Individual and Structural Interventions

Abstract

not to be included in print version for metadata only): Given all that we have learned about bias and injustice, what can we do-and what should we do-to fight back? Chapter 12 introduces empirically-tested interventions for combating implicit (and explicit) bias and promoting a fairer world, from small daily-life debiasing tricks to larger structural interventions. Along the way, this chapter raises a range of moral, political, and strategic questions about these interventions, and stresses the importance of admitting that we don't yet have all the answers. We must encourage intellectual humility and dedicate ourselves to gathering as much knowledge as possible.Changing the world is hard. Changing it for the better is usually harder than changing it for the worse. But why is positive change so difficult? Some answers are familiar. First, it's hard to get people to care, especially about problems in different places (physically or socially distant neighborhoods or countries) that don't confront us every day. Second, people are, understandably, wrapped up in pursuing personal goals (careers, families, hobbies). Third, and closely related to the first two reasons, many people feel like their votes and voices don't matter because the system is rigged (by corporate donors, gerrymandered voting districts, etc.) to make their political efforts pointless. Fourth, making change to promote equality is especially hard, because the haves are typically motivated to hold onto their advantages, and even to see their advantages as fair. Even the have-nots are easily hoodwinked into thinking that their disadvantages are fair when they're not (Jost, 2015). We derive comfort from believing we live in a merit-based society where, as long as you work hard enough, put your head down, and don't rile up political trouble, then your personal and professional life will go well. Fifth, people may (especially for certain jobs: maybe I don't want to hire someone convicted of decades of accounting fraud to be my accountant). But the result is that ex-offenders have a very hard time finding gainful employment, which in turn makes them more likely to become desperate to make ends meet, and then to re-offend and end up back in prison.Some ex-offenders have it worse than others. In one field study in Milwaukee, the odds of getting a callback for an interview were 34% for white male applicants with no criminal record but only 17% for white men with a criminal record. Moreover, the odds were 14% for black male applicants without a record, but only 5% for black men with a record (Pager, 2003).The first finding to note is that white men with a record had slightly better odds than black men without. Two follow-up studies in New York City found much the same: white applicants who had literally just gotten out of prison were slightly more likely to get a callback or job offer than black and Latinx applicants with spotless records (Pager et al., 2009). These studies illustrate how devastating a criminal record can be for anyone's job prospects, but espec...

Change the People or Change the Policy? On the Moral Education of Antiracists

“…This essay builds on our prior work (e.g., Machery et al 2010;Brownstein 2016Brownstein , 2018aMadva 2016aMadva , 2020aDavidson and Kelly 2018;Brownstein et al 2022), and others' (e.g., Saul 2018), in several ways, two of which bear emphasizing at the outset. First, it delves into the details of moral education.…”

Extended Implicit Bias: When the Metaphysics and Ethics of Implicit Bias Collide

“…Turning finally to (P3), there are many ways of intentionally dismantling unjust social structures, ranging from “less to more transformational and impactful—and, accordingly, from less to more controversial (Madva, 2020 , p. 247). For instance, a company’s policy to review job applicants’ CVs anonymously would dismantle some unjust social structure if it was previously common practice in the company to process CVs with names visible, resulting in unfair decision-making.…”

“…), and social norms that maintain order in a group by guiding, limiting, and organizing behavior (House, 1981 ). Social structure can be unjust, restricting some individuals or groups unfairly, and promoting discriminatory perceptions, attitudes, and behavior (Madva, 2020 ).…”

“…In contrast, structuralists hold that social structures are its main cause and should be our main focus of attention (Anderson, 2010 ; Haslanger, 2015 ). Integrationists are ecumenical, maintaining that minds and social structures are intimately intertwined (or integrated with each other) and equally involved in causing social injustice, meaning that both should equally be targeted with interventions (Ayala-Lopez & Beeghly, 2020 ; Davidson & Kelly, 2020 ; Leboeuf, 2020 ; Madva, 2020 ; Soon, 2020 ).…”