TO UPROOT THE RACIAL HIERARCHY NOW (TURHN)

A Campaign Of the Within Our Lifetime Network
To
Combat the Impact Of Implicit Bias

Toolkit

Introduction

Within Our Lifetime Campaign Vision and Campaign Goals

What is Implicit Bias

Challenging Implicit Bias
  • 3 ways to challenge your own bias
  • Some strategies and suggestions to challenge biases

The Campaign to Combat the Impact of Implicit Bias
  • Campaign Plan
  • Within Our Lifetime Activities
  • Timeline

How To Participate in the Campaign
  • Dialogue Tool
  • Facilitator Guide
  • How to prepare your coalition for the campaign. Internal preparedness
  • How to process the test
  • How to pre-empt resistance in test taking
  • How to build multi-ethnic coalitions - engagement

Resources to Combat Implicit Bias
  • New Clips and Stories
  • Interviews, Presentations and Formal Remarks
  • Activities, Dialogues and Curriculum
  • Reports

Tools
  • Sample Media Tools (Press Releases, Blog Posts, Social Media Posts, Op-Eds)

Join Us

Introduction

Hello Friends,

The Within Our Lifetime Campaign is pleased to offer this toolkit as part of our efforts to launch a robust nationwide campaign to end racism in the United States. We are a network of racial healing practitioners and racial equity advocates who are committed to ending racism in our lifetime. We heal communities and dismantle beliefs. We advocate for just policies and lead change. We learn, We listen, We act.

Sincerely,

The Campaign Working Group:

Carolyne Abdullah, Everyday Democracy
Beth Applegate, Applegate Consulting Group
Roberta Avila, Steps Coalition
Lecia Brooks, Southern Poverty Law Center
Cheri Brown, National Coalition-Building Institute
Lila Cabibll, Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute
Rob Corcoran, Initiatives of Change
Laura Harris, Americans for Indian Opportunity
Dushaw Hockett, Safe Places for the Advancement of Community and Equity
Amy Hunter, YWCA
Yvette Modestin, Encuentro Diaspora Afro
Catherine Han Montoya, The Montoya Group
Dena Samuels and Abby Ferber, Matrix Center for the Advancement of Social Equity and Inclusion
Robin Toma and Elena Halpert-Schilt, Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission
Mike Wenger, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Al White, Action Communication and Education Reform, Inc.

Within Our Lifetime Campaign Vision and Campaign Goals

The Within Our Lifetime Network (WOL) 1

The Within Our Lifetime Network brings together organizations and individuals from across the country that have made the bold and audacious commitment to uproot the embedded racial hierarchy in our society and to work toward ending racism within our lifetime.

We are inspired by the vision to:

CREATE A SENSE OF MOVEMENT. Advance a proactive and cross-sector movement that eliminates or significantly transforms race and racism in our lifetime. And, in the process (and just as important), inspires people to believe – and act on the belief – that this can be achieved.

BUILD THE FIELD. Define and support the relatively new -- and still emerging -- field of healing and personal transformation as well as continue to build the capacity of organizations focused on racial equity.

CONNECT THE DOTS. Promote and support approaches that leverage strategies for healing with efforts to transform inequitable systems and structures.

SHARE AND DEEPEN KNOWLEDGE. Serve as a hub for knowledge, resources and tools related to healing and the nexus between healing and equity.

BRING THE HEAT AND THE POWER. Through our collective infrastructure -- and an approach that blends strategies for healing and equity (possibly through Healing and Equity Action Teams) -- provide rapid response support to communities, organizations and institutions grappling with incidents of racism. And through a parallel approach that is proactive, identify and engage “acupuncture points” within inequitable systems and structures to which, if collective power was applied, can potentially bring about deep and long lasting (if not permanent) change in ways not yet experienced.

You can join our movement by signing the vision statement at http://www.withinourlifetime.net/endorse/index.html.

What is Implicit Bias

Implicit bias refers to the way people unconsciously and sometimes unwillingly exhibit bias towards other individuals and groups. Many people are not aware of having implicit bias.

Implicit bias should not be confused with explicit forms of bias, or racism. Explicit bias, or overt racism, involves conscious and knowing discrimination towards other individuals and groups.

