Accidental Racism

Throughout the course of history, race has become a focal point in political and social discussions. In today’s world, especially in the United States, an almost absurd obsession with being “politically correct” in all race-related matters has developed. However, the desire to be politically correct and remain entirely unbiased has ironically resulted in being less partial towards non-ethnic groups.
According to Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, intention is typically the most accurate predictor of behavior. Behavioral beliefs (including an assessment of the outcome of a given situation), normative beliefs (social influences and how one expects his or her identifying group to react), and perceived control beliefs (success of similar maneuvers in the past) all influence one’s intentions. As I mentioned in my first and second blog entries, social influence on an individual’s beliefs is monumental and almost unrivaled—that is, the concerns of a given group at a given time are often transferred to the individual without him or her ever noticing.
With the recent election of the first African-American President of the United States, race has become a point of contention in American society. Society has rightfully demanded racial equality and an end to discrimination, and as such, these issues have become priorities for the individual as well. Although institutions of the past such as slavery are extremely unfortunate and regrettable, we as a society have made an effort to progress. The Civil Rights movement achieved legal equality for African-Americans, but racism is still prevalent in today’s society. The predicament, however, is that ridding society of racism against blacks should not mean instilling racism for whites.
Because society so greatly influences the individual’s behavior and because each member of the group tends to seek approval of the group, the desire to appear impartial often makes one biased. For instance, a recent study that entailed selecting hypothetical candidates for college acceptance revealed that attempting to appear “colorblind” influenced the participants’ selections significantly. Whites especially were less likely to acknowledge race as a factor in their selection of the candidates and were actually more likely to accept more diverse candidates with less “specific qualifications.” This suggests that, because society is so obsessed with remaining colorblind, preference is sometimes subconsciously given to the more ethnic candidates, especially if a Caucasian is making the decision. Because being racist is appropriately taboo, whites are often afraid of appearing racist and make decisions accordingly (Norton, Vandello, Biga, Darley).
Because society is so focused on adhering to remaining “colorblind,” the individual often evaluates potential employees, college applicants, etc. based on race without actually acknowledging it. As such, preference is often given to the more diverse candidate, negating the initial attempt to remain unbiased.

Sources:
Norton, Michael, et al. "Colorblind and diversity: conflicting goals in decisions influenced by race." Social Cognition 26.1 (2008): 102-111. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 3 Dec. 2008 .

http://www.12manage.com/methods_ajzen_theory_planned_behaviour.html