Although it is tempting to jump right into classroom strategies, it is important to really begin the discussion somewhere else.

We must start with ourselves.

There is a simple reason for that - humans have biases. To be more specific, all humans have some biases, implicit and explicit. Some biases we are aware of, and others are more difficult to see. Because of our individual experiences and privileges, we all have a complex list of identities that compose our sense of self, and our lived experiences are impacted by those identities.

Becoming aware of our biases serves a specific purpose: allowing us to change our behavior to become more inclusive. We can’t fix a problem that we cannot see, so it is imperative that we see ourselves and our positions as clearly as possible. The information that follows includes an overview of a few key terms, as well as additional resources.

Implicit Bias

The concept of implicit bias is fairly straightforward. In the book Blindspot: The Hidden Biases of Good People by Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald, the authors define blindspots as:

bits of knowledge about social groups. These bits of knowledge are stored in our brains because we encounter them so frequently in our cultural environments. Once lodged in our minds, hidden biases can influence our behavior toward members of particular social groups, but we remain oblivious to their influence. (xii)

It’s important to keep in mind that implicit bias may not be conscious, but it does have an effect on thought, speech, and behavior. It works quickly and quietly to direct our responses and actions, even without voluntary effort. Banaji and Greenwald remind readers that the “good people” of the book’s subtitle often have the best intentions. Unfortunately, subtle cognitive processes can lead our minds to form judgments so quickly that fall below our conscious awareness. Unless we are aware of how perception and learned associations affect us, we can fall victim to patterns of unintentional discrimination.

The topics of the IAT (Implicit Association Test - more information below) identify many of the “bits of knowledge” that society communicates to us. Our observations of others, the nonverbal responses of people, attitudes of friends and family, film, TV, the news, and other media all work together to “teach” us lessons: that men, not women, work in STEM; that men of color are dangerous; that younger people are preferable to older. These stereotypes don’t have to be explicitly communicated to people with the intention of making them act in a biased manner. The subtle and pervasive messages are part of the air that we breathe.

An example of the impact of implicit bias comes from music. People in large orchestras noticed a gender gap in the musicians who were selected to join competitive orchestras. Even with intentions to be fair, the panels chose more male musicians, and the gap persisted. Then, some orchestras decided to start holding blind auditions - inviting applicants to play behind a curtain so that jurors would not see the individual auditioning. This was an intentional move to help the panel listen only to the music. The result, according to a 2000 study by Goldin and Rouse, was a drastic increase in the selection of women musicians in blind auditions.

No matter the intentions behind individuals, we all live in a culture that communicates attitudes and assumptions about groups and supports stereotypes.

Social Identity, Privilege, and Positionality

Identity is complex. We all collect familial, social and even professional identities that play a key role in how we move and interact with the world around us. People with different skin color, abilities, gender identification, religion, accent and/or language, and other identities are perceived and treated differently. Some of our identities are outward and easily noticeable by others, and some are not. For a discussion of this topic, I suggest Beverly Tatum’s 2000 essay, “The Complexity of Identity.” Whether our identities are marginalized or accepted, they weave together into our “core” sense of who we are.

We position ourselves based on identity, whether we are aware of it or not. I emphasize this in my classroom. I teach Literature, a field where personal identity affects how we make meaning, how we read and interpret texts. I tell students that “who we are = how we read.” To make the realization of social identity and position easier to see, I often show this short video clip to my students, especially in the Women Writers and Multicultural Literature courses. In the clip “On Gender,” Dr. Michael Kimmel discusses the invisibility of privilege; becoming a middle-class, white man; and the effect that his position has on the students around him.

Privilege is a simple concept, but it can be difficult to apply to ourselves. I know that the term makes some people uncomfortable, but I don’t know another way of expressing the same concept. And, language matters. At the same time, I am not suggesting that anyone take on guilt or shame because of privilege. No one alive today created any of the structural inequalities that exist today. I am not suggesting you give up their privilege (many of which you simply cannot), and I am not implying that you haven’t worked hard to get where you are today (privilege doesn’t guarantee success).

Generally speaking, privilege is defined as an advantage. A good discussion of the concept comes from Peggy McIntosh's definition: “an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.” An example is being right-handed. If you are right handed, you probably don’t have to think about the setup of desks or notebooks or have to buy specialty versions of tools like scissors. You probably don’t get ink on your hand or sleeve when you put pen to paper. The world is built with right-handed people in mind - we are privileged. This doesn’t mean that people are trying to oppress lefties - they just aren’t on the minds of people who make “default” assumptions about dominant hands. And, being right- or left-handed doesn’t mean that people automatically succeed or fail. Right-handers just have an advantage for moving through the world, and it is really easy for us to be blind to our privilege. As Kimmel reminds us, “Privilege is invisible to those who have it.”

This is true for many other identities as well. Being white - or being male, being straight, being able bodied, being Christian, being cisgendered, being middle class, being neurotypical, being educated, or having so many other identities - requires no explanation. They are expected. Having a different identity from the “norm” means that you have to explain yourself. If I am Christian, the world is set up for me to celebrate my personal religious holidays without having to explain or ask for anything special. If I am neurotypical in my cognitive processes, I don’t have to frequently ask for additional information or special accommodations. Even if there is no outright discrimination, people making incorrect assumptions about you is draining. Explaining yourself is draining. These drains add up over time, and people with multiple, intersecting identities outside the “norm” feel it even more. The world is set up for people who are privileged, without having to ask for anything.

