Exploring Unintentional Racism:
The Case of Tim Hanks

Three Theories from Social Psychology That Are Useful in Understanding Our Reactions to This Case

One theory that helps make sense of our reactions to this case was developed in the research of Gaertner and Dovidio (1986). Gaertner and Dovidio distinguish between aversive racism or unintentional racism and old-fashioned, or blatant racism. In contrast to old-fashioned racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against African-Americans or other minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent racial attitude. On the one hand, aversive racists are well-intentioned people who typically (1) avoid acting in a racist manner, (2) support public policies that promote racial equality, (3) sympathize with victims of past injustice, (4) identify with liberal political agendas, (5) possess strong egalitarian values, and (6) regard themselves as non-prejudiced. On the other hand, aversive racists almost unavoidably possess negative feelings and beliefs about African-Americans (it may be built into the social fabric of our minds). In contrast to the old-fashioned racist, however, the negative feelings experienced by aversive racists are not hatred and animosity toward African-Americans, but rather discomfort, uneasiness, or fear in the presence of African-Americans (which may be built on our biologically based fear of strangers). In addition, this negative affect is frequently unacknowledged or dissociated from the self because it conflicts with one’s egalitarian self-concept and value system.

Because aversive racists are concerned with maintaining an egalitarian self-concept, they typically do not consciously or intentionally discriminate against African-Americans. The negative affect underlying the racial attitude of aversive racists, then, is likely to influence behavior in subtle, unconscious, and unintentional ways. That is, the aversive racist is likely to discriminate against African-Americans only in situations in which discriminatory behavior can be easily rationalized, such as when the norms for what is appropriate (non-racist) behavior are unclear (Gaertner, 1973), or when there are nonracial justifications for one’s discriminatory behavior (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977). People may unconsciously and unintentionally discriminate against African-Americans even while consciously making every effort to behave in a non-racist manner.

A second set of ideas that are helpful here are from attribution theory and the concept of fundamental attribution error (FAE). This framework helps us understand the racist implications of the way the professor thought about Tim Hanks. This theory explores how we account for or explain the causes of behavior we perceive. The process of trying to account for cause is called the attribution process. Researchers in this area point out that one may conclude that a given behavior is either indicative of the actor’s disposition (i.e., personality, attitudes, etc.) or the situation in which the behavior was performed (e.g., Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967). The FAE was then introduced as the natural tendency to unknowingly overestimate the extent to which another person’s behavior is indicative of his or her disposition and underestimate the extent to which it is indicative of the situation (e.g., Fiske & Taylor, 1984).

It is argued that the FAE can have racist implications because whites are more likely to make derogatory dispositional attributions for negative behaviors performed by an African-American versus another white person. For instance, in one small class of undergraduate students that did this case, 29 students proposed a total of 77 different explanations for Tim’s behavior. Of those 77 explanations, 59 (77%) suggested dispositional causes whereas only 18 suggested situational causes. At least one dispositional cause was listed by 27 of 29 students, and 18 (67%) students proposed only dispositional causes.

Some of the more popular attributions were: (1) Tim did not like the class, (2) Tim lacked motivation, (3) Tim was embarrassed by his poor performance, (4) Tim was shy, (5) Tim was lazy, and (6) Tim was irresponsible. Only 11 students mentioned even a single situational cause for Tim’s behavior, and each of those students also listed at least one dispositional cause. In addition, the situational causes listed tended to be more vague and abstract than dispositional causes. For example, one student making a situation attribution said “there might be something else going on in his life besides the class.” Four other students thought that Tim might have “family problems.” Interestingly, none of the students reported racism as a possible cause for Tim’s difficulties.

A third concept from social psychology that is important here is institutionalized racism (Jones, 1991, pp. 610-611). Although this concept applies more to organizations than to individuals, this case can be used to see how a person can unintentionally contribute to decisions that have racist consequences. In particular, if the professor in our case were invited to sit in on a readmission decision for Tim, he might offer his opinion that Tim just lacked the motivation, skills or appropriate self-discipline to be a part of the program. Based on that view the admissions committee might deny Tim a second opportunity to take courses. This would appear to the admissions committee to be a fair, color-blind and therefore non-racist decision. In fact because the environmental conditions are quite different for Tim than they would be for a Caucasian student the decision would have a racist or discriminatory effect. In other words “color-blind” usually means that we treat people as if they were white-middle-class or even white-upper-middle-class. The existence of institutional racism makes it important that we all examine our academic policies to see if there are any negative racial, social, or ethnic effects. If there are, then we need to examine our assumptions about how level the playing field really is. Making fair, seemingly race-blind decisions may actually lead to racist policies and we might be overlooking unique barriers to success. This case suggests that it is valuable to recognize social category memberships like race, and examine those memberships for the constraints, benefits, and perspectives that go along with them.

Some discussion questions for these three ideas from social psychology include:

1. How does the concept of “aversive racism” fit your reactions in this case? (Fit reactions in your teaching?)
2. Do discomfort, uneasiness, and /or fear characterize your reaction when in the presence of African-Americans and other underrepresented groups?
3. Does your behavior ever unintentionally end up discriminating against members of underrepresented groups?
4. Were the responses of the instructor in this case more dispositional or situational? List each of his attributions and decide which type they were.
5. Can you find examples of situational and dispositional attributions in your responses to this case? Which type predominates?
6. Do you see that the professor’s behavior with the admissions committee could have been an example of institutionalized racism? Can you think of any other policies that might have this effect?
7. Does emphasis on “academic rigor” ever have a discriminatory effect in courses?

A second set of discussion questions (if there is time) related to Tim Hanks being the only African-American in a class of 120 students include:

1. How do you think being the only African-American in a class of 120 affected Tim? How do you think you would you feel if you were Tim?
2. How do you think this affected the way other students perceived him?
3. Why would it have been hard for Tim to find a friend to ride with? Or a group to study with? Or someone to get notes from?
4. Do you think Tim would have been looked at as the spokesperson and/or example for minorities in the class?

References

• Fiske, S.T., and S.E. Taylor. 1984. Social Cognition. New York, NY: Random House.
• Ford, T. E., R.W. Grossman, and E.A. Jordan. 1997. Teaching about unintentional racism in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology 24(3):186-188.
• Gaertner, S.L. 1973. Helping behavior and racial discrimination among Liberals and Conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 25:335-341.
• Gaertner, S.L., and J.F. Dovidio. 1977. The subtlety of white racism, arousal and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:691-707.
• Gaertner, S.L., and J.F. Dovidio. 1986. The aversive form of racism. In: J.F. Dovidio and S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism: Theory and Research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 61-89.
• Jones, E.E., and K.E. David. 1965. From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, vol. 2, pp. 219-266.
• Jones, R.L. 1991. Racism: A cultural analysis of the problem. In: R.L. Jones (Ed.), Black Psychology 3^rd edition. Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry Publishers, pp. 610-636.
• Kelley, H.H. 1967. Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 14:192-241.

Copyright © 1999–2009 by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science.  Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work.

---