Implicit bias can reveal itself in different ways, such as by the words we use to express our feelings and behavior toward people of color.

These unconscious mechanisms are deeply embedded in various aspects of our lives, including health care, education, and our criminal justice system.

Understanding implicit bias can help free us from guilty feelings about the embedded nature of racism in our society. It can help us recognize that individually we may not be to blame, but that we are all responsible and accountable for confronting racist policies and behaviors.

Challenging Implicit Bias

As troubling as it is to admit, the way we perceive people and treat them is significantly correlated with the stereotypes we hold to be true, even in spite of our best intentions. The good news is that it is possible to challenge those automatic, unconscious, reductive stereotypes so we can begin to treat people as the complex individuals that they are.

3 ways to challenge our own bias:
  1. We must be willing to accept that we do, in fact, have biases, and to make ourselves aware of them.
  2. We must be determined not only to unearth our own stereotypes, but also to challenge them.
  3. We need to learn how to exchange those automatic biases for different, more inclusive, notions.

After we’ve taken the opportunity to learn about our own implicit biases, we can learn to challenge those prejudices before we act on them.

Priming
Research shows that when we challenge a stereotype in our mind before we interact with someone who is a member of that particular social group, we can overcome our biases. Providing counter stereotypic information before engaging with someone who has been targeted by that stereotype can reduce bias. In activities that seek to address implicit bias, consider asking participants to think about a mental image that might challenge a stereotype For example, women as strong members of our communities this can directly impact the general stereotype of women being weak.

Increased Exposure
More exposure to a marginalized group tends to lead to less bias, suggesting that more intergroup contact, specifically, intergroup friendships, can aid in overcoming bias. Consider different types of activities that are multi-ethnic and communal. For example, Sunday suppers or movie nights focused on documentaries or stories of specific groups.

Multicultural Presence/Role Models
Make exclusive spaces inclusive by being intentional and creating spaces where underrepresented groups have a critical mass. Stereotype threats based on race is alleviated by the presence of people of color in a specific environment. For example, when organization members see a person of color in a leadership position, prejudice decreases throughout the organization.

Challenging Stereotypes
Be conscious by challenging stereotypes openly. Studies have shown that removing a negative stereotype or openly challenging a stereotype can increase performance of stigmatized individuals. For example, Davies et al. (2002) created what they refer to as an “identity-safe environment” for one experiment group by including the phrase, “our research has revealed absolutely no gender differences . . . on this particular task” (p. 281) before disseminating a test. The simple addition of this sentence mediated the stereotype threat of the superior performance of males on test taking.

Source: Excerpts from Samuels, D. R. (2014). The culturally inclusive educator: Preparing for a multicultural world. NY: Teachers College Press.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an attitude?
An attitude is your evaluation of some concept (person, place, thing, or idea). An explicit attitude is the kind of attitude that you deliberately think about and report. For example, you could tell someone whether or not you like math. That is your explicit attitude. Implicit attitudes are positive and negative evaluations that occur outside of our conscious awareness and control. Even if you say that you like math (your explicit attitude), it is possible that you associate math with negativity without knowing it. In this case, we would say that your implicit attitude toward math is negative.

What are implicit and explicit stereotypes?
Stereotypes are the belief that most members of a group have some characteristic. Some examples of stereotypes are the belief that women are nurturing or the belief that police officers like donuts. An explicit stereotype is the kind that you deliberately think about and report. An implicit stereotype is one that occurs outside of conscious awareness and control. Even if you say that men and women are equally good at math, it is possible that you associate math with men without knowing it. In this case we would say that you have an implicit math-men stereotype.

How does the IAT measure implicit attitudes and stereotypes?
The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key. We would say that one has an implicit preference for straight people relative to gay people if they are faster to categorize words when Gay People and Bad share a response relative to when Gay People and Good share a response key. See link for more detail.

What does it mean that my IAT score is labeled 'slight', 'moderate', or 'strong'?
If you respond faster when flower pictures and pleasant words are paired on a single key than when insect pictures and pleasant words are paired on a single key, we would say that you have an implicit preference for flowers relative to insects. The labels slight, moderate and strong reflect the strength of the implicit preference – how much faster do you respond to flowers + pleasant versus insects + pleasant.

