harming
efforts to accumulate wealth.
However, there is a five times greater chance of downward mobility from
the top quartile to the bottom quartile for African Americans than
there is for white Americans; correspondingly, African Americans rise to
the top quartile from the bottom quartile at half the rate of white
Americans. Bowles and Gintis conclude from this information that
successful African Americans do not transfer the factors for their
success as effectively as white Americans do.
Other factors to consider in the recent widening of the minority wealth gap are the subprime mortgage crisis and financial crisis of 2007–2008. The Pew Research Center found that plummeting house values
were the main cause of the wealth change from 2005 to 2009. Hispanics
were hit the hardest by the housing market meltdown possibly because a
disproportionate share of Hispanics live in California, Florida, Nevada,
and Arizona, which are among the states with the steepest declines in
housing values.
From 2005 to 2009 Hispanic homeowners' home equity declined by Half,
from $99,983 to $49,145, with the homeownership rate decreasing by 4% to
47%. A 2015 Measure of Americastudy commissioned by the ACLU on the long-term consequences of discriminatory lending practices found that the financial crisis will likely widen the Black-white wealth gap for the next generation.
The racial wealth gap essentially is composed of a private wealth management industry maintaining Whiteness to act as a barrier to prevent those of color from equal financial development.
This disparity has been debated, but never disputed due to its "very
real" implications it has on African Americans. Data has shown that
"among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest
poverty rate at 27.4%”.
The Freedmen's Bureau was created as part of the War Department by President Abraham Lincoln
to provide shelter and supplies to freed slaves. It was supported by
the Republican Congress over the veto of Andrew Johnson, but was soon
de-funded and abandoned by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1872.
While free African Americans owned around $50 million by 1860, farm tenancy and sharecropping replaced slavery after the American Civil War
because newly freed African American farmers did not own land or
supplies and had to depend on the White Americans who rented the land
and supplies out to them. At the same time, southern Blacks were trapped
in debt and denied banking services while White citizens were given low
interest loans to set up farms in the Midwest and Western United
States. White homesteaders were able to go West and obtain unclaimed
land through government grants, while the land grants and rights of
African Americans were rarely enforced.
After the Civil War the Freedman's Bank
helped to foster wealth accumulation for African Americans. However, it
failed in 1874, partially because of suspicious high-risk loans to
White banks and the Panic of 1873.
This lowered the support African Americans had to open businesses and
acquire wealth. In addition, after the bank failed, taking the assets of
many African Americans with it, many African Americans did not trust
banks. There was also the threat of lynching to any African American who
achieved success.
In addition, when Social Security was first created during the Great Depression,
it exempted agricultural and domestic workers, which disproportionately
affected African Americans and Hispanics. Consequently, the savings of
retired or disabled African Americans was spent during old age instead
of handed down and households had to support poor elderly family
members. The Homeowner's Loan Corporation that helped homeowners during
the Great Depression gave African American neighborhoods the lowest
rating, ensuring that they defaulted at greater rates than White
Americans. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and Veteran's Administration (VA) shut out African Americans by giving loans to suburbs instead of central cities after they were first founded.
Inheritance and parental financial assistance
Bowman
states that "in the United States, the most significant aspect of
multigenerational wealth distribution comes in the forms of gifts and
inheritances." However, the multigenerational absence of wealth and
asset attainment for African Americans makes it almost impossible for
them to make significant contributions of wealth to the next generation.
Data shows that financial inheritances could account for 10 to 20
percent of the difference between African American and White American
household wealth.
Using the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) of 1992 Avery and
Rendall estimated that only around one-tenth of African Americans
reported receiving inheritances or substantial inter vivo transfers
($5,000 or more) compared to one-third of white Americans. In addition,
the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) reported that the mean and
median values of those money transfers were significantly higher for
white American households: the mean was $148,578 households compared to
$85,598 for African American households and the median was $58,839 to
$42,478. The large differences in wealth in the parent-generations were a
dominant factor in prediction the differences between African American
and white American prospective inheritances.
Avery and Rendall used 1989 SCF data to discover that the mean value in
2002 of white Americans' inheritances was 5.46 times that of African
Americans', compared to 3.65 that of current wealth. White Americans
received a mean of $28,177 that accounted for 20.7% of their mean wealth
while African Americans received a mean of $5,165 that accounted for
13.9% of their mean current wealth. Non-inherited wealth was more
equally distributed than inherited wealth.
Avery and Rendall found that family attributes favored white
Americans when it came to factor influencing the amount of inheritances.
African Americans were 7.3% less likely to have live parents, 24.5%
more likely to have three or more siblings, and 30.6% less likely to be
married or cohabiting (meaning there are two people who could gain
inheritances to contribute to the household)
Keister discovered that large family size has a negative effect on
wealth accumulation. These negative effects are worse for the poor and
African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be poor and have
large families. More children also decrease the amount of gifts parents
can give and the inheritance they leave behind for the children.
Angel's research into inheritance showed that older Mexican
American parents may give less financial assistance to their children
than non-Hispanic White Americans because of their relatively high
fertility rate so children have to compete for the available money.
