Preferential Treatment, Color-Blindness, and the Evils of Racism and Racial Discrimination

2013 ◽  
pp. 475-489
Author(s):  
Richard Wasserstrom
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Color Blindness ◽  
Preferential Treatment

scholarly journals “The Show Is Not about Race’”: Custom, Screen Culture, and the Black and White Minstrel Show

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 857-884
Author(s):  
Christine Grandy
Keyword(s):  
Critical Race Theory ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Color Blindness ◽  
Black Press ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Feature Films ◽  
Screen Content ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Face ◽  
Simultaneous Existence

AbstractIn 1967, when the BBC was faced with a petition by the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination requesting an end to the televised variety program the Black and White Minstrel Show (1958–1978), producers at the BBC, the press, and audience members collectively argued that the historic presence of minstrelsy in Britain rendered the practice of blacking up harmless. This article uses critical race theory as a useful framework for unpacking defenses that hinged on both the color blindness of white British audiences and the simultaneous existence of wider customs of blacking up within British television and film. I examine a range of “screen culture” from the 1920s to the 1970s, including feature films, home movies, newsreels, and television, that provide evidence of the existence of blackface as a type of racialized custom in British entertainment throughout this period. Efforts by organizations such as the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination, black press publications like Flamingo, and audiences of color to name blacking up and minstrelsy as racist in the late 1960s were met by fierce resistance from majority white audiences and producers, who denied their authority to do so. Concepts of color blindness or “racial innocence” thus become a useful means of examining, first, the wide-ranging existence of blacking-up practices within British screen culture; second, a broad reluctance by producers and the majority of audiences to identify this as racist; and third, the exceptional role that race played in characterizations of white audiences that were otherwise seen as historically fragile and impressionable in the face of screen content.

See no evil: Color blindness and perceptions of subtle racial discrimination in the workplace.

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 499-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn R. Offermann ◽  
Tessa E. Basford ◽  
Raluca Graebner ◽  
Salman Jaffer ◽  
Sumona Basu De Graaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Color Blindness

Affirmative action

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Boxill
Keyword(s):  
African Americans ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Important Implication ◽  
Racial Minorities ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Forward Looking

The term ‘affirmative action’ originated in the USA under President Kennedy. Originally it was designed to ensure that employees and applicants for jobs with government contractors did not suffer discrimination. Within a year, however, ‘affirmative action’ was used to refer to policies aimed at compensating African-Americans for unjust racial discrimination, and at improving their opportunities to gain employment. An important implication of this shift was that affirmative action came to mean preferential treatment. Preferential treatment was later extended to include women as well as other disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups. The arguments in favour of preferential treatment can be usefully classified as backward-looking and forward-looking. Backward-looking arguments rely on the claim that preferential treatment of women and disadvantaged racial minorities compensates these groups or the members for the discrimination and injustices they have suffered. Forward-looking arguments rely on their claim that preferential treatment of women and disadvantaged racial minorities will help to bring about a better society. There has been much criticism of both types of argument. The most common accusation is that preferential treatment is reverse discrimination. Other criticisms are based around who exactly should be compensated, by what means and to what extent, and at whose cost. Finally, there is the fear of the unknown consequences of such action. Arguments have been forwarded to try and solve such difficulties, but the future of preferential treatment seems to lie in a combination of the two arguments.

Quota Women Are Threatening to Men

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klea Faniko ◽  
Till Burckhardt ◽  
Oriane Sarrasin ◽  
Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi ◽  
Siri Øyslebø Sørensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Organizational Performance ◽  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Perceived Threat ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Public Sector Employees ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
Women In Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Two studies carried out among Albanian public-sector employees examined the impact of different types of affirmative action policies (AAPs) on (counter)stereotypical perceptions of women in decision-making positions. Study 1 (N = 178) revealed that participants – especially women – perceived women in decision-making positions as more masculine (i.e., agentic) than feminine (i.e., communal). Study 2 (N = 239) showed that different types of AA had different effects on the attribution of gender stereotypes to AAP beneficiaries: Women benefiting from a quota policy were perceived as being more communal than agentic, while those benefiting from weak preferential treatment were perceived as being more agentic than communal. Furthermore, we examined how the belief that AAPs threaten men’s access to decision-making positions influenced the attribution of these traits to AAP beneficiaries. The results showed that men who reported high levels of perceived threat, as compared to men who reported low levels of perceived threat, attributed more communal than agentic traits to the beneficiaries of quotas. These findings suggest that AAPs may have created a backlash against its beneficiaries by emphasizing gender-stereotypical or counterstereotypical traits. Thus, the framing of AAPs, for instance, as a matter of enhancing organizational performance, in the process of policy making and implementation, may be a crucial tool to countering potential backlash.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document