On more than one occasion I’ve criticized sociologists for a) stating the obvious or b) stating as obvious something that isn’t. Thus, in the interest of fairness and balance, I am happy now to point to some interesting findings from a sociologist, Matthew O. Hunt of Northeastern University.
The study, which appears in the flagship journal of sociology, the American Sociological Review, tracks changes from 1977-2004 in Americans’ beliefs regarding why blacks are disadvantaged in areas such as jobs, income, and housing.
According to Hunt’s study, whites have shown a decline in support for the belief that socioeconomic inequality is due to an innate or genetic inferiority among blacks. Instead, whites are increasingly likely to blame hindered access to quality education and/or a lack of motivation among blacks as root causes for their disadvantages.
Hunt’s research also reveals a conservative shift in philosophy among African-Americans and Hispanics. Both of these groups – like whites – show increased belief that lack of motivation among blacks is to blame for socioeconomic inequality. At the same time – and unlike whites – African-Americans and Hispanics also exhibit a clear decline in the belief that racial discrimination drives inequality.
Hunt’s surprise, and his evaluation of his own findings, suggests, however, that he is not really out of the sociological mainstream. For example:
“The opinion-shifts for white respondents are mostly continuations of trends we’ve seen in past research,” states Hunt. “What surprised me was the nature and extent of the conservative shifts in views for African-Americans and Hispanics. Given what we know about links between these beliefs and support for public policies designed to counter discrimination, programs such as affirmative action may lose additional ground if Americans’ racial attitudes continue to trend in an individualistic direction.”
So, it is “conservative” to believe that discrimination does not explain current “socioeconomic inequality” and thus presumably “liberal” to believe that it does. “Affirmative action” is defined as a policy “designed to counter discrimination,” a no doubt momentary lapse in the mantra, devised for the courts, that these days “affirmative action” is all about “diversity.”
Now I have some good news for Prof. Hunt. He needn’t worry that the surprising outbreak of “individualistic” views (despite the best efforts of sociologists?) necessarily leads to a loss of “support for public policies designed to counter discrimination.” Those views are perfectly consistent with — indeed, strongly support and reinforce — the most effective public policies designed to counter discrimination, the laws against discrimination.