There are studies that indicate that elderly Hispanic parents of all
backgrounds live with their adult children due to poverty and would
choose to do otherwise, even if they had the resources to do so. African
American and Latino families are less likely to financially aid adult
children than non-Hispanic white families.
The racial wealth gap is visible in terms of dollar for dollar wage
and wealth comparisons. For example, middle-class Blacks earn seventy
cents for every dollar earned by similar middle-class whites. Race can be seen as the "strongest predictor" of one's wealth.
Krivo and Kaufman found that information supporting the fact that
increases in income does not affect wealth as much for minorities as it
does for white Americans. For example, a $10,000 increase in income for
white Americans increases their home equity $17,770 while the same
increase only increase the home equities for Asians by $9,500, Hispanics
by $15,150, and African Americans by $15,900.
Financial decisions
Investments
Conley
states that differences between African American and white American
wealth begin because people with higher asset levels can take advantage
of riskier investment instruments with higher rates of returns. Unstable
income flows may lead to "cashing in" of assets or accumulation of debt
over time, even if the time-averaged streams of income and savings are
the same. African Americans may be less likely to invest in the stock
market because they have a smaller parental head-start and safety net.
Chong, Phillips and Phillips state that African Americans,
Hispanics, and Asians invest less heavily in stocks than white
Americans.
Hispanics and in some ways African Americans accumulate wealth slower
than white Americans because of preference for near-term saving,
favoring liquidity and low investment risk at the expense of higher
yielding assets. These preferences may be due to low financial literacy
leading to a lack of demand for investment services.
According to Lusardi, even though the stock market increased in value
in the 1990s, only 6-7% of African Americans and Hispanics held stocks,
so they did not benefit as much from the value increase.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 2009 found that 7.7% of United States households are unbanked.
Minorities are more likely than white Americans to not have a banking
account. 3.5% of Asians, 3.3% of white Americans, 21.7% of African
Americans and 19.3% of Hispanics and 15.6% of remaining racial/ethnic
categories do not have banking accounts.
Lusardi's research revealed that education increases one's
chances of having a banking account. A full high school education
increases the chance of having a checking account by 15% compared to
only an elementary education; having a parent with a high school
education rather than only an elementary education increases one's
chances of having a checking account by 2.8%. This difference in
education level may explain the large proportion of "unbanked"
Hispanics. The 2002 National Longitudinal Survey found that while only
3% of white Americans and 4% of African Americans had only an elementary
education, close to 20% of Hispanics did and 43% of Hispanics had less
than a high school education
Ibarra and Rodriguez believe that another factor that influences the
Hispanic use of banking accounts is credit. Latinos are also more likely
than white Americans or African Americans to have no or a thin credit
history: 22% of Latinos have no credit score in comparison to 4% of
white Americans and 3% of African Americans.
Not taking other variables into account, Chong, Phillips, and
Phillips survey of zip codes found that minority neighborhoods don't
have the same access to financial planning services as white
neighborhoods. There is also client segregation by investable assets.
More than 80% of financial advisors prefer that clients have at least
$100,000 in investable assets and more than 50% have a minimum asset
requirement of $500,000 or above. Because of this, financial planning is
possibly beyond the reach of those with low income, which comprises a
large portion of African-Americans and Hispanics.
Fear of discrimination is another possible factor. Minorities may be
distrustful of banks and lack of trust was commonly reported as why
minorities, people with low education, and the poor chose not to have
banking accounts.
Evidence suggests that women of color are disproportionately likely to
plan on using informal borrowing as their sole strategy for coping with
an emergency expense, potentially due to lack of access to formal
banking services.
Aid to family members
Though
African Americans who attend college get a similar boost in income to
white peers, they tend not to have a similar increase in wealth, largely
because they spend more money helping poor family members, including
older relatives who in white families are instead more likely to help
younger kin.
Black Americans face consistently worse health outcomes than white,
Asian, and Hispanic Americans. Black women are 2½ times more likely to
die of maternal causes than white women and this rate increases to 3
times when compared to Hispanic Americans. The infant mortality rate for Black Americans is 11 per 1,000 births which is higher than the US average of 5.7. There exists gaps in life expectancy between races with Black and Native Americans having the lowest life expectancies.
The gap between Black and white Americans on average is four years;
however, there is great variation between states and even on smaller
levels. For example in Wisconsin this gap is six years, and in
Washington, D.C., this gap is more than ten years.
African American women have the highest rate of obesity or being
overweight in the US and non-Hispanic Blacks are 1.3 times more likely
to be obese than non-Hispanic Whites.
Poverty
There are large differences in poverty rates
across racial groups. In 2009, the poverty rate across the nation was
9.9%. This data illustrates that Hispanics and Blacks experience
disproportionately high percentages of poverty in comparison to
non-Hispanics whites and Asians. In discussing poverty, it is important
to distinguish between episodic poverty and chronic poverty.
Episodic poverty
The U.S. Census Bureau defines episodic poverty as living in poverty for less than 36 consecutive months.
From the period between 2004 and 2006 the episodic poverty rate was
22.6% for non-Hispanic whites, 44.5% for Blacks, and 45.8% for
Hispanics. Blacks and Hispanics experience rates of episodic poverty that are nearly double the rates of non-Hispanic whites.