Here’s a couple of things to keep in mind when thinking about privilege:

many privileges are unearned
not all privileges are significant advantages
almost everyone has some privileges
all privileges are designed to be invisible to those who have them
privilege doesn’t necessarily produce success

Privilege matters because it affects how we treat others - the stories that we create in our minds about others. Here’s a few ways that it can negatively affect us:

First, it can be easy to normalize our experiences. In another part of McIntosh’s essay, she describes this effect: privileged people “are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow ‘them’ to be more like ‘us.’” She uses Whiteness in her discussion, but any identity could be substituted in the quote. This assumption about the rightness of the default assumptions of identity - the expected “norm” - means that we tell ourselves that others aren’t just different from ourselves, they are less than. It can blind us to our judgement of others.

Additionally, privilege can get in the way of seeing the gaps in meritocracy, the belief that people succeed based on their merits on a level playing field. Let me repeat: hard work is essential for success. But, if we are honest, there are other requirements. A failure to thrive is not always or not only the result of lack of effort or poor individual choices. When we are crossing the finish line, it’s easy to celebrate our own success and without realizing that we had a significant head start.

Finally, privilege can cause us to dismiss the lived experiences of others because of our own experiences. If someone tells you “I didn’t feel welcome in that meeting,” or “people treated me rudely,” it’s a temptation to dismiss the remarks if you yourself felt comfortable or were treated well. When you ignore or explain away others’ concerns or experiences, you privilege yourself over others. Just because you haven’t felt the same way as others doesn’t mean that those feelings aren’t real. People move through the world differently, and your own privilege can affect your experiences.

This recognition seems to be taking hold in academia more and more. I have noticed a recent addition to several scholarly articles - a Positionality Statement (for an example, see pp. 155-156). Researchers who are aware of their unique social identities explicitly address questions including: Do I have similar experiences to the people I am studying? How am I representing their experiences? Do I bring assumptions and biases to my interactions with this group of people? How do my identities affect my research?

Once again, a discussion of personal identity is not designed to make people feel guilty or ashamed about who they are or the privileges that they have. These efforts are intended to make people more aware of how they appear to others, the power and position they bring to a conversation (or lack thereof), and the constant reflection on our identities that is necessary to avoid making inaccurate assumptions about others.

Combating Bias

To combat biases, consider becoming more aware of your own. A great place to start is the IAT (Implicit Association Test) developed by and administered by Harvard University. There are many tests available, including ones on Gender-Career, Disability, Skin Tone, and Weight. While these tests are not direct line to your unconscious, they do offer reflection opportunities.

Once you are more familiar with your own biases, you can change your actions to be more equitable in your interactions with people, especially those from the group about which you have preconceptions. In a 2012 article, Devine et. al. collected and highlighted the effectiveness of the following strategies:

Stereotype replacement: This strategy involves replacing stereotypical responses for non-stereotypical responses. Using this strategy to address personal stereotyping involves recognizing that a response is based on stereotypes, labeling the response as stereotypical, and reflecting on why the response occurred. Next one considers how the biased response could be avoided in the future and replaces it with an unbiased response (Monteith, 1993). A parallel process can be applied to societal (e.g., media) stereotyping.
Counter-stereotypic imaging: This strategy involves imagining in detail counter-stereotypic others (Blair et al., 2001). These others can be abstract (e.g., smart Black people), famous (e.g., Barack Obama), or non-famous (e.g., a personal friend). The strategy makes positive exemplars salient and accessible when challenging a stereotype’s validity.
Individuation: This strategy relies on preventing stereotypic inferences by obtaining specific information about group members (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Using this strategy helps people evaluate members of the target group based on personal, rather than group-based, attributes.
Perspective taking: This strategy involves taking the perspective in the first person of a member of a stereotyped group. Perspective taking increases psychological closeness to the stigmatized group, which ameliorates automatic group-based evaluations (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).
Increasing opportunities for contact: This strategy involves seeking opportunities to encounter and engage in positive interactions with out-group members. Increased contact can ameliorate implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering the cognitive representations of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Consider your sphere of influence. Where is bias most likely to impact that work that you do on campus? It is in the classroom? Screening committees? Placement? Advising? Hiring? Evaluating? Then, get more training in these areas. For example, CCS offers Search Advocate Training that supports screening committee members building equity skills.

Classroom strategies might look different than advising equity strategies, so get as specific as you can to learn more.

Additional Resources

For more information on the concept of implicit bias, I would recommend the following resources:

Dasgupta, N. and J. G. Stout. “Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29.
Devince, P. G., P. S. Forscher, A. J. Austin, and W. T. L. Cox Long-Term Reduction in Implicit Race Bias: A Prejudice Habit-Breaking Intervention Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (6): 1267-1278. 2012.
Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians." American Economic Review, 90 (4): 715-741. 2000.
Tatum, B. D. “The complexity of identity: ‘Who am I?.’” In Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Hackman, H. W., Zuniga, X., Peters, M. L. (Eds.), Readings for Diversity and Social Justice: An Anthology on Racism, Sexism, Anti-Semitism, Heterosexism, Classism and Ableism. New York: Routledge. 2000.
Galinksy, A. D. and G. B. Moskowitz. “Perspective-Taking: Decreasing Stereotype Expression, Stereotype Accessibility, and In-Group Favoritism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(4): 706-724. 2000.