What does it mean that my feedback says that there were too many errors to determine a result?
The IAT requires a certain number of correct responses in order to get results. If you made too many errors while completing the test you will get the feedback that there were too many errors to determine a result. This is different from the result saying that you show little or no association between concepts.

What does it mean if I take the test more than once and get different results?
Although the IAT is a well-validated measure of implicit attitudes, no test is perfectly accurate and some variation is to be expected. We encourage you to take a test more than once. If you get similar feedback more than once, you can be more certain about the accuracy of your results. If you get somewhat dissimilar feedback two times you can simply average the results. It is unusual for someone to get very different feedback but, if you do, you can think of your test results as being inconclusive.

Could the result be a function of the order in which I did the two parts?
This is a very common question. The answer is yes, the order in which you take the test does have some influence on your overall results. However, the difference is very small. So if you first pair gay people + bad and then pair gay people + good, your results might be a just a tiny bit more negative than they would be if you had done the reverse pairing first. One way that we try to minimize this order effect is by giving more practice trials before the second pairing than we did before the first pairing. It is also important to know that each participant is randomly assigned to an order, so half of test-takers complete gay people + bad and then gay people + good, and the other half of test-takers get the opposite order.

Could the result be a function of handedness or hand-eye coordination?
There is no evidence that handedness influences IAT scores. When thinking about the influence of hand-eye coordination or cognitive ability, keep in mind how the test works. In a gay-straight IAT we measure how long it takes people to categorize items when gay + good share a response key versus when gay + bad share a response key. People who have better hand-eye coordination or higher cognitive ability might be generally faster to respond, but there is no reason to think that they would be faster in one category pairing versus the other. For this reason we do not think that hand-eye coordination will influence IAT scores.

Might my preference for one group over the other be due to differences in familiarity with the groups?
Research shows that IAT scores are not influenced by familiarity with the individual items to be categorized. Also, faces used in the IAT's here should all be equally unfamiliar to everyone. That said, this is a tough question. Classic research in psychology shows that people tend to like things that they are familiar with. So, there may be a role for familiarity in liking of the categories. But also people avoid things that they don’t like, so it is possible that implicit bias is what leads to unfamiliarity.

Might my preference for one group over another be a simple in-group preference?
A simple preference for the in-group might partially explain implicit bias for white respondents. However, it is also more than that. There are plenty of tests on which people prefer one group or the other even when they do not belong to either group. For example, Asian participants tend to show an implicit preference for White people relative to Black people. In this sense the IAT might also reflect what is learned from a culture that does not regard Black people as highly as White people. It is also interesting to note that about half of Black participants show an implicit preference for White people relative to Black people… this would certainly not reflect an in-group bias.

Do black participants show a preference for black over white on the race attitude IAT? Do gay participants show a preference for gay over straight? Do older participants show a preference for old over young?
Results from this website consistently show that members of stigmatized groups (Black people, gay people, older people) tend to have more positive implicit attitudes toward their groups than do people who are not in the group, but that there is still a moderate preference for the more socially valued group. So gay people tend to show an implicit preference for straight people relative to gay people, but it is not as strong as the implicit preference shown by straight people. We think that this is because stigmatized group members develop negative associations about their group from their cultural environments, but also have some positive associations because of their own group membership and that of close others.

If my IAT shows that I have an implicit preference for one group over another, does that mean I am prejudiced?
Social psychologists use the word prejudice to describe people who report and approve negative attitudes toward out groups. Most people who show an implicit preference for one group (e.g., White people) over another (e.g., Black people) are not prejudiced by this definition. The IAT shows biases that are not endorsed and that may even be contradictory to what one consciously believes. So, no, we would not say that such people are prejudiced. It is important to know, however, that implicit biases can predict behavior. When we relax our active efforts to be egalitarian, our implicit biases can lead to discriminatory behavior, so it is critical to be mindful of this possibility if we want to avoid prejudice and discrimination.

Where do implicit attitudes come from? Is it me or my culture?
Implicit preferences for majority groups (e.g., White people) are common because of strong negative associations with Black people in American society. Black people are often portrayed negatively in culture and mass media, and there is a long history of racial discrimination in the United States. However, even if our attitudes come from our culture, they are still in our own minds and can influence our behavior if we are not vigilant to not let them.