Chronic poverty
The U.S. Census Bureau defines chronic poverty as living in poverty for 36 or more consecutive months.
From the period between 2004 and 2006 the chronic poverty rate was 1.4%
for non-Hispanic whites, 4.5% for Hispanics, and 8.4% for Blacks. Hispanics and Blacks experience much higher rates of chronic poverty when compared to non-Hispanic whites.
Length of poverty spell
The
U.S. Census Bureau defines length of poverty spell as the number of
months spent in poverty. The median length of poverty spells was 4
months for non-Hispanic whites, 5.9 months for Blacks, and 6.2 months
for Hispanics.
The length of time spent in poverty varies by race. Non-Hispanic whites
experience the shortest length of poverty spells when compared to
Blacks and Hispanics.
Housing segregation in the United States is the practice of denying African American
or other minority groups equal access to housing through the process of
misinformation, denial of realty and financing services, and racial steering. Housing policy in the United States has influenced housing segregation trends throughout history. Key legislation include the National Housing Act of 1934, the GI Bill, and the Fair Housing Act. Factors such as socioeconomic status, spatial assimilation, and immigration contribute to perpetuating housing segregation. The effects of housing segregation include relocation, unequal living standards, and poverty. However, there have been initiatives to combat housing segregation, such as the Section 8 housing program.
Racial residential segregation doubled from 1880 to 1940. Southern urban areas were the most segregated. Segregation was highly correlated with lynchings of African-Americans. Segregation adversely affected both black and white homeownership rates, as well as caused higher crime rates. Areas with housing segregation had worse health outcomes for both whites and Blacks. Residential segregation accounts for a substantial share of the Black-white gap in birth weight. Segregation reduced upward economic mobility.
White communities are more likely to have strict land use regulations (and whites are more likely to support those regulations). Strict land use regulations are an important driver of housing segregation along racial lines in the United States.
Eviction
Black tenants face significantly higher filing and eviction rates than their white counterparts.
Looking at neighborhood racial composition in Milwaukee, sociologist
Matthew Desmond found that majority-black neighborhoods had an average
annual eviction rate of 7.4%, compared to 1.4% in majority-white
neighborhoods.
In this study, Desmond also emphasizes the dual disadvantage black
women face in housing—black women face the highest eviction rates of any
demographic group. In an interview with The Atlantic, Desmond reported that approximately one in five black women will experience eviction, compared to one in fifteen white women.
Eviction rates are also linked to the racial concentration of
neighborhoods. The RVA Eviction Lab, in Richmond, Virginia, estimates
that as the proportion of a neighborhood's black population increases by
10%, eviction rates would increase by 1.2%.
Hispanic renters also face higher filing and eviction rates than their white counterparts. In a study published in the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review,
researchers investigated the relationship between Hispanic origin and
eviction in Milwaukee. These researchers saw a strong correlation
between Hispanic tenants' risk of eviction and neighborhood racial
composition.
In Milwaukee neighborhoods that were two-thirds white, approximately
80% of landlords were white. In these same neighborhoods, the average
eviction rate was 25%, yet the eviction rate for Hispanics was upwards
of 35%.
The study also found that Hispanic renters were significantly more
likely to be evicted by white landlords than non-white landlords.
According to Greenberg et al, these findings suggest that
discrimination contributes to racial disparities in Milwaukee eviction
rates.
College attendance, analyzed by race and schools' overall admission rates. Shown by comparative areas of upper four pie charts, elite schools make up a small fraction of all enrollment.
In the United States, funding for public education relies greatly on
local property taxes. Local property tax revenues may vary between
different neighborhoods and school districts. This variance of property
tax revenues amongst neighborhoods and school districts leads to
inequality in education. This inequality manifests in the form of
available school financial resources which provide educational
opportunities, facilities, and programs to students. For every student enrolled, the average nonwhite school district receives $2,226 less than a white school district.
Returning to the concept of residential segregation, it is known
that affluence and poverty have become both highly segregated and
concentrated in relation to race and location.
Residential segregation and poverty concentration is most markedly seen
in the comparison between urban and suburban populations in which
suburbs consist of majority white populations and inner-cities consist
of majority minority populations.
According to Barnhouse-Walters (2001), the concentration of poor
minority populations in inner-cities and the concentration of affluent
white populations in the suburbs, "is the main mechanism by which racial
inequality in educational resources is reproduced."
In August 2020, the US Justice Department argued that Yale University discriminated against Asian candidates on the basis of their race, a charge the university denied.
Unemployment rates
In
2016, the unemployment rate was 3.8% for Asians, 4.6% for non-Hispanic
whites, 6.1% for Hispanics, and 9.0% for Blacks, all over the age of 16.
In terms of unemployment, it can be seen that there are two-tiers:
relatively low unemployment for Asians and whites, relatively high
unemployment for Hispanics and Blacks.
Potential explanations
Several theories have been offered to explain the large racial gap in unemployment rates:
Segregation and job decentralization
This
theory argues that the effects of racial segregation pushed Blacks and
Hispanics into the central city during a time period in which jobs and
opportunities moved to the suburbs. This led to geographic separation
between minorities and job opportunities which was compounded by
struggles to commute to jobs in the suburbs due to lack of means of
transportation. This ultimately led to high unemployment rates among
minorities.
White gains
This
theory argues that the reason minority disadvantage exists is because
the majority group is able to benefit from it. For example, in terms of
the labor force, each job not taken by a Black person could be job that
gets occupied by a white person. This theory is based on the view that
the white population has the most to gain from the discrimination of
minority groups. In areas where there are large minority groups, this
view predicts high levels of discrimination to occur for the reason that
white populations stand to gain the most in those situations.
Job skill differentials
This
theory argues that the unemployment disparity can be attributed to
lower rates of academic success among minority groups (especially Black
Americans) leading to a lack of skills necessary for entering the modern
work force. The author remains unclear why Black Americans have low academic success.
Other explanations
It
is politically incorrect to assume that racial inequality is caused by
differences in skills or preferences. The lack of open discussion leads
to ethnic groups being treated equally. This means that diverse groups
receive the same offers which have different advantages for different
groups, which further increases inequality.
In 2008, the prison population under federal and state correctional
jurisdiction was over 1,610,446 prisoners. Of these prisoners, 20% were
Hispanic (compared to 16.3% of the U.S. population that is Hispanic),
34% were White (compared to 63.7% of the U.S. population that is White),
and 38% were Black (compared to 12.6% of the U.S. population that is
Black). Additionally, Black males were imprisoned at a rate 6.5 times higher than that of their White male counterparts.
According to a 2012 study by the U.S. Census Bureau, "over half the
inmates incarcerated in our nation's jails is either Black or Hispanic."
According to a report by the National Council of La Raza, research
obstacles undermine the census of Latinos in prison, and "Latinos in the
criminal justice system are seriously undercounted. The true extent of
the overrepresentation of Latinos in the system probably is
significantly greater than researchers have been able to document.
Consequences of a criminal record
The
injustices of a criminal justice system disproportionately impact Black
people; maintaining these racial disparities has a high cost for
individuals, families, and communities. On an individual level, a
criminal conviction may equate to loss of access to employment, housing,
and public service opportunities. On the community level, the
dipropionate incarceration of people from poorer communities depletes
the economic resources of said community and curates cycles of poverty
that becomes increasingly harder to get rid of. These communities also
face increased criminal justice involvement in their communities, making
criminal justice contact a norm in the lives of an immense number of
Black Americans.
After being released from prison, the consequences of having a criminal record
are immense. Over 40 percent who are released will return to prison
within the next few years. Those with criminal records who do not return
to prison face significant struggles to find quality employment and
income outcomes compared to those who do not have criminal records.
Those racially disparate employment consequences can arise from
other forms of carceral contact, too, and they can have spillover
effects on local communities. At the county level, for example, jail
rather than prison incarceration has been found to significantly
diminish local labor markets in areas with relatively high proportions
of Black residents.
Potential causes
Poverty
A
potential cause of such disproportionately high incarceration rates for
Black Americans is that Black Americans are disproportionately poor.
Conviction is a crucial part of the process that leads to either guilt
or innocence. There are two important factors that play a role in this
part of the process: the ability to make bail and the ability to access
high-quality legal counsel. Due to the fact that both of these important
factors cost money, it is unlikely that poor Black Americans are able
to afford them and benefit from them.
Sentencing is another crucial part of the process that determines how
long individuals will remain incarcerated. Several sociological studies
have found that poor offenders receive longer sentences for violent
crimes and crimes involving drug use, unemployed offenders are more
likely to be incarcerated than their employed counterparts, and then
even with similar crimes and criminal records minorities were imprisoned
more often than whites.
Racial profiling
Racial
profiling is defined as "any police-initiated action that relies on the
race, ethnicity, or national origin, rather than the behavior of an
individual or information that leads the police to a particular
individual who has been identified as being, or having been, engaged in
criminal activity." Another potential cause for the disproportionately high incarceration rates of Blacks and Hispanics
is that racial profiling occurs at higher rates for Blacks and
Hispanics. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva states that racial profiling can
perhaps explain the over representation of Blacks and Hispanics in U.S.
prisons. According to Michael L. Birzer, professor of criminal justice at Wichita State University
and director of its School of Community Affairs, "racial minorities,
particularly African Americans, have had a long and troubled history of
disparate treatment by United States Criminal Justice Authorities." A report by the National Registry of Exonerations found that African Americans were seven times more likely to be falsely convicted compared to White Americans.
Racial segregation
"Racial residential segregation is a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health".
Racial segregation can result in decreased opportunities for minority
groups in income, education, etc. While there are laws against racial
segregation, study conducted by D. R. Williams and C. Collins focuses
primarily on the impacts of racial segregation, which leads to
differences between races.
Significant racial discrepancies have been reported in the United
States involving police brutality. Police brutality in the United States
is defined as "the unwarranted or excessive and often illegal use of
force against civilians by U.S. police officers."
It can come in the form of murder, assault, mayhem, or torture, as well
as less physical means of violence including general harassment, verbal
abuse, and intimidation.
it has been argued that the origins of racial inequality by way of
police brutality in America date to colonial times when slavery was
legal and widespread. Due to fear of slave revolts, White Americans
began to organize groups of vigilantes who would use force to keep
slaves from rebelling against their owners or escaping.