What can I do about an implicit preference that I don’t want?
Keep in mind that the IATs on the website might not be perfectly accurate. That said, it is very possible to have an implicit preference that you don’t want. One solution is to seek experiences that could reverse or undo the patterns that created the unwanted preference. For example, you could choose to avoid watching television shows that promote negative stereotypes of women or minorities. You could read materials that opposes the implicit preference. You could interact with people or learn about people who counter your implicit stereotypes. You can work to remain alert to the existence of the unwanted implicit preference to make sure that it doesn’t influence your overt behavior. You can also try consciously planned actions that will compensate for your implicit preferences. For example, if you have an implicit preference for young people you can try to be friendlier toward elderly people. Research shows that implicit preferences are quite malleable so it is possible to manage and change them if you want to.

Implicit Association Test

The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key.

When doing an IAT you are asked to quickly sort words into that are on the left and right hand side of the computer screen by pressing the “e” key if the word belongs to the category on the left and the “i” key if the word belongs to the category on the right. The IAT has five main parts.

In the first part of the IAT you sort words relating to the concepts (e.g., fat people, thin people) into categories. So if the category “Fat People” was on the left, and a picture of a heavy person appeared on the screen, you would press the “e” key.

In the second part of the IAT you sort words relating to the evaluation (e.g., good, bad). So if the category “good” was on the left, and a pleasant word appeared on the screen, you would press the “e” key.

In the third part of the IAT the categories are combined and you are asked to sort both concept and evaluation words. So the categories on the left hand side would be Fat People/Good and the categories on the right hand side would be Thin People/Bad. It is important to note that the order in which the blocks are presented varies across participants, so some people will do the Fat People/Good, Thin People/Bad part first and other people will do the Fat People/Bad, Thin People/Good part first.

In the fourth part of the IAT the placement of the concepts switches. If the category “Fat People” was previously on the left, now it would be on the right. Importantly, the number of trials in this part of the IAT is increased in order to minimize the effects of practice.

In the final part of the IAT the categories are combined in a way that is opposite what they were before. If the category on the left was previously Fat People/Good, it would now be Fat People/Bad.

The IAT score is based on how long it takes a person, on average, to sort the words in the third part of the IAT versus the fifth part of the IAT. We would say that one has an implicit preference for thin people relative to fat people if they are faster to categorize words when Thin People and Good share a response key and Fat People and Bad share a response key, relative to the reverse.

Taking the Implicit Association Test

Preliminary Information

Whichever IAT you do, we will ask you (optionally) to report your attitudes toward or beliefs about these topics, and provide some general information about yourself. These demonstrations should be more valuable if you have also tried to describe your self-understanding of the characteristic that the IAT is designed to measure. Also, we would like to compare possible differences among groups in their IAT performance and opinions, at least among those who decide to participate.

Data exchanged with this site are protected by SSL encryption, and no personally identifying information is collected. IP addresses are routinely recorded, but are completely confidential.

Important disclaimer: In reporting to you results of any IAT test that you take, we will mention possible interpretations that have a basis in research done (at the University of Washington, University of Virginia, Harvard University, and Yale University) with these tests. However, these Universities, as well as the individual researchers who have contributed to this site, make no claim for the validity of these suggested interpretations. If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further.

Click here TAKE THE IAT

Or visit: http://bit.ly/1nsczDd
The Campaign to Combat the Impact of Implicit Bias 2
The implicit bias campaign seeks to utilize the recent implicit bias research as a lens for fostering action to address persistent racial inequities in the various institutions of our society—education, housing, the work place, the health care system, the criminal justice system, the media, etc.

Phase I of the campaign will be a 4-5 week period beginning October 14, 2014 during which we will encourage as many people as possible to:

  1. Take an Implicit Association Test on race,
  2. Organize and talk with others about their experience in taking the test and their perceptions of implicit bias through half-day or full-day dialogue sessions,
  3. Participate in social media activities, including a Twitter Town Hall, to raise public awareness about the nature and impact of implicit bias, and
  4. Plan specific activities to combat implicit bias.
  5. The campaign will be national in scope, but initially it will be “anchored” in eight jurisdictions. The purpose of “anchoring” is to deepen participation in and the impact of the campaign; to help build the capacity of localvorganizations in these jurisdictions; to create a volunteer staffing structure for the campaign, and to help sustain the campaign over an extended period of time. The number of “anchor” jurisdictions will be expanded as the campaign evolves.