During the civil rights era, the existence of the racial
disparities surrounding police brutality became more discussed. During
peaceful protests for civil rights, some police would use tactics such
as police dogs or fire hoses to control the protesters. In 1991, video
footage was released of cab driver Rodney King
being hit over 50 times by multiple police with their batons. The
police were later acquitted for their actions which resulted in the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Allegations of police brutality continue to plague American police. An alleged example of police brutality includes Philando Castile,
a 32-year-old Black male who was pulled over for a broken taillight.
After being told by officer Yanez, to take out his license and
insurance, Castile told the officer he had a firearm and that he was
reaching into his pocket to get his wallet. Seconds later he was shot
and killed by Yanez, who claimed he believed Castile was pulling his gun
out. Yanez was charged with manslaughter and acquitted at trial.
Black Americans are 2–3 times more likely to be killed in a police shooting than White Americans and are more likely to be unarmed during those fatal instances. A study done by Joshua Correll at the University of Chicago shows what is called "The police officers dilemma",
by setting up a video game in which police are given scenarios
involving both Black and White men holding either a gun or
non-threatening objects such as cellphones. The study found that armed
Black men were shot more frequently than armed White men and were also
shot more quickly. The police would also sometimes mistakenly shoot the
unarmed Black targets, while neglecting to shoot the armed White
targets. Militarized police units are more often deployed in Black neighborhoods even after adjusting for crime rates.
A 2020 study by Cody Ross et al. concluded that there was evidence of bias in police shootings
of unarmed Blacks and that even when using crime as a benchmark "there
is strong and statistically reliable evidence of anti-Black racial
disparities in the killing of unarmed Americans by police".
A 2019 study by Cesario et al. published in Social Psychological and
Personality Science found that after adjusting for crime, there was "no
systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal
shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving
misidentification of harmless objects. A study by Harvard economist Roland Fryer
found that for officer-involved shootings there were no racial
disparities "in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken
into account".
According to data from the Chicago Police Department police used more
force against Black people than any other race despite the fact that
they were less likely to resist arrest than Whites. Around 20% of the population of Minneapolis is Black but they are subjected to nearly 60% of total police use of force.
Color-blind racism
It is hypothesized by some scholars, such as Michelle Alexander, that in the since the Civil Rights Era, the United States has now switched to a new form of racism known as color-blind racism. Color-blind racism refers to "contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics."
The types of practices that take place under color blind racism are "subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial." Those practices are not racially overt in nature such as racism under slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws.
Instead, color-blind racism flourishes on the idea that race is no
longer an issue in the country and that there are non-racial
explanations for the state of inequality. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva writes
that there are four frames of color-blind racism that support that view:
Abstract liberalism uses ideas associated with political liberalism.
This frame is based in liberal ideas such as equal opportunity,
individualism, and choice. It uses these ideas as a basis to explain
inequality.
Naturalization explains racial inequality as a cause of natural
occurrences. It claims that segregation is not the result of racial
dynamics. Instead, it is the result of the naturally-occurring phenomena
of individuals choosing likeness as their preference.
Cultural racism explains racial inequality through culture. Under
this frame, racial inequalities are described as the result of
stereotypical behavior of minorities. Stereotypical behavior includes
qualities such as laziness and teenage pregnancy.
Minimization of racism attempts to minimize the factor of race as a
major influence in affecting the life chances of minorities. It writes
off instances and situations that could be perceived as discrimination
to be hypersensitivity to the topic of race.
When a disaster strikes—be it a hurricane, tornado, or fire—some
people are inherently more prepared than others. "While all members of
populations are affected by disasters, research findings show that
racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to evacuate and more
affected by disasters" than their Caucasian counterparts.
"During Hurricane Katrina, the large number of people seeking safety in
designated shelters were disproportionately Black. In addition, the
mortality rate for Blacks was 1.7 to 4 times higher than that of whites
for all people ≥ 18."
After Hurricane Katrina, many African Americans felt abandoned by the
United States Government. 66% of African Americans "said that 'the
government's response to [Katrina] would have been faster if most of the
victims had been white.'"
For a disproportionate share of the impoverished in New Orleans, many
had, and continue to have, a difficult time preparing for storms.
Factors such as, "cultural ignorance, ethnic insensitivity, racial
isolation and racial bias in housing, information dissemination, and
relief assistance" all greatly contribute to the disparities in disaster
preparedness.
Credit scores
Credit score systems are well known to contain racial bias and have been shown to increase racial disparities as studies show that African American and American Latino populations have substantially lower scores than the white American population on average.
Racial discrimination also results in impacts on the credit scores and
economic security of communities of color—that ultimately, "entrenches
and reinforces inequality by dictating a consumer's access to future
opportunities".
Numerous studies have found racial disparities in credit scoring:
1996 study found African-Americans were three times as likely to have FICO scores below 620 as whites and that Hispanics were twice as likely.
1997 study found Black, Indigenous, and people of color [BIPOC] neighborhood consumers had lower credit scores.
2004 study found high Black, Indigenous, and people of color [BIPOC]
zip codes to have significantly worse scores than non-Black,
Indigenous, and people of color [BIPOC] zip codes.
2004 study found that African American and Hispanic consumers
constituted over 60% of the consumers having the worst credit scores.
2004 study found the median credit score for whites in 2001 was 738,
but the median credit score for African Americans was 676 and for
Hispanics was 670.
2004 research study found fewer than 40% of consumers who lived in
high-Black Indigenous and people of color [BIPOC] neighborhoods had
credit scores of over 701.
2006 studied US counties with high Black, Indigenous, and people of
color [BIPOC] populations determining that those countries had lower
average credit scores than predominantly white counties.
2007 study by the Federal Trade Commission
found that African Americans and Hispanics strongly overrepresented in
the lowest scoring categories regarding auto insurance company's use of
credit scores.
2007 report found significant racial disparities in 300,000 credit files matched with Social Security records with African American scores being half that of white, non-Hispanics.
2010 study found that African American in Illinois zip codes had
scores of less than 620 at a rate of 54.2%. In zip codes that were
majority Latino, 31.4% of individuals had a credit score of less than
620, and only 47.3% had credit scores greater than 700.
2012 study examined the credit scores for about 200,000 consumers
finding the median FICO score in majority minority zip codes was in the
34th percentile, while it was in the 52nd percentile for low minority
zip codes.
2023 expert report and study by Credlocity titled: "The Dark Side of
Credit Scores: How Racial Bias and Injustice Affect Millions of
Americans", found that the major credit bureaus are giving greater
weight to the disputes submitted by white Americans than by Black, brown
and Hispanic Americans, citing several whistleblower reports, lawsuits,
and public studies.
The outcomes for Black Americans because of this bias are higher
interest rates on home loans and auto loans; longer loan terms;
increased debt collection default lawsuits, and an increase in the use of predatory lenders.
FICO has defended the system stating that income, property, education,
and employment are not evenly distributed across society and it is
irrational to think an objective measure would not exhibit these
discrepancies. Tamara Nopper, sociologist at The Center for Critical Race & Digital Studies
has stated that to solve the true issue of racism is not just to
regulate it, as politics focus on, but to eliminate it in favor of public-owned banks that serve the community instead of shareholders.
A related concept of insurance scoring has also been shown to discriminate along racial lines, disproportionately harming black and Latino populations.
Racial color blindness refers to the belief that a person's race or ethnicity should not influence their legal or social treatment in society.
The multicultural psychology field generates four beliefs that
constitute the racial color-blindness approach. The four beliefs are as
follows: (1) skin color is superficial and irrelevant to the quality of a
person's character, ability or worthiness, (2) in a merit-based
society, skin color is irrelevant to merit judgments and calculation of
fairness, (3) as a corollary, in a merit-based society, merit and
fairness are flawed if skin color is taken into the calculation, (4)
ignoring skin color when interacting with people is the best way to
avoid racial discrimination.
The term metaphorically references the medical phenomenon of color blindness.
Psychologists and sociologists also study racial color blindness. This
is further divided into two dimensions, color evasion and power evasion.
Color evasion is the belief that people should not be treated differently on the basis of their color. Powerevasion
posits that systemic advantage based on color should have no influence
on what people can accomplish, and accomplishments are instead based
solely on one's own work performance.
At various times in Western history, this term has been used to
signal a desired or allegedly achieved state of freedom from racial
prejudice or a desire that policies and laws should not consider race.
Proponents of racial color blindness often assert that policies that
differentiate by racial classification could tend to create, perpetuate
or exacerbate racial divisiveness. Critics often believe it fails to
address systemic discrimination.
In his dissenting opinion to Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Justice John Marshall Harlan
wrote that "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all
citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most
powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his
surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the
supreme law of the land are involved."
His opinion could thus be interpreted as saying that laws should not
differentiate between people of different races. His opinion was not the
majority-supported decision, which at the time was that laws requiring racial segregation were allowable, establishing the idea that "separate but equal" treatment was constitutionally acceptable.
More recently, the term color blind has appeared in United
States Supreme Court opinions involving affirmative action, in opinions
that support consideration of race when evaluating laws and their
effects:
In a concurring opinion of Regents v. Bakke (1978), Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun objected to the color blind term, writing that "we cannot ... let color blindness become myopia
which masks the reality that many 'created equal' have been treated
within our lifetimes as inferior both by the law and by their fellow
citizens."
In her dissenting opinion to Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quoted from a 1966 5th Circuit decision: "'The
Constitution is both color blind and color conscious. To avoid conflict
with the equal protection clause, a classification that denies a
benefit, causes harm, or imposes a burden must not be based on race. In
that sense, the Constitution is color blind. But the Constitution is
color conscious to prevent discrimination being perpetuated and to undo
the effects of past discrimination.'"
In his concurring opinion to PICS v. Seattle (2007), Justice Clarence Thomas
wrote that "the color-blind Constitution does not bar the government
from taking measures to remedy past state-sponsored discrimination –
indeed, it requires that such measures be taken in certain
circumstances."
Outline
A color-blind society, in sociology, is one in which racial classification
does not affect a person's socially created opportunities. A racially
color blind society is or would be free from differential legal or
social treatment based on race or color. A color-blind society would have race-neutral governmental policies and would reject all racial discrimination.