The eight initial “anchor” jurisdictions are:

  • Greater New England and Boston
  • Washington, DC
  • Birmingham and Montgomery, AL
  • New Orleans and Mississippi
  • Bloomington, IN
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Albuquerque, NM
  • Los Angeles County, CA

How To Participate in the Campaign

Sign WOL vision statement by going to http://www.withinourlifetime.net/endorse/index.html.
Share materials on implicit bias with colleagues, affiliates and at conferences (a list of resource materials can be found on our web site— www.withinourlifetime.net.
Agree to have your name and/or your organization’s name listed as a co-sponsor for our webinar series.
Convene a workshop/experiential exercise on implicit bias (contact us for possible facilitators—see contact information below).
Facilitator Guide
Encourage colleagues to take the IAT test during our October campaign launch and set up a space for them to take the test, and then create a structured opportunity for them to discuss the test, their reactions to it, and the nature and impact of implicit bias.
Encourage colleagues to participate in the Twitter Town Hall.
Have your organization sign a pledge to engage in an activity or activities designed to raise awareness of implicit bias and/or promote de-biasing.
Collect stories that illuminate how implicit bias has affected people’s lives on various issues related to race and send them to the campaign (see contact information below).
Place a tab about the implicit bias campaign on your web site and provide a link to our web site.
Conduct training for staff and Board members on implicit bias and strategies for overcoming it (contact us for possible trainers).

Resources to Combat Implicit Bias

Below are some resources to help you address implicit bias.

New Clips and Stories

Scientific American Frontiers: The Hidden Prejudice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RSVz6VEybk (7:57)

Ohio State University: The Impact of Implicit Bias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL9__gD88xk (:30-5:33)

Subconscious Racial Bias in Children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFbvBJULVnc (3:54)

Racial Stereotyping: You see a black guy, white guy, pretty girl committing a crime. What would you do? (12:12) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABRlWybBqM

Interviews, Presentations and Formal Remarks

Maya Wiley, President and Founder of the Center for Social Inclusion, House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee Testimony post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roy1qApLUNo

Maya Wiley, President and Founder of Center for Social Inclusion on MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU590o8SFU8 (2:18)

Activities, Dialogues and Curriculum

Life Cycles of Inequality: A Series on Black Men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezZn_N43Jdw (7:40)

Reports

“Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping andDiscrimination,” beginning on page 169 http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Todd_D._Nelson_Handbook_of_Prejudice_StereotypiBookos.org_.pdf

Tools

Sample Blog Post
Stacks Image 1159
Sample Opinion Editorial
Stacks Image 1169
  1. An Interim Leadership Working Group leads the WOL Network. Members of the Working Group are (in alphabetical order with affiliations for identification purposes only): Lloyd Y. Asato, Asian Pacific Community in Action; Roberta Avila, Steps Coalition; Lila Cabbill, Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development; Susan Glisson, The William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation; Dushaw Hockett, Safe Places for the Advancement of Community and Equity; Jeanné Isler, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy; Maggie Potapchuk, MP Associates; Robin Toma, LA County Commission on Human Relations; Mike Wenger, The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; Al White, Action Communication and Education Reform, Inc.
  2. The members of the Campaign Working Group (in alphabetical order with affiliations for identification purposes only) leading the campaign are: Carolyne Abdullah, Everyday Democracy; Beth Applegate, Applegate Consulting; Roberta Avila, Steps Coalition; Lecia Brooks, Southern Poverty Law Center; Cheri Brown, National Coalition-Building Institute; Lila Cabil, Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute; Rob Corcoran, Initiatives of Change; Laura Harris, Americans for Indian Opportunity; Dushaw Hockett, The Spaces Project; Amy Hunter, YWCA;; Cathy Montoya; Dena Samuels and Abby Ferber, Matrix Center for the Advancement of Social Equity and Inclusion; Robin Toma and Elena Halpert-Schilt, Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission; Mike Wenger, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; Al White, Action Communication and Education Reform, Inc.
Vision
Connect