Racial color blindness reflects a societal ideal that skin color
is insignificant. The ideal was most articulated "along with the
emergence of the Civil Rights Movement in the US and anti-racist movements abroad". Color-blind ideology is based on tenets of non-discrimination, due process of law, equal protection under the law, and equal opportunities regardless of race, ideas which have strongly influenced Western liberalism in the post-World War II period.
Proponents of "color-blind" practices largely believe that
treating people equally as individuals leads to a more equal society or
that racism and race privilege no longer exercise the power they once
did, rendering the need for policies such as race-based affirmative action obsolete.
Support
Professor William Julius Wilson
of Harvard University has argued that "class was becoming more
important than race" in determining life prospects within the black
community.
Wilson has published several works including The Declining Significance of Race (1978) and The Truly Dis-advantaged (1987) explaining his views on black poverty and racial inequality. He believes that affirmative action
primarily benefits the most privileged individuals within the black
community. This is because strictly race-based programs disregard a
candidate's socioeconomic background and therefore fail to help the
poorer portion of the black community that actually needs the
assistance.
He claims that in a society where millions of black people live in the
middle and upper classes and millions of white people live in poverty,
race is no longer an accurate indication of privilege. Recognizing
someone's social class is more important than recognizing someone's
race, indicating that society should be class-conscious, not
race-conscious, Wilson argues.
In his famous 1963 speech "I Have a Dream", Martin Luther King Jr.
proclaimed, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day
live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character." This statement was widely
interpreted as an endorsement of color-blind racial ideology.
Roger Clegg, the President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, felt
that this quotation supported the idea that race-conscious and equal
opportunity should not exist, as he believes people should not be
treated differently based on the color of their skin. However, not all
agreed with this interpretation. American author Michael Eric Dyson felt
that Dr. King only believed in the possibility of a color-blind society
under the condition that racism and oppression were ultimately
destroyed.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has supported color-blind policies. He believes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
forbids consideration of race, such as race-based affirmative action or
preferential treatment. He believes that race-oriented programs create
"a cult of victimization" and imply black people require "special
treatment in order to succeed".
When defending new voting rights bills in 2020, Republican
Texas legislators claimed that since the process they wanted to
establish for voter registration did not involve different processes for
people of different races and did not involve collecting information
about race or ethnicity, their new requirements for eligibility to vote
were "color blind" and should not be considered racially discriminatory.
Some argue that the existence of majority-majority and
majority-minority areas are not the result of racial discrimination and
that this viewpoint ignores the possibility of other factors underlying residential segregation such as the attitude of realtors, bankers, and sellers.
While the field of whiteness studies
often discusses alleged failures of racial color blindness, it has been
criticized for its focus on reprimanding the white population, whereas
similar fields such as black studies, women's studies, and Chicano studies celebrate the contributions of the eponymous group.
Among conservative presidents, color blindness as an idea has increased in the late 20th century as well as in the 21st century.
Where racial disparities were once explained in terms of biology,
they are now being discussed in terms of culture. "Culture" in this
framework is seen as something fixed and hard to change. One example form of rhetoric used in this framework is the argument, "if Irish, Jews (or other ethnic groups) have 'made it', how come black people have not?"
Some supporters of racial color blindness argue racial inequality
can be supported by relying on cultural, rather than biological,
explanations such as "this race has too many babies". Some no longer
view racism as a problem under this belief and see government programs
targeting race as no longer necessary due to the avoidance of racism. Bonilla-Silva describes naturalization
as a frame that portrays racism as a natural outcome of individuals'
choices, and "just the way things are". While Bonna-Silva himself
disagrees with these as "minimization of racism", these are views common
among supporters of racial color blindness.
In response to the global Black Lives Matter movement, the phrase All Lives Matter came into being as a term for racial color blindness. Several notable individuals have supported All Lives Matter, such as NFL cornerback Richard Sherman who said, "I stand by what I said that All Lives Matter and that we are human beings."
A 2015 telephone poll in the US found that 78% of respondents said that
"all lives matter" was closest to their own personal views. Despite this, the term was criticized by professor David Theo Goldberg as reflecting a view of "racial dismissal, ignoring, and denial."
Criticism
In 1997, Leslie G. Carr published Color-Blind Racism
which reviewed the history of racist ideologies in America. He saw
"color-blindness" as an ideology that undercuts the legal and political
foundation of racial integration and affirmative action.
Stephanie M. Wildman's Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines America,
writes that advocates of a meritocratic, race-free worldview do not
acknowledge the systems of privilege which benefit them, such as social
and financial inheritance. She argues that this inheritance privileges
"whiteness", "maleness", and heterosexuality while disadvantaging descendants of slaves.
Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva writes that majority groups use color-blindness to avoid discussing racism and discrimination. Color-blindness can be seen as a way to undermine minority hardships, as it used to argue that the United States is a meritocracy, in which people succeed only because they work hard and not their privilege.
John R. Logan has disagreed with this notion of meritocracy, as the
average black or Hispanic household earning more than $75,000 still live
in a less affluent neighborhood than a white household earning less
than $40,000 and poverty rates are higher for minorities.
Amy Ansell of Bard College argues that color-blindness operates under the assumption that we are living in a world that is "post-race", where race no longer matters.
She argues this is not true and if it was that race would not be taken
into consideration even when trying to address inequality or remedy past
wrongs.
Abstract liberalism utilizes themes from political and economic liberalism, such as meritocracy and the free market, to argue against the strong presence of racism.
Some suggest it results in people being for equality in principle but
against government action to implement equality, described by some
sociologists as laissez-faire racism.
Robert D. Reason and Nancy J. Evans outline a similar description
of color-blindness, which is based on four beliefs: 1. Privilege is
based on merit. 2. Most do not care about a person's race. 3. Social
inequality is due to "cultural deficits" of individual people. 4. Given
the previous three beliefs, there is no need to pay "systematic
attention" to any current inequities. They argue the prevalence of
color-blindness is attributed to lack of knowledge or lack of exposure.
They argue that due to racial separation in housing and education many
Americans lack direct contact with present racism.
In Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society,
Christopher Doob argues that racial color blindness's proponents
"assert...that they are living in a world where racial privilege no
longer exists, but their behavior 'supports' racialized structures and
practices".
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has argued racial color blindness is insufficient to address racial inequality.
He argues it involves egalitarianism while opposing concrete proposals
to reduce inequality. He has argued it ignores the under-representation
of minorities in prestigious institutions, along with institutional
practices that encourage segregation.
Eberhardt, Davies, Purdie-Vaughns, and Johnson studied implicit
racial biases, suggesting people react differently to faces of members
of their race compared to members of other races. They found a correlation between race and judicial outcomes and suggest a color blind approach may not actually be possible.
Research
Fryer et al. argued that color-blind affirmative action is about as
efficient as race-conscious affirmative action in the short run but is
less profitable in the long term.
In 2010, Apfelbaum et al. exposed elementary school students to
color-blind ideology and found that those students were less likely to
detect or report overt racial discrimination. The authors argued racial
color blindness allows overt racism to persist."
Amy Ansell, a sociologist at Bard College,
has compared and contrasted the development of the color-blindness in
the United States and South Africa. Given that white people are a
minority population in South Africa and a majority population in the
United States, Ansell expected to see a significant difference in the
manifestation of color-blindness in both countries. The thirty-year time
difference between the departure from Jim Crow and cessation of apartheid
and differences in racial stratification and levels of poverty also led
Ansell to expect a clear difference between the colorblindness ideology
in the United States and South Africa. However, she concludes
contemporary color-blindness in the two countries is nearly identical.
Vorauer, Gagnon, and Sasaki examined the effect that messages
with a color-blind ideology had on white Canadians entering one-on-one
interactions with Aboriginal Canadians. White Canadians who heard
messages emphasizing color-blind ideology were much more likely to be
concerned with ensuring the subsequent interaction did not go badly and
were more likely hostile, uncomfortable, and uncertain.
White participants who heard messages emphasizing multicultural
ideology, or the valuing of people's differences, asked more positive
questions focused on the other person more relaxedly.
Alternatives
Researchers
also offer alternatives to the color-blindness discourse. Reason and
Evans call for people to become "racially cognizant" and continuously
acknowledge the role that race plays in their lives. They argue it is
important to balance personal identity and a person's race.
Researcher Jennifer Simpson argued that "in setting aside color
blindness, White [people] must learn to see, accept...the possibility
that some of the good, ease, or rewards they have experienced have not
been solely the result of hard work" but from "a system biased in their
favor." This conscious exploration of whiteness as a racial and social
identity and the acknowledgment of the role of whiteness is connected to
modern whiteness studies.
In a recent publication of the academic journal Communication Theory,
Jennifer Simpson proposed a "more productive dialogue about race". New
dialogue must take a more complex look at race, openly looking at
different perspectives on race. Simpson argues white people must engage
with other races in discussing the ongoing effects of racism, requiring
white people to participate in "communicative behavior that may threaten
simultaneously their sense of self and their material power in the
social order".
In education
A multisite case study of Atlantic State University, a primarily white institution, and Mid-Atlantic State University, a historically black college, explored color-blind ideologies among the institutions’ white faculty members at the undergraduate and graduate level.
In interviews with white faculty members at both institutions,
researchers found the faculty often engaged with students from a
color-blind perspective, avoiding racial terms but implying them allowed
white faculty to label minority students "as academically inferior,
less prepared, and less interested in pursuing research and graduate
studies while potentially ignoring structural causes" of inequity.
The study concludes that color-blind ideology held by school faculty
can reduce a student of color's perception of their academic abilities
and potential to achieve success in STEM disciplines and in graduate school.
A case study of a suburban, mixed-race high school examined the
trend toward color-blind ideology in schools among white faculty.
It argued white schoolteachers's color-blind ideology often masks their
fears of being accused of racism and prevents a deeper examination of
race.
Case studies of three large school districts, (Boston,
Massachusetts; Wake County, North Carolina; and Jefferson County,
Louisville) found that the districts’ race-neutral, or color-blind,
policies to combat school segregation may disadvantage minorities and
"reframe privilege as common sense" while ignoring structural inequalities.
